[runn1ng]

As a person who is still kind of atheistic, I can understand that sentiment.

Basically, scientific thinking forces constant verification of everything and encourages questioning, while religious thinking (even with buddhism) has far more dogmas and forces acceptance and, to a certain degree, discourages questioning.

What drove me to zen-buddhism is the fact that the religious part is kept rather small and it is far more focused on daily practice.

[jjb123]

Out of curiosity, why did you choose the words "still kind of atheist"?

[runn1ng]

Because I cannot really believe in a higher power. I don't believe in ghosts and try not to ve superstitious. I think most of the religious texts (even in buddhism) is bullshit. I constantly try to question everything.

And yet I ended up in a zen group, basically a religious organization. (A little like Ivan Karamazov.)

[johnchristopher]

> I think most of the religious texts (even in buddhism) is bullshit. I constantly try to question everything.

Doubt is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.

Most of the religious texts aren't bullshit. Especially the bible, which is anchored in a very old tradition and way of thinking.

Theology is really an interesting body of knowledge. Out-of-context quotes of the bible, it is almost always cited like that, aren't relevant and detrimental.

Running from judeo-christian tenets to a softened-up "occidentalised" Buddhism isn't more enlightening.

Context: I am an atheist, my mother is a protestant pastor, her husband is a die-hard science chemist and that make for some interesting and heated winter evening discussions :)

[runn1ng]

No doubt buddhism in the west is "softened up", but you know what, maybe it works better that way.

Christianity never made sense to me, with its insistence on guilt. You are supposed to feel guilty for what Adam did, guilty for what people did to Jesus, guilty for your inner thoughts, guilty for your supposed sins that the Satan put there.

That's the opposite of what I need, thank you.

[dragonwriter]

> Christianity never made sense to me, with its insistence on guilt. You are supposed to feel guilty for what Adam did, guilty for what people did to Jesus, guilty for your inner thoughts, guilty for your supposed sins that the Satan put there.

That's certainly a way that many people approach Christianity, but I would say its not the best understanding of Christianity. Certainly, it is central to Christianity to acknowledge responsibility for sin as part developing humility, understanding the necessity of both human forgiveness and divine grace, etc.

But an excessive focus on "feeling guilty" moves away from that and into the sin of Judas, despair. OTOH, some people take a lot to get to the point of accepting responsibility, so what for some people is excessive for other people is simply necessary, not in terms of the point they need to get to, but in terms of the presentation it takes to get there.

[abhimir]

upvoted for the Dostoevsky reference