The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[andyandy]

Ta Da!

This should answer many of your basic questions.

a good article

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You're a liar. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

7.30am


8.19am



Just in case you'd missed it, he claified again at 9.20am



and then at 4.31 you replied....



and then you boast to david....

When I post I read the posts in the order they are posted and respond to them that way. David posted that several posts after I responded. Even if I responded after he posted it, I didn't actually see it until I got to it. In that instance it was before he had claimed it was a form of dyslexia post wise and he was claiming his lack of ability to spell was due to the English language.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

WTF? Then why all the debate about what the "teachings of the Buddha" are?

Because when I was initially debating that, David was trying to narrow all of the Buddha's teachings to the eight fold path.

And yet you cannot comprehend liberal theology. Either you suck at studying, or you haven't really studied it.

(Yes, you have to pick one )

I can comprehend it.

Evidence?

All of your posts in this thread.

And the fundamentals in Buddhism include the four truths and eightfold path. Ergo people who follow those are labeled Buddhist.

1. Those aren't the only fundamentals.

2. I'm criticizing those and denying their validity.

No, you're not. Get reading. Seriously. You are just spouting one of the most ignorant arguments against Buddhism.

Please address my actual arguments then.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Because when I was initially debating that, David was trying to narrow all of the Buddha's teachings to the eight fold path.

When did he do that?

I can comprehend it.

So what's your problem with it?

All of your posts in this thread.

No. My posts in this thread show I know about Buddhism. They do not show what you said.

1. Those aren't the only fundamentals.

2. I'm criticizing those and denying their validity.

They are the most common, widely accepted, and similarly interpreted fundamentals out there that give the most meaning to Buddhism.

Please address my actual arguments then.

I told you to read. Then I told you what to read. Now I've given you the perfect link. Read it. It really does answer all of your questions.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

When did he do that?

Pretty much all through this thread. At least that's what I got from his posts. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't his actual implication because I could hardly understand his posts anyway.

No. My posts in this thread show I know about Buddhism. They do not show what you said.

Are you a Buddhist? Your name suggests it.

They are the most common, widely accepted, and similarly interpreted fundamentals out there that give the most meaning to Buddhism.

If we're going to argue popularity then I'd say that reincarnation and karma are also fundamentals in Buddhism.

I told you to read. Then I told you what to read. Now I've given you the perfect link. Read it. It really does answer all of your questions.

If it answers them all then why don't you answer them for me since you've read it, which I am assuming you have. It's disingenuous to direct me to some other site to read something when you can answer my questions directly here.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Pretty much all through this thread. At least that's what I got from his posts. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't his actual implication because I could hardly understand his posts anyway.

Ah, so he didn't and you just misunderstood. Kay.

Are you a Buddhist? Your name suggests it.

Ah, so now you have to ask? Well, I shan't tell you now . That's what you get when you make rude assumptions about people (But be sure to make nice assumptions about people).

But even if I was, would it prove your statement?

If we're going to argue popularity then I'd say that reincarnation and karma are also fundamentals in Buddhism.

It isn't only about popularity. And if you would read anything I suggest you would know that those things have an extremely wide variety of interpretations.

If it answers them all then why don't you answer them for me since you've read it, which I am assuming you have. It's disingenuous to direct me to some other site to read something when you can answer my questions directly here.

Because I would prefer you to read it to preempt any further silly misunderstandings. And you should really read beyond Wiki. However, just for fun, I will tackle your problem with suffering and physical pain.

Think auto-erotic asphyxiation .

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ah, so he didn't and you just misunderstood. Kay.

That's a possibility. Many of his posts are incomprehensible.

Ah, so now you have to ask? Well, I shan't tell you now . That's what you get when you make rude assumptions about people (But be sure to make nice assumptions about people).

But even if I was, would it prove your statement?

Yes. I'll assume you're a buddhist. Your defense of Buddhism and your name suggest you're a buddhist so I will assume you are.

It isn't only about popularity.

Your initial assertion about the "fundamentals" implied it was.

Because I would prefer you to read it to preempt any further silly misunderstandings. And you should really read beyond Wiki. However, just for fun, I will tackle your problem with suffering and physical pain.

I've had no misunderstandings. My critique of Buddhism is spot on.

Think auto-erotic asphyxiation .

Ok. What about it? Is this supposed to be an example of how "Desire leads to suffering"? Even if it is an example of such, It's one example. The premise of Buddhism is that ALL suffering is caused by desire. It doesn't say "Some suffering" it says suffering in general.

 

[Lonewulf]

Try again.

http://www.bartelby.com/68/54/454.html

Awww, it's so cute! Dustin actually thinks he's correcting me. So precious!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That's a possibility. Many of his posts are incomprehensible.

An English question: If others can comprehend it, but you can't, does that make the posts incomprehensible?

Yes. I'll assume you're a buddhist. Your defense of Buddhism and your name suggest you're a buddhist so I will assume you are.

So you are just making assumptions and can offer no proof that "you hold beliefs in a religious doctrine and you can't justify it's validity using anything other than appeal to belief." You think all Buddhists are like that?

Your initial assertion about the "fundamentals" implied it was.

No it didn't.

I've had no misunderstandings. My critique of Buddhism is spot on.

No, it's not. Read.

Ok. What about it? Is this supposed to be an example of how "Desire leads to suffering"? Even if it is an example of such, It's one example. The premise of Buddhism is that ALL suffering is caused by desire. It doesn't say "Some suffering" it says suffering in general.

No, I said it was about physical pain and suffering.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Awww, it's so cute! Dustin actually thinks he's correcting me. So precious!

Is this a retort? It looks to me like you're avoiding my proof that you were corrected. Please address my initial link that proves that I didn't misspell that word.

 

[Lonewulf]

Is this a retort? It looks to me like you're avoiding my proof that you were corrected. Please address my initial link that proves that I didn't misspell that word.

That proves that you didn't misspell the word? I wasn't even responding to you originally.

Wow. You taking drugs recently?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

An English question: If others can comprehend it, but you can't, does that make the posts incomprehensible?

Others can't comprehend it. Your own abstract of his post supports my contention.

So you are just making assumptions and can offer no proof that "you hold beliefs in a religious doctrine and you can't justify it's validity using anything other than appeal to belief." You think all Buddhists are like that?

If you're a buddhist then you do. You refuse to say whether or not you're a buddhist so I assume you are based on the signs that I mentioned earlier.

No it didn't.

Sure it did. Here's what you said...

They are the most common, widely accepted, and similarly interpreted fundamentals out there that give the most meaning to Buddhism.

All of these are appeals to popularity. "Common" means 'occurring or appearing frequently'. "Widely accepted" is also a matter of popularity due to the fact that it's an appeal to the number who accept it as true.

No, it's not.

Elaborate.

No, I said it was about physical pain and suffering.

Huh? You said what was about physical pain and suffering? We're talking about the Buddhistic teachings. They claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge. You brought up the example of "auto-erotic asphyxiation" which isn't even an example of suffering being caused by an urge and even if it was, it's a single example which doesn't jive with what Buddhism says about suffering in general.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That proves that you didn't misspell the word?

Yes. It proves that I did not misspell the word. It's spelled either way in the English language.

I wasn't even responding to you originally.

Liar.

You quoted me and said "It's spelled apologize." and weren't responding to me? Hmm...

Wow. You taking drugs recently?

None that would interfere with my ability to see your posts as B.S. Are YOU taking drugs? You quote me directly yet claim you weren't responding to me?

 

[Lonewulf]

Liar.

You quoted me and said "It's spelled apologize." and weren't responding to me? Hmm...

I was quoting "Dancing David". See, when you quote someone, the name is up there at the top. If you look, you can see. Unless you're taking some kind of hallucinogenic.

Wow. Either you are taking drugs, or you're just the liar you proclaim me to be.

What is it, Dustin? Is it hallucinogens or dishonesty? Or just outright stupidity? Curious minds want to know.

None that would interfere with my ability to see your posts as B.S. Are YOU taking drugs? You quote me directly yet claim you weren't responding to me?

But I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting Dancing David. You are not Dancing David. Thus, my mental capabilities are not in question here.

Also... look at where the quote was traced, would you? That's done by the arrow. This is the post I was responding to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2652219#post2652219

And you called me the childish simpleton. Oh, man, irony is strong.

 

[yrreg]

They are referring to me, Yrreg. but you are welcome.

Hi all,

I am the author of this website and appreciate the comments.

Geez you skeptics are fast, its only been up for a few days and your already pulling it to peices

Quote:
Anyway, these folks that run this website seem to be motivated by hatred, which isn't good.​

??

Hatred? I'm sorry that you get that impression. Other than my immature nazi page about esangha i think i have presented my views in a respectful manner.

Anyway, its not "folks" running this site, just me

Thanks again for the critique. Any further construcive critisism is greatly appreciated.

Cheers

.​

You see, it is like this which everyone knows who has some acquaintance with human nature: when they can't gainsay you, they accuse you of hatred; even though all you are doing is to exercise critical thinking and practice the search for empirical evidence, all for the joy of exercising your brain cells on a subject that is most worthy of the sincerest skeptic, i.e., devotee of critical thinking and empirical evidence.


Welcome, onemind.


By the way, I am now into applying critical thinking and empirical evidence to stock trading -- or more correctly, asking oldtime skeptics here to look for the science and methodology of stock trading.


Yrreg

 

[onemind]

Thanks Yrreg.

This thread isnt even about my website or its articles. Its about a few little egos trying to win gold stars.

Good luck with your stock trading

P.S Speaking of stock trading, i started a skeptic thread about the uselessness of technical analysis and got banned from an aussie stock forum for questioning their techniques. Check the out here:

http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6580

http://www2.oanda.com/cgi-bin/msgboard/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=008339

 

[yrreg]

Well, that ia one Doctor of Buddhism, subclass, Chinese.

Not every Buddhist version has supernatural aspects.

In particular, Chinese Buddhism is rather devoid of the supernatural.

Ancient Chinese Buddhism, that is.

.​

So, the supernatural ingredients come after, not original with the prinstine redaction?


Sapienti pauca -- that makes you a sap.


Just joking, no offense.


Yrreg

 

[Lonewulf]

This thread isnt even about my website or its articles. Its about a few little egos trying to win gold stars.

Actually, it's about diverging beliefs, and how you can have beliefs that do not automatically subscribe to the fundamentals.

Why do you think there are so many different sects of Christianity? Hint: it involves changing ideas.

Though with your childish insults, I felt like responding to kind with kind.

 

[yrreg]

Buddhist is not an epithet, not yet, with some Western socalled intellectuals.

[...]

Quote from Dustin:
This makes no sense. Either there is an accepted teaching of Buddhism or there isn't. If there is then those who follow those teachings are Buddhists. If there isn't then "Buddhism" is a meaningless term.​

Are you a catholic or something? That is a rather narrow defintion of what comprises a group of people....

[...]

.​

True to form, Dancing David; next you will shout, theist, theist, theist, theist...

We had been through that path, hadn't we, Dancing David? but I grant you the credit of being a true Buddhist in the best tradition of the true believer's syndrome.


Yrreg

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know this is very old--probably water under the bridge by now. . .

Where did Buddha say that his followers should believe what they see as true and not what he himself has said?

That is precisely the teaching in the Kalama Sutra.

I doesn't actually say to rely on what you see as true, but gives a more detailed discussion of good and bad ways to discern what is true. It definitely says don't believe anything on authority, even what's in the scriptures.