You are here

Are Atheists Buddhas?

If you want your voice to be heard, and you can't afford a lobbyist or a massive campaign contribution, you should contact your representatives:

You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.
-Jonathan Swift

If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be - a Christian.
-Mark Twain

Religion is regarded by the foolish as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.
-Robert Anton Wilson

He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer.
-William Blake

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
-George Santayana

...Faith: that is to say, to shut one's eyes once and for all, in order not to suffer at the sight of incurable falsity.
- Nietzsche, the Antichrist

They say, 'We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.' You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has he ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.
-William of Conches

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.

[Christianity has made the world] a prey to the wicked, who have found men readier, for the sake of going to paradise, to submit to blows rather than to resent them.

And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways. There's nothing so mysterious about it. He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about - a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements?
-Yossarian, in Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Life is both entirely and only what you make of it.
-attributed to many, modified by dimmer

Those who believe in god grew up but still need an imaginary friend

SouthPark - Isaac Hayes being sensitive about religion - Chef's Theodicy (1.1MB mp3)

South Park 712 - All About Mormons (79.3MB avi) (true story)

Jesus, Family Guy style(5.8MB)

not all downloadable from here, thanks to the RIAA:
  • Bad Religion - Let Them Eat War
  • Bad Religion - Epiphany
  • Bad Religion - Kyoto Now
  • Bad Religion - Faith Alone
  • Bad Religion - Come Join Us
  • Bad Religion - 21st Century Digital Boy
  • Bad Religion - All Good Soldiers
  • Filter - Dose
  • Modest Mouse - Bukowski
  • XTC - Dear God
  • Sarah McLachlan - Dear God (XTC Cover)

These tubes are best viewed with a standards-compliant browser, such as: Safari, Chrome, Firefox,or Opera.


Buddhism is a very old and expansive religion - there are many teachings and behavior prescriptions. It's also one of the few religions that doesn't give me the heeby geebies because the main tenents tend to be along the lines of being nice to everyone and leaving a small environmental footprint (in my limited exposure). The ultimate goal of every Buddhist is to become a Buddha.

In high school and college I was what a Sociologist would call a "seeker". I was looking for spiritual fulfillment and answers to questions like "What is the meaning of life", "What is my purpose in life", "How should I behave". I studied lots of different religions and religious teachings from the East and West, modern and tribal (although biased towards the modern Western religions due to my location in time and space): Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Bahái, Scientology, The People's Temple (Jonestown), The Manson Family, Heaven's Gate, Cargo Cults, early Mesopotamian religions, and more that I don't remember as well (wikipedia has a great list of religions).

My conclusions, looking back, are really simple. Perhaps if I had had some "spiritual" guidance when I was younger I would not have had to work so hard to come to such basic responses to religion. In short, here are a few summary conclusions on religions:

  • When it comes to extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required for proof.
  • All "holy books" were created by fallible men. I can't say for certain on other planets, but there was no godly inspiration on Earth. All of them contain glaring holes, inaccuracies and contradictions, if not downright ungodly behavior.
  • All religions (like all human institutions) bear remarkable similarities to the milieu they were founded in. No religion changes the adherents substantially in a way you might expect the input from an omniscient being to. Related: see my recipe for religion.
  • Testimony, a favorite tool of modern Christians, is bullshit. You can get people to say or believe anything.
  • All logical proofs for the existence of God are wrong. All "new" theological positions are just Thomas Aquinas or some other very old argument rewrapped.

My spiritual quest was similar to that of a Buddhist. I read the scriptures and followed the paths to truth. I denounced untruth when I discovered it. Slowly I defined truths for myself, and came to understood how people came to believe untruths. I cast aside forever the ancient superstitions of my milieu. A learning Buddhist on the same journey might learn that all of who we are is defined by our physical brains. Modern science and neuroscience reinforce the idea that there is no soul. For example, after a brain injury somebody might change any number of mental/emotional attributes (for better or worse). I have been under anesthesia, and while under, I experienced absolutely nothing - as if I were dead.

Experience and the search for truth leads one to believe that there is no life after death - and if there is - it's probably not like the stories we've been told. Thus casting aside reincarnation, the Buddhist realizes that when he dies he will reach Nirvana because we all reach Nirvana. The human mind is still a relatively fragile organ, despite all its power. Not every human can cope with the thought of nothing after death. Only the mentally prepared and enlightened Buddhists realize they will reach Nirvana. The enlightened Buddhist does not want to take away the support from those who need it, perhaps he does not teach this part. The enlightened Buddhist teaches in order such that they the student can reach this conclusion on his own. Formerly a student, the Buddha sees that the answer was always there; he just had to look at it from a different perspective. These Buddhists become Buddhas, just like Atheists.

postscriptum: I don't mean all Atheists here. I just means the Atheists who are Atheists after a rational struggle for Truth. Also, I'm not suggesting that Atheists are enlighted Buddhists per se, just that the parallel between Buddhas and Atheists seems like more than a coincidence to me.


You did not improperly draw a parallel between your own and Joe Buddhist's path to truth, from my Buddhist perspective. You have not mischaracterized Buddhism. Buddhist practice indeed emphasizes self-discovery of basic truths - for example, actions have reactions.

However, because Buddhist practice involves self-discovering already uncovered truths, the burden of "not taking things for granted" is placed on the Buddhist. Your path to truth did not have this burden, and in this regard, it was not unlike the Buddha's. Conversely, you had to endure the burden of discovering truths yourself. Scientifically, this is a good thing; however, the pros and cons of either truth-finding methodology remains for another article.

A Buddhist might believe your path to truth will converge with his own.

I'm interested in the relationship between modern science and "the soul." You state that a brain injury might affect an individual's emotions and morals, and therefore there is no soul. Do you then, equate the soul with emotional, moral or otherwise personal characteristics? This discussion seems key to your argument that "atheists are Buddhas," as Buddhists do believe in innate consciousness. I don't mean conscious thought or behavior, but innate consciousness as what you might call a "soul." How would you define a soul? I find doing this rather difficult.

The liberation (or lack thereof) of a "soul" might be called "nirvana." Be careful to differentiate between nirvana and an atheist's disbelief in a soul. Nirvana is the liberation of a soul, not the lack of one, even though the end state might be the same.

Your argument that Buddhists will reach Nirvana, in the absence of reincarnation, is a good one, and an admission I must make. Casting aside reincarnation is a big deal, but it supports your point quite well.

No soul -> nothingness after death || Liberation of the soul -> Nirvana after death

-> leads to
|| parallels

An excellent parallel.

I hope you don't find my comment insulting or aggressive - it isn't meant to be. Just wanted to share my perspective on it. Maybe the misuse of 'C' was most aggravating. =)

Thanks a lot for responding Franklin. I've addressed some of your concerns by rewriting the ending and adding a PS.

My argument about the soul and brain is this: Everything traditionally attributed to a person's 'soul': personality, values, intelligence, ethics, etc are completely dependent on the physical brain. If the brain does not exist: there is no personality, values, intelligence, ethics, or emotions. My argument may turn out one day to be incorrect. But right now, all the scientific evidence points towards it.

I think defining a soul that is separate from a brain is a difficult (perhaps impossible) task because a soul separate from the brain does not exist. I am entirely ignorant about how Buddhas think, but I'm not certain that a Buddha would disagree with that.  I wonder what points Buddhas would disagree on? In other words, as 2 different people, you would expect 2 Buddhas to disagree on something.

I'm really glad that you drew the correct conclusion from my essay - regarding the parallel. It was not particularly a clear thesis, I had half-intentionally left the conclusion an exercise for the reader. :-)

My real question in writing this is - is this just a parallel, or could it be more? Could the path to Nirvana have been designed?

Regarding the matter of the soul, here is what one layperson asked of the Lord Buddha.

"What pray tell does Anatta (no-soul/self) mean?"

"Just this Radha, form is not the soul, sensations are not the soul, perceptions are not the soul, assemblages are not the soul, consciousness is not the soul. Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done."

The Buddha states that once one recognizes that there is no everlasting and permanent entity, reincarnation ends and Nirvana is achieved. My favorite Buddhist monk, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, states that Nirvana is ego dying before the body dies. He expresses the same by saying Nirvana is death of the mind before the physical death; something which you may have experienced under anesthesia, Mr. Dimmer. I can understand, because in a state like such, it is quite easy to let go of almost all attachments, especially that of self.

Could the path to Nirvana have been designed? I have no clue, but I really think that the question is beyond the point. I do believe that the personal discovery of truth should not have labels attached to it, for truth itself belongs to no religion. If you look at it this way, then their are no parallels, just one path for the same goal: enlightenment.

For a world that is governed by defining laws such as physics and karma, there has to be a precise method to transcend such things. Correct understanding has led many enlightened individuals to teach nearly the same concepts, and if there is another way, it probably hasn't been divulged to humans yet.

My favorite Buddhist monk, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, states that Nirvana is ego dying before the body dies.

I really like that quote. This sounds an awful lot like the idea of Nirvana is identical to our ultimate fate as many Atheists perceive it.

Cultural, spacial, and linguistic differences has made transcending differences difficult although modern technology is helping tremendously. More importantly, I'd argue that the most important step needs to be done by each individual before they can transcend such differences: the desire to know Truth regardless of what Truth is. And once somebody has achieved this - following the path to Truth is easy.

Perhaps the way to achieve your goals is to, as an entire species, highly value Truth.

You can communicate with dimmeria over a secure connection by typing in https:// instead of http:// . If your browser asks you, make sure you click on "accept the certificate". It's a good idea to connect securely before you type in your username and password. Otherwise anybody in between you and this website can see your password. You should always look for the "padlock" icon before typing in your password on any website.


Subscribe to Syndicate