This is why Buddhism technically isn't a religion.

That depends very much on which definition of religion you are using.

Well yeah obviously. There are probably as many definitions for religion as there are religions. By most definitions it isn't though, because it doesn't have a specific creed or set of rules and beliefs to follow, nor does it have a god or a set of gods that you worship, nor does it have any specific things to worship to/for, nor is it about blind faith in something you can't see. Buddhism is more of a common attitude than a religion.

It still relies on belief in supernatural structure of the universe with demons and reincarnation and what not. And it does teach a set of rules to follow to reach Nirvana.

[quote]It still relies on belief in supernatural structure of the universe with demons and reincarnation and what not. [/quote]it doesn't teach these things though. You do not believe separate objects don't really exist because you are a Buddhist, you are a Buddhist because you believe separate objects don't really exist. There is a subtle difference. Buddhism is about creating the mindset from which 'the truth' will arise, whatever that truth is. it has nothing to do with teaching the specific beliefs that follow. [quote]And it does teach a set of rules to follow to reach Nirvana.[/quote]No it doesn't. Any Buddhist worth his salt will tell you that in order to reach enlightenment the first thing you do is stop trying to reach it. The eightfold path exists because it is what the Buddha thought would create the best conditions for enlightenment to arise. People follow it as if it were gospel because people will always find something to follow as if it were gospel. You're going to claim 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on me now, but lots of people mistakenly believe Buddhism is all about reading the scriptures or teaching the Buddha or the wheel of life or reincarnation, when these are all frills and pomp and extra canon to the main event, which is about creating a person who can see the world without the filters his mind puts in front of him. That's it.

[quote]You do not believe separate objects don't really exist because you are a Buddhist, you are a Buddhist because you believe separate objects don't really exist.[/quote]You could say that about any religion's beliefs. Generally, the label is result from the beliefs, but if you have the label, and it's true, then you have the beliefs. [quote]There is a subtle difference.[/quote]There is no real difference. That claim changes nothing. [quote]Buddhism is about creating the mindset from which 'the truth' will arise, whatever that truth is. it has nothing to do with teaching the specific beliefs that follow.[/quote]It has a lot to do with beliefs. You have to have the belief in the core principles of Buddhism to practice it honestly. What exactly do you think Buddhism is? http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/buddhism-beliefs.php/ [quote]No it doesn't. Any Buddhist worth his salt will tell you that in order to reach enlightenment the first thing you do is stop trying to reach it.[/quote] That's rule on how to get to Nirvana. You've simply moved the problem. [quote]The eightfold path exists because it is what the Buddha thought would create the best conditions for enlightenment to arise. People follow it as if it were gospel because people will always find something to follow as if it were gospel.[/quote]Someone following the same principles, but arrived at radically different beliefs would not be considered a Buddhist. http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/what-is-buddhism.htm/ [quote]You're going to claim 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on me now, but lots of people mistakenly believe Buddhism is all about reading the scriptures or teaching the Buddha or the wheel of life or reincarnation, when these are all frills and pomp and extra canon to the main event, which is about creating a person who can see the world without the filters his mind puts in front of him. That's it.[/quote] See above. Buddhism inherently comes with beliefs, some more subtle than others. Even your form of Buddhism as some sort of alternate philosophical equivalent to the scientific method, which I would disagree with in the first place. Even in that form, you would still have a belief in inherent delusions that can be dispelled by meditation and such. That is already some metaphysical belief. And like I said. If I used those practices and found that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the ultimate truth of reality, I would not be called a Buddhist.

[quote]Someone following the same principles, but arrived at radically different beliefs would not be considered a Buddhist.[/quote]Tell that to the radical Buddhists setting themselves on fire and massacring Muslims in Tibet.

I don't think you got the point.

No I don't think you get the point. Any person of any creed can be a Buddhist. Those who are Buddhists may share certain beliefs but they may not. To a mind obsessed with definitions then you will only see the Buddhists as those living in monasteries and wearing robes or generally blabbing about reincarnation and how everything is connected and about all these fables and stories that make no sense - the people who are not labeled by other things - but those people may be just going through the motions and rituals like so many other religious people do. Them being [i]called[/i] a Buddhist has nothing to do with it. I will concede that Buddhism has a 'brand' in the way it is seen and sold, just like Christianity or Islam or any major belief system, and if you want to use that as how you define them then so be it. I am making a distinction which in my opinion is beyond this branding and if you don't accept that then so be it as well. However, I must insist that 'stopping from trying to reach nirvana' is not a rule to reach nirvana, because by explicitly following it you are trying to reach nirvana and therefore won't. A rule implies you can follow it to reach an intended outcome. This is not something you follow, nor is it something you don't follow. How many people in the world haven't even heard it, who have therefore implicitly followed it, and not reached nirvana? Reaching nirvana is something that happens pretty much by accident. You don't work towards it as a Christian works towards being favoured by God; it's more akin to accidentally tripping over in the street. There may be things you can do to make it more likely, like not tying your shoelaces and letting them flap about your feet, but you may not trip over that way at all, or you may trip over without untying them. It can happen to anyone, regardless of their intentions or inclinations. You can't specifically engineer an accident, else it isn't an accident. It is therefore more of an observation than a rule.

0/10 bait Stop being a try hard.

Not a b8, but I bet you're one of those overzealous religious persons who blindley follows its teaching without doubt or thought and believes in these fairytales.

I have no religious affiliation. You're just someone who festers in their bubble of ignorance, listening to only the things you want to hear while ignoring things for what they are. Try actually exploring the world around you instead of developing your opinion through the internet on people you've never actually met. You are no better than your assumption of those with religious beliefs.

I wonder how many braincells it took you to write that I'm ignorant while not knowing jackshit yourself. You don't know anything about me, yet you're the one who's judging and making false assumption to try and disregard my opinion. If you had sat down and actually read the qu'ran or the bible, also even followed the news you would know what atrocities religion justifies. You're not any better than those brainwashed people. Ever heard of criticism and doubt, or even freedom of choices? Not a single religion has anyways. If you bring up those, you will only be met with barbaric responses.

So it's false for me to say you haven't explored other religions? So you've actually had personal interactions with Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and can honestly tell me that every single one of them are atrocity committing barbarians who cannot make a single decision on their own?