Traditional Zen Buddhism does imply there is a state that one is meant to be in, Enlightenment. This can not be scientifically proven and so it becomes a form of faith in a non scientific reason for being, supernatural.

Other forms of Buddhism of course believe in unscientific forces or reasons for being such as Karma, rebirth, and once again Enlightenment.

If the basic initial rejection of the atheist is that the concept of God or Deity must be rejected because there is no empirical proof then these Buddhist concepts must also be rejected or invalidate the initial premise of atheism.

Indeed I would argue that belief in Enlightened is in it self a form of God belief. Buddhist Enlightenment is an improvable ultimate reason for being. Many deists hold the same definition for the term God.

One can not be a Buddhist without rejecting the main premise of atheism or rendering atheism every bit as subjective, non scientific, a-rational as any religion that believes in God.

Yet, I see repeatedly in this thread remarks to the effect of “well, yes, 99.9% of Buddhists have mystic beliefs, but that doesn’t speak to the philosophy of Buddhism.”

That may be as factually true as the claim that most atheist arguments do not address the beliefs of random theologians, but the atheists are addressing Christianity-as-practiced-by-the-masses. I see nothing wrong with attacking Buddhism-as-practiced-by-the-masses.

It’s funny how a question of “is Codswallop’s theologian-buddhism incompatible with atheism?” became “is buddhism incompatible with atheism?” Seems to me the answer is clear: no to the former, yes to the latter.

Similar to Autumnal Harvest, I am suggesting you are conflating two entirely different questions: (1) Can a Buddhist be agnostic or atheist? and (2) Is Buddhism agnostic or atheistic? I agree with the former, but, like Autumnal Harvest, see the latter as untenable.

I never bought into reincarnation either, when I practiced Zen, but I was aware that was pretty unusual for a Buddhist. I was checking whether you or Codswallup had the same awareness. As for karma, most Buddhists I have ever known have regarded karma as pretty intrinsic to the Buddhist path. I am not questioning the authenticity of this Buddhism you speak of here, but I am questioning its normativeness. Particularly since karmic teachings are found in multiple manifestations of Buddhism across many cultures. More modest claims that acknowledged this naturalistic Buddhism as an unusual stream of Buddhism would not have drawn comment from me.

And, by suggesting that Buddhism, at its core, is agnostic, I didn’t mean to say that historically it has been agnostic; though I see how I wasn’t very clear on that. Obviously, Buddhism evolved in a very religion-centric world, so its early adherents certainly had a supernatural worldview. What I meant to say was that its central tenants–the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, etc.–say nothing about the supernatural, but are instead more a philosophical outlook and a self-help 8 step program, if you will.

I don’t want to sound like I’m arguing the No True Scotsman fallacy here… certainly Buddhism has, historically, included a great deal of supernaturalism. All I mean to say is that, if you take away the supernatural bits Buddhism has traditionally been associated with, you’re still left with Buddhism. Try that with any other religion, and you’re left with… nothing, really.*

*Wait, I just remembered Secular Judaism. Though, they still celebrate supernatural themed holidays, they just don’t believe them

You and Codswallop keep conflating two entirely different questions: (1) Can a Buddhist be agnostic or atheist? and (2) Is Buddhism agnostic or or atheistic? Those are entirely different questions. You argue that a Buddhist can be an atheist, saying things like “This is every bit deserving of the name ‘Buddhism’ as the supernatural versions back East,” but I’m not sure who you’re arguing with, since I haven’t seen anyone in this thread who says that a Buddhist can’t be an atheist.

But then you and Codswallop try to turn that into a claim that Buddhism is agnostic or atheist. That’s not tenable. Buddhism is an umberella term for a wide variety of movements, all of which (including Western Zen Buddhism) are products of their local culture, and the vast majority of which contain gods and or supernatural phenomena as an integral part of their beliefs and practices. When you claim that “Buddhism at its core is, by its very nature, agnostic,” or Codswallop claims that karma is some extraneous “bullshit” irrelevant to Buddhism, you’re not just claiming that a particularly naturalistic Western version of Zen Buddhism is “every bit of deserving of the name ‘Buddhism’” as the other kinds. You’re making a much stronger claim: that the Nichiren Buddhist who says that devotion to the Lotus Sutra is at the core of his beliefs, or the Tibetan (Gelug) Buddhist who says that her beliefs about the Dalai Lama’s past lives are central to her beliefs, are in fact totally wrong about what Buddhism is, and that their Buddhism is less deserving of the name ‘Buddhism’ than the version you’re promoting. This seems no different than Christians who tell me that their particular sect of Christianity is “really” Christianity, and that when I talk about “Christianity” I can only talk about their one tiny sect, and not of the beliefs and practices of the vast majority of Christians.

I’d be honestly curious to know how you think a non-Buddhist can see that your form of Buddhism is “true” Buddhism. So far the only explanation you and Codswallop have given is that the supernatural stuff is the product of local cultures, which doesn’t strike me as very convincing, given that all of Buddhism is the product of local cultures.

What I think Cadswallop was trying to explain, and I am too, is that, yes, the largest majority of Buddhists in the world are certainly theists (well, at least not naturalists), but that doesn’t speak to Buddhism itself. Buddhist philosophy is merged with whatever culture it finds itself in; so in lands with Hinduism or Shinto or whatever else, it does become supernatural. But Buddhism at its core is, by its very nature, agnostic; and in the West, it’s become much more naturalistic. This is every bit deserving of the name “Buddhism” as the supernatural versions back East.

But don’t take my word for it… *cue Reading Rainbow music*

“…Buddhism is distinct from most other religions in that it doesn’t inherently impose a system of control and ossified structure” Nice opinion, but on what basis do you make it?

“…In fact, Buddhist monastic codes explicitly prohibit monks from talking about their personal views/experiences of reincarnation” Well, tell that to the Dali Lama.

Miko, just give me a simple yes or no.

Do you believe in rebirth?
Do you believe in karma?
Do you think they’re scientific?

The way I understand it, Buddhism, at it’s core, is about a few simple things:

Enlightenment–which means understanding that all things are impermanent and recognizing the interconnectedness of all things

and Practice–which includes meditation, both sitting mediation and just a general practice of deep introspection to one’s own perspective, motives, actions, etc.

Now, if Siddartha even existed, he taught those things some 400 or 600 years before anyone ever started writing down his lessons, so I think the likelihood of any of his actual teachings surviving are pretty slim. But as Buddhism was exported to different regions, it combined with the local religions and evolved, so that Buddhism in two neighboring countries looks very, very different.

I say all that to build to this point: if you would call Mahayana and Theravada and Pure Land and all these different sects “Buddhism,” despite how different they are from one another, why, when Buddhism was exported to the West and combined with psychology and Western philosophy and became something very pragmatic and naturalistic, would you not call it Buddhism?