Ian, you say that Buddhism is based on fact and not on faith. Yet you clearly believe in reincarnation and karma. Please tell me one or more things about these beliefs that can legitimately be called facts.

Also, you make no mention of the primary Buddhist belief of the four noble truths - that all of life is suffering , that suffering is caused by desire, that we therefore have to eliminate all desire, and we do that by following the 8 fold path.

How can you just ignore that?

Perhaps it would be easier to call Buddhism “non-theistic” rather than “atheistic” – in as much as the latter term tends to bog people down in rather unprofitable debate. Many years ago, one of my teachers told me that it is possible to conceive of deity as an ocean, covered by a layer of ice, which is the world. While many religious traditions spend a great deal of time trying to cut holes through the ice, to reveal god (well, a bit of god, as viewed through that particular hole) to their followers, Buddhists simply want to walk across the ice, without falling over. Rather like the Buddha’s response to Malunkyaputta: if you’re shot with an arrow, it’s probably best to take it out, rather than speculating about who fired it, or how it was made - and dying before having all of your questions answered. It is, however, true that Buddhist traditions have their own articles of faith, most notably rebirth. However, this is not considered in the four truths, nor is it directly related to the eightfold path – so, should you subscribe to it as belief? Beats me.

just about anyone can explain the theory of eternal incarnation..ie the central buddist philosophy on dying...that neatly sidesteps than unthinkable stage in between this and that

i also revolt against this obsession to mindlessnes...no mind...how dreadfull...little wonder many oppressive regemes..,love the meek buddists..unthinking/mindless...it sort of gets covered in its own nothingness

quote<<..Look deeply into impermanence,..and you will find it has another message,..another face,..one of great hope,..one that opens your eyes to the fundamental nature of the universe,..and our extraordinary relationship to it.>>>then in the next breath FAILING to reveal the greatness/cause...even that first cause...that first life

<<..If everything is impermanent,..then everything is what we call..“empty”...That means lacking in any lasting,..stable,.and inherent existence>>except that infernal perpetual reincarnation...eh?

it claims..<<..all things..lol[when seen..and understood]..in their true relation,..are not independent.. but instead inter-dependent with all other things>>>..which is a fine beginning...BUT NOT THE BEGINNING...

not an explanation...

those needing more..will find many teqniques...that shut up your thinking...mindlessness/acceptance..seeing evil/..as some karmic ballancing..mindless extends into mindlessness..

not full mindedness..[that are thus become/budda's...but you reach mindfullness..via mind emptyness...is not the true path...yeah sure there is much goodness...but lacking the god head...they whoreship creation/not creator/cause..the means by which the karma gets fullsome redress

that all loving the living budda strives for...despite the challange of mindless/suffereing//the oneness...that reaches allness...if your not trying to do good have you good done?

the deeper questions simply escape the novvices...sitting there with cramping legs..repeating the mantra to unthinking mindlessness...to the point where they unwill the will to live...only to go on living...and in time reincarnate...

far fewer human re-incarnations occuor..than..that buddist..'-isms..would have us..not..think about..minfully mindless.the great nothing..that yet is everything.oh ...oooh...ohhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

im most mindless..[that means a stone is budda...ommmmmmm.ooommmmmmommmm...lol...can hear you...ohmmmm.0hmmm.ommm.ommm.ommmommm.o.mmm

JP, I am not sure that the word "desire" is the most appropriate. In the Zen tradition it is more usual to speak of "attachments" which is subtly different You are of course quite right to challenge Ian on his rather loose use of the word "fact".

Think of a fish... no, not that fish, some other fish. Are you thinking of a fish? That fish is like a Buddhist, all wet. Death may be meaningless, but I bet Ian Nance would decline firmly if you offered to move his clock to midnight for him.

Still, it's good to be reminded sometimes that Eastern religions are just as incoherent and silly as our home-grown equivalents -- in fact more so, since they haven't had to defend themselves against five hundred years of scientific progress.

As Woody Allen once said: "Don't think of death as the end. Think of it as a really good way of cutting down on expenses."

The author wrote;

'Many people classify Buddhism as a religion, but that is not really true. It is a practice based not on faith, but on fact.'

And I should like to point that Western Civilisation also has a wonderful tradition along the same 'fact' based philosophy as Buddhism. It began with Socrates, then progressed to David Hume and Charles Darwin. I now look forward to the 'Rise of Atheism' conference in Melbourne next year with Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer et al.

What a shame that Western societies, and the globe generally, are still mired in the tired myopia of monotheistic xenophobia.