<p>I'm into Buddhism. The hints of nihilism appeal to me, especially the concept that eveythinf you do will he insignificant, but that it's important to do it. The belief in cycles is appealing to me as well. I appreciate how it doesn't attempt to explain why were here and doesn't believe in a god. I find it very interesting.</p>
<p>Yeah if I were to be religious, I’d probably follow Buddhism. Some even say the Buddha himself was an atheist.</p>
<p>Judaism/Christianity, as does nearly everyone with a European heritage. The way we think is fundamentally Judeo-Christian. Nietzsche’s project did not succeed :(</p>
<p>I would hardly consider Buddhism to be nihilistic (Nietzsche’s assessment of it was incorrect) …but, Deism for me.</p>
<p>I studied Confucianism in my world religions class recently. I wrote an essay about how it isn’t a religion but a ethical concept. I think a lot of atheists can probably identify with that.</p>
<p>Hints of nihilism is not the sama as calling Buddhism nihilistic. The concept that what we do is insignifant (so says ghandi) is nihilistic in nature. </p>
<p>Who is to say neitzsche is wrong? He offered some Interesting insight to religion. Sure, he said god was dead, but Buddhism doesn’t have a god. Saying we should have no desires is essentially saying that such desires are meaningless in my opinion. No, it’s not nihilistic on it’s face, but parts of it are definitely nihilisic. Neiztche has some interesting things to say. I prefer Sartre personally. Nevertheless my Buddhist prof explained the aspects of Buddhism that appear nihilistic. Freeing yourself from he constraints of reality to me identifies with nihilistic concepts of an inherently meaningless world. Buddhist don’t think we were out here as special creatures or anything like that, for the most part. Believing in nothing beyond what is here and not believing an afterlife relates to nihilism. There are definitive connections.</p>
<p>Well, Nietzsche was not well-versed in Buddhism. I’m not saying ALL his views on religion were incorrect. Nihilism implies a certain “nothingness” while Buddhism implies “emptiness” as in we tend to see things (including ourselves) as permanent things-in-themselves where they are actually mutable and don’t objectively “exist,” rather they are dependent on interaction. </p>
<p>“Believing in nothing beyond what is here and not believing an afterlife relates to nihilism.”
Does it?</p>
<p>I don’t know, I read the Dhammapada and didn’t find it to be nihilistic at all.
I see the idea of following the Eight-Fold path in order to achieve nirvana as certianly un-nihilistic. If desire had no “meaning”, it would be unneccisary to eliminate it in the first place. To desire means to suffer, and to suffer means to desire.</p>
<p>EDIT: I though Gandhi was Hindu?</p>
<p>
Quote for truth. </p>
<p>His aphorisms are guides to a better living; Plato or Socrates could be his counterparts in western culture, but not Jesus. </p>
<p>btw, I am interested to learn more about this Nietzsche talk-I remember I’ve read somewhere in his works that ‘the brave has no religion’? (not exactly the same words, but similar expressions)</p>
<p>As for personal preference, I think the Roman Catholic way of living suits me the best. :)</p>
<p>Hindus and Buddhist share many texts. No afterlife is a nihilistic concept. Emptiness is up to intepretation. It implies that there is no inherent meaning, because we should be escaping emotions. I don’t have my notes anymore but the prof outlined similarities and highlighted what concepts could be interpreted as nihilistic. Buddhism is open to interpretation, as there is proclamationexplaining what emptiness really is or what nirvana is. Nihilism and existentialism hint to the fact that we are a coincidence, Buddhism never states we were created. Thinking things should be empty of desire and meaning is expanded upon in nihilisic literture. Like I said, there are hints of nihilism. Things that can be taken as nihilstic. Buddhism is very open to interpretation compared to other religions.</p>
<p>Pastafarianism.</p>
<p>But seriously, if I were religious, probably Hinduism or Buddhism. I really like Islam as well, considering it’s very theologically coherent.</p>
<p>I’m not religious but if I was, probably Jewish. They’re rich, everybody hates them, what more would you want?</p>
<p>It doesn’t really matter, whatever makes a person want to become a better person and live a better life is what is important.</p>
<p>Nietzsche towers over Sartre.</p>
<p>Also, above someone mentioned Socrates/Plato (one without the other?!), which is an interesting topic to explore for those interested in Buddhism. Epicureanism and Stoicism, both descendants of Platonic thought, share many ideas and practices in common with the Buddhists. Compare Epictetus’ Discourses or Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations with Buddhist literature - the resemblance is at times quite striking.</p>
<p>Well, Epicureanism is a rejection of Platonism, if that’s what you mean.</p>
<p>Not necessarily, and Epicureanism certainly would never have arisen without Socrates/Plato.</p>
<p>I identify only with Islam.</p>
<p>Epicureanism arose as a challenge to Platonic Idealism. The materialism of Epicureanism and the idealism of Platonism are not reconcilable. As for your second statement, how are you so certain of that?</p>
<p>If I had to be religious, I would actually hold with the ancient Greek polytheistic religions. Logically it makes sense and I agree with the humanization that the ancient Greeks gave their gods.</p>
<p>Why not the Roman or Norse polytheistic religions? Religionism, exhibit A. </p>
<p>Most of the days of the week have some Norse or Latin meaning, anyway.</p>
<p>I wanna bone Hermes. Does that count?</p>