The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The other major religions do not say suffering is a part of life in the major tenets.

Firstly, This doesn't answer my question. Your initial comment was phrased in a way you made it seem you somehow have been through more suffering than the rest of us.

Secondly, The Abrahamic religions teach of "Original sin" and that all suffering is an inherent part of life and is caused by our sins and the only way to end suffering is to be purified from our sins either by asking for forgiveness or accepting Jesus as ones savior.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ah, you are the master of logic!

ROTFLMAO!

Dude you are so, sheepish.

How do you know that Frey worshipers don't call their deity "God" or "Lord".

"Frey"? Do you mean Freyja? She was a Norse Goddess and in which case she would of probably been referred to as an "Ásynjur".

 

[onemind]

So do all the smart people stay out of the religion and philosophy section?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin you push too far, insulting someone who has actually CLAIMED they are dyslexic. David may be annoying but you’re just being cruel here. Try living with a disability for a while Dustin and lets see how you handle it...

David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have dysphonia and I was lazy, I shall use the spell check. It is a learning disability. Fortunately my other issues are well treated.

Thanks for the support!

No it isn't.

http://www.dysphonia.org/

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/spasdysp.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spasmodic_dysphonia

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It is a personal choice, the student should use their own skills to decide which texts agree with their thinking.

And if they disagree with them then by definition they aren't "Buddhists".

As you ignored earlier the Ten Unwholesome Acts are part of a particular tradition.

So not Buddha's teachings?

The ten precepts are post AHB, I believe.

"AHB"?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Proof , evidence?

More baseless assertion.

You will find that sceptics have been called cafeteria buddhists by one wit.

But please show your lack of knowledge and make baseless accusations.

You ain't no scpetic.

What do you want proof for? You're a Buddhist right? Buddhism is a 2,500 year old religious doctrine. You believe in this religious doctrine. Ergo...

 

[andyandy]

I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant...

good grief! Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it's an absolute definition. Here are some commonly used definitions of "God"


G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being”

(G3) “God” = “love” [less common]
(G4) “God” = “the universe” [less common]

(G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”
(G6) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”

(G7) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
nonmaterial, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”
(G8) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal creator and ruler of the universe”

(G9) “God” = ? (No definition is possible; the term is indefinable.)

(G10) “God” = “that being to which no positive properties can be ascribed”

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm

this is by no means exhaustive - nor are any of those definitions sufficient to describe an individual's interpretation of "God." Take a cross section of 10 monothestics from across the faiths, and do you honestly think they'd agree on the absolute definition of what "God" means? Take a cross section within a major faith group, look further into a denominational subset, when do you think your absolute definition is going to arrive?

If you were genuinely interested in the topic, I'd recommend "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - which documents the evolution of how God is defined through the ages - within the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith, in unity, in trinity, in philosophy, in mysticism, in reformation, in enlightenment, in secularism, in political conservatism, in liberalism and beyond.

of course, you don't appear interested in anything more than trying to justify your delusions of grandeur through proving just how much cleverer you are than everyone else here. It would be of benefit however to consider actually doing a little reading on the subject.

 

[Ryokan]

However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist".

You've just cut Buddhism in half, as Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism doesn't put emphasis on Gautama Buddha at all. Nor do they put emphasis on the four noble truths, and don't use the same texts as other Buddhist sects do.

That's the problem with making up a definite definition of Buddhism; it can't be done.

 

[onemind]

My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

If you want to deny nirvana, rebirth, karma and the other mainstream dcotrines and still call it buddhism then you are an idiot and not even worth debunking.

But for all sane people that agree that 80% + of what westerners and easterners consider buddhism is up for debate so enough with filling 5 pages arguing about definitions and semantic bs.

 

[Taffer]

I'm trying to be consistent to have a discussion. If you want to claim that Buddhism means 'anything and everything' and anyone who says they are a buddhist is a buddhist then we can't have any sort of meaningful discourse.

It doesn't seem to be a problem to the majority of people in the world. I suggest it is you who is making a deal out of it.

 

[Taffer]

I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant...

Yes, because of course that's what I mean.

 

[Taffer]

It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English.

And the fact that the rest of us have no trouble understanding him?

I think the fault lies with yourself.

 

[Taffer]

Yes, you are right, there is much more proof of rebirth, nibbana and karma.

Not all interpretations of Buddhist teachings take these things to be literal truths.

I am not interested in arguing semantics and lame definitions on who gets to label themselves what.

My site is based on debunking the 3 core teachings that lie at the center of mainstream buddhism.

Like i said, label yourself what you like. I couldnt care less.

But you obviously do. I am forced to wonder why you even bothered to make a website if "you couldn't care less".

 

[Taffer]

My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

Because you label all Buddhists as believing in the literal truths of these.

If you want to deny nirvana, rebirth, karma and the other mainstream dcotrines and still call it buddhism then you are an idiot and not even worth debunking.

But for all sane people that agree that 80% + of what westerners and easterners consider buddhism is up for debate so enough with filling 5 pages arguing about definitions and semantic bs.

Semantics? You are the one who is ascribing traits to all Buddhists when it does not exist. You are arguing with the Straw Buddhist.

 

[Ryokan]

My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

If you want to deny nirvana, rebirth, karma and the other mainstream dcotrines and still call it buddhism then you are an idiot and not even worth debunking.

But for all sane people that agree that 80% + of what westerners and easterners consider buddhism is up for debate so enough with filling 5 pages arguing about definitions and semantic bs.

Err, are you calling Pure Land a minority sect? It's by large the biggest sect there is! But of course, by your definition they're not Buddhists at all. Nor are the Zennists.

 

[andyandy]

Semantics? You are the one who is ascribing traits to all Buddhists when it does not exist. You are arguing with the Straw Buddhist.

it's just a parroting of the great straw creator Sam Harris

"needless to say all non-buddhists believe buddhism to be a religion"

A quote of staggering agricultural byproduct proportions - which forms the basis of his argument to "kill the buddha"

In it he also goes on to make the simply ludicrous inference that the Northern Ireland conflict [labelled Protestant vs Catholic] was explicitly caused by religion. This is simply not true. Many of the other examples he gives are equally far better understood through nationalist geographical tension. I am actually staggered by the shoddiness of this article.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

good grief! Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it's an absolute definition. Here are some commonly used definitions of "God"


G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being”

These are basically synonymous.

(G3) “God” = “love” [less common]
(G4) “God” = “the universe” [less common]

Source?

(G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”
(G6) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”

Synonymous with 1st definition.

(G7) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
nonmaterial, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”
(G8) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal creator and ruler of the universe”

Synonymous with 1st definition.

(G9) “God” = ? (No definition is possible; the term is indefinable.)

Source?

(G10) “God” = “that being to which no positive properties can be ascribed”

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm

This comes from an essay by Steven J. Conifer. It's not a reliable source for definitions of words.

this is by no means exhaustive - nor are any of those definitions sufficient to describe an individual's interpretation of "God." Take a cross section of 10 monothestics from across the faiths, and do you honestly think they'd agree on the absolute definition of what "God" means? Take a cross section within a major faith group, look further into a denominational subset, when do you think your absolute definition is going to arrive?

You're confusing "Definitions" with "Descriptions". Defining a thing and describing all attributes perceived or real of said thing are two totally different actions.

If you were genuinely interested in the topic, I'd recommend "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - which documents the evolution of how God is defined through the ages - within the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith, in unity, in trinity, in philosophy, in mysticism, in reformation, in enlightenment, in secularism, in political conservatism, in liberalism and beyond.

Read it. See above.

of course, you don't appear interested in anything more than trying to justify your delusions of grandeur through proving just how much cleverer you are than everyone else here. It would be of benefit however to consider actually doing a little reading on the subject.

Have done plenty.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Much of what is in the gospels is from the authors and isn't even claimed to be directly from Jesus.

Are you trying to be dull? I said "include," as in the teachings of Christ are in the gospels. I did not say that every single sentence is considered a teaching of Christ.

So why not follow them? Are them on a level of "less holiness" from the other teachings? Are they less right? Or do you just like to pick and choose like most Christians?

Oh, you insinuated that I have something in common with Christians! Gasp! The horror !

Perhaps if you took the time to actually study the philosophy of religion we could have a reasonable discussion about this. However, as your statement makes it clear, you just hate religion.

Let's dissect this bit by bit...



Questionable. See bottom for further criticism.



Blamable?



Who? What "Wise"? Also, this is an appeal to authority.



Assuming this is true, This isn't an argument for their validity or reliability. Many Christians lead happy lives because of their religion however this in no way attests to it's legitimacy.

Did you really just read Wiki articles about Buddhism? That was from the Kalama Sutra. It was in response to your inquiry of why people follow Buddhism.

No. Mill taught a lot more than utilitarianism.

Why not a "Saganist"?

However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist".

Look, Buddhist and Skeptic etc. are all just labels. They are labels that we in society use to group people of homologous traits. I am not the grand arbitrator of labels that people have commonly accepted. And neither are you. So why go through this game?

You seem to have issues with Buddhism being a dogmatic religion. While this may be true in many places, it doesn't always have to be true. Read "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Read the Kalama sutra. If one doesn't look at all the texts as Holy and containing ultimate truth, it is not hypocrisy to follow some parts while not others.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It doesn't seem to be a problem to the majority of people in the world. I suggest it is you who is making a deal out of it.

The majority of people in the world rarely need to adequately define these sorts of terms because they rarely think deeply about them.

Yes, because of course that's what I mean.

What?

And the fact that the rest of us have no trouble understanding him?

I think the fault lies with yourself.

The fact that you claim you have no trouble understanding him is simply proof you're a liar and haven't even read his posts. His grammar is terrible, his spelling is terrible, his syntax is terrible, his posts are nearly incomprehensible as they are not to even mention the internal inconsistencies.