The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[onemind]

which is an opinion you're entitled to hold, but doesn't carry a great deal of weight in a general argument.

I'm afraid the strawman is of your own making - i'm not hiding behind it, just holding it up for everyone to see

Pathetic.

Buddhism is beyond critisism because it is undefinable, a lot like god.

 

[andyandy]

Hmmm, I think I see your point... some references would be nice, though.

Tsukasa posted this article on Buddhism earlier http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=12039

that goes into some detail about its non-dogmatic stance.....

and some rough and ready stats on cultural christianity....72% identify themselves as such but 55% of people don't believe in a higher being.....

During the 2001 poll, 72% identified themselves as "Christian." This does not necessarily indicate that they are committed Christians. Vexen Crabtree collected some statistics from a variety of sources which indicate that many of these folks are Christian in name only:

The Office of National Statistics found in the 2001 census that: "...half of all adults aged 18 and over who belonged to a religion have never attended a religious service."
Uk.news.yahoo.com reported in 2000 that "[Church attendance in 1999 was] 7.5% on an average Sunday, [down] from 10% in 1989 and 12% in 1979."
A New Scientist Poll in 2002-Autumn showed that "55% of British public do not believe in a higher being." 9

A 2004 government report revealed that about 74% of adults in England and Wales regard themselves as Christians. Another approximately 6% identify with another religion. But only about 7% of Christians in the UK actually attend church regularly. Hanne Stinson, director of the British Humanist Association, said that many adults are "cultural Christians." They see themselves as being Christian in the same way that they are British, almost in a tribal way. She said: "People label themselves with what they were brought up with...If they haven't gone to church for 20 years, they still put themselves down on official forms as 'Church of England'." 11>

http://www.religioustolerance.org/uk_rel.htm

 

[andyandy]

Pathetic.

.

well, your arguments are pretty lame, but i wouldn't be so harsh on yourself

 

[onemind]

i know you are but what am i

 

[andyandy]

i know you are but what am i

and a new low is reached

i fear there may be an unholy triumvirate of yrreg, dustin and onemind forming......

 

[onemind]

holy? There is nothing holy about yet another chimapanzee talking out of his ass

 

[Lonewulf]

Get a room, you two.

 

[andyandy]

Get a room, you two.

it's a fitting end to this travesty of a thread....

 

[Ryokan]

Personally, I feel this thread went haywire by the second page, and wasn't going to bother replying any more. However, I see Yrreg has been talking about me, so felt I had to respond.

If you had read all my posts attentively here and specially in the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, and also elsewhere, then you would call yourself an Yrregist or a Pachomist or a Susmist, etc.....

Huh? I did read all your posts both on this board and IIDB. You should know, I quoted your IIDB posts several times.

....because what you have acquired associating with your banned sect of Buddhism, banned in the E-Sangha, you could have learned from me by osmosis.

My banned what? What on earth are you talking about?

At least I succeeded in convincing you to forgo your slate of Resident Buddhist previously coming after your name in every message you wrote.

You think you made me change it? I changed it just because I felt like a new one. I think I'll change it back, just to spite you

"No mean feat" like getting myself banned from the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I don't see how that's related to anything, but okay.

Between Ryokan and Dancing David, Ryokan seems to be postgraduating from his summer of infatuation with Buddhism; but with Dancing David, he is the bigoted funadmentalist equivalent Buddhist.​

You're still making up stuff about me, I see. I'm no less a Buddhist today than I was when you first arrived here. Heh.

From the first moment when I met you here, I had been telling you that you don't have to label yourself Buddhist in order to observe the timesless, immemorial, humanistic, wisdom teachings of civilized mankind, predating Buddha. and will be with us to the day against those teachings mankind destroys itself.

Just say you accept and seek to observe the best teachings of the sages of all ages even before Buddha came alone and tied up those teachings he borrowed with his kind of Nirvana, and according to some of his socalled followers, with the inutile concept of no-self.


Okay, tell me Ryokan, if you just know a little history of human wisdom, what is so proprietary with Gautama of the four noble truths? If any makes sense, it belongs to common wisdom of civilized mankind even before Buddha; if any makes for nonsense, it is proprietary with Buddha or ascribed to Buddha by his socalled followers.


Calling yourself Buddhist is just associating yourself with primitive superstitions; better cal yourself an ethical humanist or ethical rationalist.

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Why does it matter what I call myself? It doesn't change one bit what I believe.

You've made the claim that Buddha's teaching predates him many times, but have so far never provided any evidence, although you've been asked to do so many times.

Will you do so now?

My last and only request in this thread is that Yrreg stop making up stuff about me. It's called lying, and I don't like it.​

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin - stop lying!


You responded to this post





and then you boast to david....



How was he not claiming it was a form of dyslexia? How did you not read it? You quoted it in your response!

And for your information, as has already been pointed out, English is a difficult language for dyslexia sufferers because of its archaic ad-hoc spelling rules...hence it's perfectly acceptable for dyslexia sufferers to point to that fact as one of the reasons for their spelling mistakes.

please STOP LYING!

You missed my entire point. Allow me to repeat myself. 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.

 

[Lonewulf]

You missed my entire point. Allow me to repeat myself. When I post I read the posts in the order they are posted and respond to them that way.

You also hallucinate people responding to you when they didn't.

Then you run around and call everyone liars when they correct you.

Ah, fun times, fun times.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So did they call Frey LORD or Freya LADY?

Geez, I thought you could think for yourself.

Neither. "Lord" and "Lady" are English words.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Excuse me? In response to my post, Dancing David thanked me. I got it right. I comprehended his posts. Taffer did as well. Along with others. You are the sole complainer about the quality of Dancing David's posts.

Except I question whether even HE comprehends his own posts.

So you really think that all Buddhists follow unjustifiable dogma? Wow.

That's what I've been saying.

Funny, you leave out the second half:

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

That "give the most meaning" to Buddhism? How subjective is that?

They provide the basis for the rest of Buddhism, they provide the purpose and method for following Buddhism.

Says who? "Most people"?

Read.

Elaborate.

Sigh. Have you already forgotten your novice misunderstandings? You talked about physical pain being a cause of suffering, not desire. But physical pain doesn't have to lead to suffering, and suffering means more than feeling a physical pain. Auto-erotic asphyxiation is an example of a person being in physical pain, but far from suffering. Someone hasn't done they're homework...

Let's break it down into simple parts..

1. Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.
2. You brought up the example of "auto-erotic asphyxiation".
3. That isn't example of suffering being caused by an urge or desire.
4. Even assuming it is, a single example which doesn't jive with what Buddhism says about suffering in general.

I never claimed that physical pain is the cause of all suffering. Physical pain CAN be a cause of some sufferings though.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You also hallucinate people responding to you when they didn't.

Then you run around and call everyone liars when they correct you.

Ah, fun times, fun times.

And you fantasize about raping and torturing people.



I win.

 

[Lonewulf]

And you fantasize about raping and torturing people.

Actually, wrong. And now you begin your "losing chant": When you lose an argument, blow low.

I win.

Lol.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Actually, wrong. And now you begin your "losing chant": When you lose an argument, blow low.

I guess that whole "I fantasize about raping people" thread has slipped your mind? How convenient. Fortunately I know it's link.

 

[Lonewulf]

I guess that whole "I fantasize about raping people" thread has slipped your mind? How convenient. Fortunately I know it's link.

Good. Quote exactly where I stated, clearly and without you jumping to conclusions, that I fantasized about raping and torturing other people.

I know what fetishes I do and do not have. As do some members on this forum, which I trusted with that information; the same ones that laughed in your face. Your leaping to conclusions and bringing it up on a thread about Buddhism is amusing.

Oh, and just in case anyone here actually cares, the thread is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77708

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Good. Quote exactly where I stated, clearly and without you jumping to conclusions, that I fantasized about raping and torturing other people.

No. You've always been weaselly about your 'fantasies' however you clearly implied you had fantasies about rape and torture.

I know what fetishes I do and do not have.

So stop lying.

As do some members on this forum, which I trusted with that information; the same ones that laughed in your face.

No one laughed in my face.

Your leaping to conclusions and bringing it up on a thread about Buddhism is amusing.

You're the one who started with the off subject personal accusations. Now you criticize me for attacking your sick fantasies?

 

[Lonewulf]

No. You've always been weaselly about your 'fantasies' however you clearly implied you had fantasies about rape and torture.

Your link only links to the thread in general. I already linked it; but it doesn't matter in the end.

So stop lying.

I'm not. If I said anything, it would be that I have fetishes that involve certain things. I never was specific.

So tell me, Dustin, since you obviously know what my fetishes are: Be specific. Who is the victim, usually, in my fantasies? What is the preferred method of... whatever it is you think? Is the other male or female?

You know so much; I'm curious my own self what my fantasies are.

No one laughed in my face.

Guess you didn't notice, then. Oh well.

You're the one who started with the off subject personal accusations. Now you criticize me for attacking your sick fantasies?

Right, I mean...

The post you claimed I was responding was outside of this thread, into a thread all on its own, and was TOTALLY out of the blue.

No, wait.

Tu quoque: A fallacy of battling egos. How the hell do you walk with a bloated ego like your own?

"LOL YOU HAVE FANTASIES I WIN LOL!"

Man. You lost, fully and completely.

 

[andyandy]

You missed my entire point. Allow me to repeat myself. 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.

goodness, you seem to have a pathological tendency to lie

you quoted his flipping comment in your reply!

I just learned today that it is a form of dyslexia! He didn't tell me that.

It sounds to me that you're making it up as you go along.
I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?

Spin that web of lies dustin! Spin Spin away!