Ive never really heard crtisism towards buddhism

[TheDarkendStar]

Interestingly enough of my time going into many atheists I have never seen a video critical of Buddhism.

After some thinking the only reason I can think so is that fundamentalist Buddhists are either uncommon or not extreme by the standards of what I am used to.
This is more of a question do Buddhists accept science.My reason for asking is the no evidence argument still applies to Buddhism there is no evidence for it but I never see anyone criticize it. I was wondering if there is any particular reason why.
Sorry I'm writing this on the fly so excuse my grammar.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's for a few reasons:

1. Buddhists are less fundamentalist. They're less inclined to be outspoken assholes.
2. Yes, they're also uncommon in the Western world where New Atheism is strong.
3. There are different kinds of Buddhists, and most people don't understand the difference.

Some Buddhists respect science, and treat it [Buddhism] more as a philosophy (disregarding empirical claims about reality that it inherited from Vedic religion). This is the prevalent view in the West -- that is, most English speaking Buddhists you will encounter.

Then there are other Buddhists, who are all about superstition, eat meat (except for occasional symbolic vegetarian meals they eat to gain karma points to ask for something in trade -- like for Buddha to heal a sick grandparent, or a new job), worship all kinds of gods, and pretty much ignore everything Gautama taught about knowledge.

The Mahayana Buddhists are usually the good ones.
Theravada and Tibetan Buddhists are usually the crazy superstitious ones that eat meat; but there's also division and stratification within those branches, so you can't always judge a book by its cover (or title).

[DDDx8]

I was also wondering about critiques towards Buddhism. I mean at the core its still a belief system centered around unsubstantiated views. But as far as I know there aren't many bad viewpoints coming from it. One person I was talking to said Buddhism has sexism in it but from what little research I did I couldn't find anything that supported that claim. Does anyone know about sexists views Buddhism teachs?

[Jebus]

I haven't heard much criticism towards Hinduism either.

[Volenta]

3. There are different kinds of Buddhists, and most people don't understand the difference.

I can't see why this would matter. There are also different kinds of Muslims, and I dare to say that most people don't know the difference between them as well. Christianity also has different groups, although those are generally more known in the western world. Just because there are different kinds of groups/believes within a particular religion, doesn't mean it's less (or more) open to criticism.

[Pumpkin]

I haven't heard much criticism towards Hinduism either.

However, the criticism should come mainly from vegetarian people to Hinduism . I have seen multiple videos ... shocking videos of how this faith make sacrifices to their gods by killing the animal in a very horrible way. They make an incision in the throat in which the animal become so weak and dies among the other corpses. The fact that we don't say much about this belief is that they apparently don't force their faith on others, and so people in Europe and the US just don't care.
there are many religions who sacrifice animals in a brutal way but as long as they don't hurt humans it's seems to be ok for the human world.

[brimstoneSalad]

3. There are different kinds of Buddhists, and most people don't understand the difference.

I can't see why this would matter. [...] Just because there are different kinds of groups/believes within a particular religion, doesn't mean it's less (or more) open to criticism.

That's not what I was saying. The important point is that people don't know the difference, and they assume that all Buddhists are like the Buddhists they have met, who are likely to be the most rational, mainly non-theistic, and generally just philosophical sort rather than the dogmatic sort.

[Zed4711]

I haven't heard much criticism towards Hinduism either.

However, the criticism should come mainly from vegetarian people to Hinduism . I have seen multiple videos ... shocking videos of how this faith make sacrifices to their gods by killing the animal in a very horrible way. They make an incision in the throat in which the animal become so weak and dies among the other corpses. The fact that we don't say much about this belief is that they apparently don't force their faith on others, and so people in Europe and the US just don't care.
there are many religions who sacrifice animals in a brutal way but as long as they don't hurt humans it's seems to be ok for the human world.

You bring up a very good point. I find some Hindu practices to be absolutely atrocious & abominable such as the aforementioned one. They should be condemned. However Hinduism is not one religions, it is only the name European Christians gave to the religious groups centred around the Indus region as they couldn't understand the concept of a fluid interconnected but unorganised Religion. Other Hindus are veg*n & are very concerned with all other living beings. The Jain are a great example [I know they're not Hindu], with extremists wearing masks as not to accidentally breathe in microbes & sweeping the slope they walk on so they don't kill insects. I however, think criticism should be given where it is warranted.

[Jatheist]

The Mahayana Buddhists are usually the good ones.
Theravada and Tibetan Buddhists are usually the crazy superstitious ones that eat meat; but there's also division and stratification within those branches, so you can't always judge a book by its cover (or title).

Mahayana are superstitious, and Theravada are the philosophical ones. You got it all mixed up

[brimstoneSalad]

Mahayana are superstitious, and Theravada are the philosophical ones. You got it all mixed up

You are confusing "all truths are one, god is everything, logic is just an invention of man, everybody is right and everybody is wrong" nonsense with philosophy. Theravada "philosophy" is pseudo-philosophy, and I regard that as another form of superstition.

Mahayana are more rigid and consistent. Some may see this as more dogmatic, but in reality it's just because they have more respect for consistency and reason (not that they are completely without dogmas, as no major branch of Buddhism is). Because of this, you may incorrectly view them as more superstitious if you don't understand the problems with factual relativism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factual_relativism ), or if you reject ethics.

Mahayana are very practical, and believe in alleviating suffering in this world (a very real thing), and put less emphasis on meditation and magical 'enlightenment' though spiritual knowledge.
Theravada are comparatively very self involved, and always after magical spiritual gnosis, ready and willing to be walking contradictions and deny reality in the process.

This is probably why Theravada became more popular in the West. Not because it's less superstitious, but because it's more woo. That kind of stuff is all the rage with new-age.

When it was imported, though, it's worth noting that the imported versions have lost much of the visually superstitious formalism that Theravada has in Asia. So if your only knowledge of Buddhism is white washed by Western culture, from your biased perspective it may appear less superstitious (it's still more so, however, if you look into the actual beliefs being advocated).

Hope that clears things up for you.