Comments on: Even the Dalai Lama kicks at atheists

By: Mechelle

Mechelle — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:11:18 +0000

Oh and the title to this is misleading, which says a bit for its author. He isn’t kicking at atheists, in general. And he specifies RADICAL atheists. The Jerry Falwells and Rev. Phelps of atheism. The only one generalizing anyone, in this situation, is Ophelia Benson.

By: Mechelle

Mechelle — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:06:28 +0000

I think you people are taking his words out of context. I’m an atheist, and even I know what he means by “radical atheists” and yes….there are atheists that make my skin crawl they’re so vile towards people who believe in religion. Nasty pieces of work. You can deny it if you wish and if you’re not one of them, then he obviously wasn’t talking about you. But to deny that there are those atheists in which he’s talking about is intellectual dishonesty.

By: sailor1031

sailor1031 — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:58:50 +0000

Despite what the dalai lama and the world press think, he is not representative of buddhism. Nor is he a spokesperson for buddhists. In fact the gross distortions that have crept into tibetan style buddhism are a source of alarm to many. Buddha isn’t essentially atheistic but he is essentially indifferent to gods, spirits etc as their existence or non-existence is unknowable and a waste of time to speculate on and, as noted above in another comment, they cannot help you. And there is no zen in any of his “buddhism”.

By: Jenavir

Jenavir — Fri, 28 May 2010 00:57:16 +0000

I actually think this has less to do with anti-atheist bigotry per se and more to do with the moderate’s fallacy: the idea that if two people or two groups are shouting at each other, they must both be wrong and the truth must be somewhere in between. Even if one group is hitting and kicking and throwing stones, and the other group is just shouting “stop that!” They’re both loud, and they’re polarized, so a great way to look wise and independent-minded and tolerant is to condemn them both.

It happens all over the place in politics. In American politics, for instance, you’ll catch people claiming that Al Franken is the left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh–when in fact there is no left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

By: Jakob

Jakob — Thu, 27 May 2010 18:34:39 +0000

Maybe someone should ask him why the Bhuddist theocracy he used to rule allowed its citizens to be owned as slaves until the atheistic Chinese regime invaded and freed them.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 27 May 2010 00:35:15 +0000

I like that, Julia.

By: Sili

Sili — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:26:52 +0000

Well, he certainly knows how to please his masters. Can’t let those nice cheques stop coming.

By: Kirth Gersen

Kirth Gersen — Wed, 26 May 2010 20:39:52 +0000

Nicholas has it. The Buddha’s message was at its heart an atheistic, anti-dogmatic one. Of course, the Buddha’s teachings are barely recognizable in Tibetan Buddhism, but the current Dalai Lama knows enough to have avoided such a grotesque mischaracterization. This reminds me of the shelves of paperbacks by “Robert LudlumTM” — the name of the author of a piece of writing no longer gives any clue to the author’s identity.

By: Julia F

Julia F — Wed, 26 May 2010 19:59:52 +0000

Sorry about all that clutter (very non-Zen). I obviously mis-used the quote button.

By: Julia F

Julia F — Wed, 26 May 2010 19:57:35 +0000

If you live the sacred and despise the ordinary, you are still bobbing in the ocean of delusion. -- Lin-Chi.

Lin-Chi (Rinzai in Japanese) was a founder of the Chan (Zen) practice.

By: Nicholas Lawrence

Nicholas Lawrence — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:43:58 +0000

Moreover, Gautama is said to have denied that there are supernatural beings that can save us, and to have criticised those who seek refuge in institutions such as sacred groves or monasteries. Core Buddhism is in principle atheist. Whoever ghosted this silly stuff put out in the Dalai Lama’s name is just making the usual confusion between atheists who speak clearly about the lack of any evidence for most religious beliefs, and intolerance of religious people. But some intolerance is necessary, eg of intolerant requirements for women, but not men, to hide their faces; and of frauds like Jesus who raise false hopes by conducting bogus ‘cures’ of a tiny number of ill people, thus showing total lack of compassion for the huge majority of friends and relatives whose dying beloveds are not cured. And, of course, if only the big religions forgot the enormities perpetrated by their founders, and stuck to advocating compassion, us atheists would have no problem with them.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 26 May 2010 16:47:39 +0000

a very subtle and Zen shout-out.

Uh huh - or a typical rhetorical smear that does its work even though it doesn't actually apply to any real atheists, because of course the intended audience will simply assume that it does apply to lots and lots of real atheists, and hate them that extra bit more. Which of course is what you meant, in your Zen way.

By: Claire Ramsey

Claire Ramsey — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:23:14 +0000

So ironic. HH and his writer ghosts are deluded on this one.

By: Benjamin Nelson

Benjamin Nelson — Wed, 26 May 2010 12:30:19 +0000

Ah, but since none of the atheists you know of do the things he claims they do, it would entail that you are not a radical atheist, and neither are Hitchens, etc. So he must be giving a very subtle and Zen shout-out.

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 26 May 2010 07:58:42 +0000

“he vilification of atheists seems to be at least one of the underlying motivations of inter-faith dialogue”

It’s probably the only thing they agree about. It’s understandable: the way atheists think is different in kind from the way believers think and so we are much more alien than other believers.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 26 May 2010 04:26:49 +0000

Snap. I had a similar criticism on my Facebook group. The vilification of atheists seems to be at least one of the underlying motivations of inter-faith dialogue. Ah well, if you want to create an “us,” you really need a “them.”

By: Shatterface

Shatterface — Wed, 26 May 2010 01:27:02 +0000

Yes, he sandwiches us between two sentences about physical violence as if ‘blanket condemnation’ – even if it existed – was morally equivalent to murder.

And who died and made him High Lama anyway? Oh, yes – he did, himself, and then he got reincarnated. Handy, that.

Who else thinks asking a kid to pick trinkets out of a box is a FANTASTIC way to chose a leader? None of that tedious voting nonsense.

By: Sastra

Sastra — Wed, 26 May 2010 01:10:45 +0000

That’s a sly and nasty little quote there. It’s rather disturbing to see the “radical atheists” sandwiched neatly in between the “episodes of violence” and the “flames of war.” Rational criticism is casually thrown into the militant stew.

As you already pointed out, there are no blanket condemnations of the sort the Dali Lama seems to imply — wholesale, bigoted physical or verbal attacks against those who hold to religious beliefs. Instead, the wholesale attack that seems to bother everyone is the wholesale attack against all the unfounded supernatural beliefs, in a war of ideas and concepts, and a concern about truth. The ‘radical atheists’ are not just focusing their attention on extremists, or keeping their criticism aimed at mean religions or bad things that churches do. That would be okay; religious people do it themselves.

No, the specific underlying fact claims of religion are being disputed — the value of faith is up for debate. That’s apparently just too large a blanket for the religious.