Mark Zuckerberg says he's not an atheist anymore

[Skeptic]

@ben_ehlers

It’s probably easier to be religious when you are one of the wealthiest people in the world.

Bet he’s not gonna tithe 10%, though.

[Phrenological]

I think it might be ferreal.

[anon6955837]

FurReal?

[miasm]

@Ambiguity

Apparently Suzuki…adapted

Which Suzuki?

[nemomen]

I’m guessing D. T. Suzuki since while he was well versed in traditional Buddhist scholarship, when he wrote for Western audiences he framed things in Western terms from transcendentalism and sometimes theosophy, though Shunryu Suzuki also heavily Westernized Zen. The phrase “adapted the teachings pretty heavily,” is really vague, though. Henry Alcott’s theosophical reading of Theravada did influence some Theravadans, though Christmas Humphrey’s theosophical reading of Mahayana had a notable influence on Zen in the West, esp. via Alan Watts.

That idea that Zen as seen in the West is more “true to its roots” is something I’d dispute very strongly since a lot of Zen teachings in the West downplay the traditional Buddhist teachings and practices that are very central to the traditions in China, Korea, and Japan. At one point I studied with a very traditionalist Ch’an teacher in S.F. (a student of Ven. Master Hsuan Hua) who was very vehemently concerned to point out many ways American Zen was watered down and stripped of core Buddhist tenets.

[miasm]

Although I would love to learn that Shunryu was being subversive through adaptation according to his circumstances in some fashion other than that which he ‘directly’ addresses.

---

ETA:

@nemomen

stripped of core Buddhist tenets

I sort of get the feeling this is mostly like the British forcing Indian farmers to change their harvest cycle because it appeared to be based on entirely spiritual mumbo-jumbo (eh what!). The resulting was to disrupt some very delicate and finely balanced tuning which, though promulgated through traditional, cultural means, had been developed in close synchrony with the environment in order to evolve its success.

[anon61221983]

But religion never really went away - especially not in the US. And not all religious people are bigoted nuts, just like not all atheists are rational and nice. Let’s not forget that a prime example of an “atheist” state was pretty murderous in enforcing it’s own doctrine of faith. I don’t think that means that all socialists are brutal enforcers of their world view, just like not all religious people are out to forcible convert you to theirs.

The problem is almost always power, and the abuse of that power, rather than one ideological frame work or another. Which is why I believe in a secular state, rather than a state that has enforced or mandated religion or a lack there of.

[Mister44]

I just skimmed a bit, and some of y’all are pretty cynical. I highly, highly doubt it has ANYTHING to do with politics.

First off, it isn’t any of our fucking business what he believes or doesn’t believe. Nor is it really anyone’s place to comment negatively.

Second, it most likely has to do with having a baby a year ago. Having a child changes your out look on a lot of things. It sounds like he was raised halfway religiously, and if so I imagine there are several religious events and rituals that he remembers that he would want his kid to experience. The mother and grand parents can also have a sway on that. ETA I even know someone who is a Christian, but is still teaching her kid the Jewish traditions she was raised on.

And remember, having some religion doesn’t make one some bible or torah thumping sheep. But as I type this @anon61221983 's comment just popped up and covered it nicely.

[anon61221983]

@Mister44

But as I type this @anon61221983 's comment just popped up and covered it nicely.

You’re welcome, toots!

[roomwithaview]

@ActionAbe

This doesn’t surprise me. Atheism has lost social cohesive value over time, and attempts to resurrect it from within are failing. It’ll make a comeback, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it decline somewhat. A lot of my Atheist friends who are culturally Jewish, Muslim, or Catholic have been making noises of disaffection. I myself have mulled a change many times.

Agnostics FTW!

[roomwithaview]

@fnordius

There is only one word that I can think of at the moment:

Pandering.

Aww, c’mon, don’t be mean to pandas!

[enso]

@GulliverFoyle

While it’s always sad to see people embracing ontologies that aren’t true and run counter to all evidence, Zuckerberg is one turd whose loss to reality isn’t any great tragedy.

Which ontologies do you declare to be true?

[enso]

@ActionAbe

I don’t believe in the existance of god, but I believe in the existence of a sterile test-tube Atheism even less.

I don’t believe in any God but I’m still a Buddhist.

[Flossaluzitarin]

On the other hand, I’m not absolutely sure I can stop believing in a multilingual lay media intent on informing the public, for one day (while I think of twitter as optional and a startup,) and be much happy with the results (that is, does it cease to exist.) I think I like the WSJ to call things by the names Samantha Bee and the journal’s own generators might pick and to see ads -for- media (not blow-ins for The Guardian much) in better circulation. 4K screen; Bloomberg Terminal adapter kit, 8 pretenders, and Vox.

[Wanderfound]

Declare to be true? None of 'em. Hold as the one most likely to be true, to such a degree that it is irrational to reject it? The one based on empirical evidence.

We have no evidence supporting the existence of anything supernatural, and mountains of evidence suggesting the lack of existence of the major hypothesised supernatural entities. It’s impossible to disprove an entity with the power and desire to conceal its existence, but I’m happy to let Bayes and Occam take this one.

[enso]

@Aloisius

I would have a hard time calling Zen Buddhism a non-spiritual framework. I mean, reincarnation, enlightenment and karma are a pretty darn spiritual beliefs.

Zen is a poor example here since there are rather famous Zen masters who deny each and every one of these things. Non-Zen Buddhism? Perhaps. Not Zen.

[Skeptic]

@ActionAbe

This doesn’t surprise me. Atheism has lost social cohesive value over time, and attempts to resurrect it from within are failing. It’ll make a comeback, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it decline somewhat. A lot of my Atheist friends who are culturally Jewish, Muslim, or Catholic have been making noises of disaffection. I myself have mulled a change many times.

Atheism has never had “social cohesive value” - that comes from other things, of which atheism may be a part but not from atheism itself. Atheism is just lack of belief in a god or gods. There is no social implication one way or another. Saying it has lost “social cohesive value” is like saying apples have lost their beef flavor. You can’t blame apples for not being beef flavored, nor atheism for lack of “social cohesive value”. To think otherwise is a category error.

[enso]

@nemomen

If you’re formally practicing at a Zen temple with a roshi and have taken refuge in the Three Jewels, the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, then it does effectively require a belief in karma and rebirth, since these are part of the Dharma one has vowed to take refuge in.

Uhm…

/me looks to self and thinks of various (mostly Zen) teachers he’s had.

No, that’s not correct. It is common but it isn’t required.

I mean, I believe in refuge so much I have my refuge vows tattooed on my arm but I’m still a functional atheist and no teacher I’ve had (in three different traditions of practice over 13 years) has overly cared. It’s about praxis not belief for many teachers and has been for many hundreds if not thousands of years. You’ve always been able to find Buddhist teachers who took a non-literal approach. You can find ancient writings that state this, such as looking at the wheel of existence in psychological or mental terms.

@nemomen

There also are Western teachers who call themselves Zen teachers but aren’t part of the traditional transmission of the lineage.

And the Japanese or Tibetans empowered teachers (with institutional lineage) that I met who were both teachers and functionally atheists? You say that you know if they are Buddhists better than they do? This is leaving aside the weird ethnocentrism to say that some Western people just aren’t doing it right like the Asians do (which you strongly imply).

All of this aside, Zen masters, who left recorded sayings or their own direct writings, are rather infamous in rejecting of “required” dogmas and beliefs. Some rather famous Japanese ones come immediately to mind and I doubt you’d declare that they weren’t really Zen Buddhists, given they are famous teachers in various lineages (such as Rinzai).

[Giacamo]

@tigkiwi

we are simply abandoning the cultures mental strength to those despicable people who think it is proper behaviour to force dogma into their children’s minds. The religious need saving from their own worse selves. Religion is a false world view, and the cause of much of the distress and destruction in the world. It is the essence of probity to speak out against it.

@tigkiwi

we are simply abandoning the cultures spiritual strength to those despicable people who think it is proper behaviour to force lies into their children’s minds. The secular need saving from their own worse selves. Atheism is a false world view, and the cause of much of the distress and destruction in the world. It is the essence of probity to speak out against it.

With those adjustments, you’ve just stated the religious fundamentalist viewpoint. Critiquing religion is necessary, but condemning religion as a whole will win you few converts and leave you socially poorer for it.

[Ryuthrowsstuff]

The tactic I like to take is to tell people to substitute “literature” for “religion” in these sorts of arguments. absent any investment/belief in the supernatural it’s just a category of human culture. And humans are the problem not whatever grounds are used to fuel and justify the nasty shit we get up to. Pegging all the world’s ills, all history’s negatives to religion. Assuming religion is only a negative influence is as foolish as laying the same on any aspect of culture. It let’s people off the hook, ignores myriad other influences, And invests that one thing with a power and influence it can’t really have in isolation.