The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[onemind]

and on it goes..

 

[Lonewulf]

and on it goes..

You don't have to stay here, you know, if you dislike it so much.

 

[onemind]

I was hoping it would regain civility and get back on topic.

 

[Lonewulf]

I was hoping it would regain civility and get back on topic.

Examples of "civility":

I think that is the end of my buddhist debating days. Circular logic and dogmatised sheep tripping on lables. Who can be bothered?.

I'm the queen of england.

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

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.

ts like watctching a bunch of retards trying to **** a door knob.

If the thread's degenerated, you shouldn't blame everyone but yourself. Not that the blame rests entirely on you; I mean, Dustin's in the thread too, and most threads involving him degenerate. Yrreg too.

Now, don't get me wrong, you were perfectly fine towards the beginning of the debate. That's good and all. But it's rather hypocritical to demand civility of others while degenerating towards a lack of civility when you encounter disagreement.

 

[onemind]

Those comments were in response to the degenerated thread.

I wouldnt blame dustin or Yrreg. You guys have demonised them enough because you cant counter their very valid arguments.

 

[Lonewulf]

Those comments were in response to the degenerated thread.

So you went with the flow, then complain that it got that way. Hypocrisy still.

I wouldnt blame dustin or Yrreg. You guys have demonised them enough because you cant counter their very valid arguments.

I take it you're new to the forum?

 

[andyandy]

Those comments were in response to the degenerated thread.

I wouldnt blame dustin or Yrreg. You guys have demonised them enough because you cant counter their very valid arguments.

*sigh*

considering you've taken the time to create your own anti-Buddhism website, you do seem to have remarkably little to say on the subject.

If you wish to create a Buddhism straw man, where you get to dictate exactly what a Buddhist does and does not believe, and choose for your straw man certain beliefs that some people who regard themselves as Buddhists subscribe to, then it is perfectly possible to be rather critical of Buddhism. This is all you have been able to do - and if this was all you intended to impress people with through your website, then i am quite disapointed in the shallowness of the debate.

 

[andyandy]

I take it you're new to the forum?

 

[onemind]

If you wish to create a Buddhism straw man, where you get to dictate exactly what a Buddhist does and does not believe, and choose for your straw man certain beliefs that some people who regard themselves as Buddhists subscribe to, then it is perfectly possible to be rather critical of Buddhism.

Ok, fair argument and i will try give an answer in a civil way to see if we cant have a decent discussion.

I keep hearing that i am making this strawman out of buddhism but i completely disagree. I have discussed the core tenents from most of the mainstream buddhist teachings. To all buddhists that believe in rebirth, nibbana and karma my arguments are valid.

Then you say, what about all the other buddhist sects that practice meditation and understand the unsatisfactory impermanent nature of life but dont believe in rebirth karma and nibbana. I have dealt with this group by arguing as to why this group would label themselves buddhist in the first place and be grouped in by non buddhists and associated with the mainstream rebirth believers.

All i have heard is a defence of the label "buddhism". This label has become meaningless that you need to clarify it further by naming your sect and school of buddhism. It is fair to say that a large percentage of buddhists belong to schools that believe in rebirth, nibbana and karma, and the rest are either agnostic about it, dont believe it or have alternative definitions for the words and claim they are metaphors for different concepts.

Where is the straw man? I have dealt with the label "buddhism" and its various interpretations of the word.

If you would like to discuss why I am wrong i would love to hear it, i dont want to hear that i am a bigoted troll nooby.

 

[yrreg]

Broad perspectives on Buddhism,

Well, I have gone through all the messages of this thread, "The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site."


Allow me to invite everyone and guests to this thread to dwell on the following points which I believe will enable people to know the big perspectives on Buddhism, so as to realize whether it is anything that will be of any serious interest to yourselves as the heirs in this modern world of ours.

1. First, Buddhism is a world-view on man; so, our immediate question then is who is the source of this world-view for man?

2. According to Buddhist doctrinaires, Gautama himself a man is the source of this world-view for man; our next question is whether being the source, Gautama is a discoverer or an author of this world-view for man?

3. That distinction between a discoverer and an author, that is a very crucially important key as we shall see, to the genuinely valid appreciation and evaluation of Buddhism as a world-view.

4. Buddhist doctrinaires I presume would insist that Gautama is not only the author but essentially the discoverer of this world-view for man. But that answer is only good for Buddhists who believe in Gautama and in Buddhism as propounded by Buddhist doctrinaires; outsiders are not under any obligation of faith to accept and maintain and defend this kind of a position.

6. For outsiders like us skeptics who are not Buddhists -- and I for one is of the strongly held opinion that Buddhists cannot be complete and integrative cultivators of scientific and rational skepticism, we are not under any self-imposed indenture from faith to hold that Gautama is the discoverer of this world-view which is called Buddhism.

5. What then is Gautama, if not the discoverer of this world-view? I for one maintain that he is just an author, not a discoverer of this world-view called Buddhism; that's in the domain of ideas to which world-views belong; in the domain of contrivances or gadgets we call such a person an inventor.

6. For an illustration of the difference between a discoverer and an author, consider that Copernicus is the (re)discoverer of the sun being at the center of the what we call now the solar system (heliocentrism), while Karl Marx is the author of Marxism.

7. What is so significant about the distinction that Gautama is the author but not the discoverer of Buddhism? Simply this fact, that Gautama lived in circa 563-483 BCE when man did not know anything about the origin of man, except that in his times and climes with Gautama, it was the common opinion of people like himself to believe fallaciously that man has always existed into a past that had no beginning because it is infinitely receding -- which took care of the troubling question where does man come from;

8. but man would come to an end in the future in some kind of Hindu eschatology or end time when man would be submerged into Brahma, or for Gautama and his followers who were innovators to Hinduism, man will be extinct -- and paradoxically that is good for man because when he is no more, then he is liberated from suffering.​

So, now you know the broad perspectives of Buddhism, how do you like to have a mind and heart that is ruled by this kind of a world-view that appeared some 2,500 years ago when plants were not known to be like man and animals, with also sexual organs and sexual operation for reproduction of their own kinds?


Think about that.



Yrreg

 

[Lonewulf]

If you would like to discuss why I am wrong i would love to hear it, i dont want to hear that i am a bigoted troll nooby.

Oh, be fair. I'd never use the word "nooby".

Anyways, I'm neutral as far as buddhism goes. I'm afraid I haven't studied the subject in detail.

 

[andyandy]

Then you say, what about all the other buddhist sects that practice meditation and understand the unsatisfactory impermanent nature of life but dont believe in rebirth karma and nibbana. I have dealt with this group by arguing as to why this group would label themselves buddhist in the first place and be grouped in by non buddhists and associated with the mainstream rebirth believers..

quite - your argument boils down to telling people that they're not true Buddhists. It's a true Scotsman fallacy - and as is so often the case, the person making the argument sets themselves up as the absolute arbiter of what is and what is not. You can understand why this stance comes across as rather arrogant I'm sure.

 

[Lonewulf]

quite - your argument boils down to telling people that they're not true Buddhists. It's a true Scotsman fallacy - and as is so often the case, the person making the argument sets themselves up as the absolute arbiter of what is and what is not. You can understand why this stance comes across as rather arrogant I'm sure.

Well, hold up a second. Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ? Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the afterlife, or in the bible, or in any source that is really necessary? There is some relevance to his point; if you change a philosophy or ideology or religion around enough, claiming that you subscribe to that philosophy or ideology or religion becomes meaningless.

I mean, if I claim that I like pool, and pool is defined as football, that generates confusion.

If 2 people believe something other than mainstream, and a million others believe in something with fundamentals to that belief, is it not better to criticize the millions of others? Though it would be easier to criticize the 2.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Elaborate.

Read.

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.

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...

 

[onemind]

Well, hold up a second. Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ? Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the afterlife, or in the bible, or in any source that is really necessary? There is some relevance to his point; if you change a philosophy or ideology or religion around enough, claiming that you subscribe to that philosophy or ideology or religion becomes meaningless.

I mean, if I claim that I like pool, and pool is defined as football, that generates confusion.

If 2 people believe something other than mainstream, and a million others believe in something with fundamentals to that belief, is it not better to criticize the millions of others? Though it would be easier to criticize the 2.

Exactly

Their only defence of buddhism is this strawman scotsman bs as though it some how makes buddhism exempt from critisism. It really is a convienient argument you have developed. Never have to put your name to anything.

I think i have covered the 3 possibilites of buddhism. Superstitious buddhism, agnostic buddhism and no faith philisophical buddhists and i think i have a valid argument for all 3 groups.

All you have is your own strawman argument to hide behind.

 

[onemind]

I mean really Tsukasa Buddha, was it neccessary to take us down that track again?

 

[andyandy]

Well, hold up a second. Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ? Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the afterlife, or in the bible, or in any source that is really necessary? There is some relevance to his point; if you change a philosophy or ideology or religion around enough, claiming that you subscribe to that philosophy or ideology or religion becomes meaningless.

I mean, if I claim that I like pool, and pool is defined as football, that generates confusion.

If 2 people believe something other than mainstream, and a million others believe in something with fundamentals to that belief, is it not better to criticize the millions of others? Though it would be easier to criticize the 2.

well you can call yourself anything you like - in the UK we have a rather large proportion of "Cultural Christians" - people who'll answer their religion as "Christian" and yet will also profess no belief in God - it plays havoc with extrapolations of census data [i'll see if i can dig up some stats...]

but leaving that to one side, buddhists study and follow the Buddha's teachings - these teachings are much less dogmatic than the monothestic religions' texts - and so it's truly much harder to delineate "Buddhist" from "non-Buddhist" than would be the case say "Christian" from "non-Christian." Indeed, the only common thread really is a general acceptance of some of the teachings of Buddha - and as such, this should be sufficient {IMO} to label oneself [if one chooses] as a Buddhist.

 

[Lonewulf]

well you can call yourself anything you like - in the UK we have a rather large proportion of "Cultural Christians" - people who'll answer their religion as "Christian" and yet will also profess no belief in God - it plays havoc with extrapolations of census data [i'll see if i can dig up some stats...]

Yeah, but should I always keep them in mind when debunking major religions?

but leaving that to one side, buddhists study and follow the Buddha's teachings - these teachings are much less dogmatic than the monothestic religions' texts - and so it's truly much harder to delineate "Buddhist" from "non-Buddhist" than would be the case say "Christian" from "non-Christian." Indeed, the only common thread really is a general acceptance of some of the teachings of Buddha - and as such, this should be sufficient {IMO} to label oneself [if one chooses] as a Buddhist.

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

 

[onemind]

Indeed, the only common thread really is a general acceptance of some of the teachings of Buddha - and as such, this should be sufficient {IMO} to label oneself [if one chooses] as a Buddhist.

And that is just one of the many things i am critisising about buddhism. The cherry picker argument. There is no strawman, my critisims include every possibility of the label buddhist so enough with the defining scotsman bs and give me valid reasons for the label.

 

[andyandy]

Exactly

Their only defence of buddhism is this strawman scotsman bs as though it some how makes buddhism exempt from critisism. It really is a convienient argument you have developed. Never have to put your name to anything.

I think i have covered the 3 possibilites of buddhism. Superstitious buddhism, agnostic buddhism and no faith philisophical buddhists and i think i have a valid argument for all 3 groups.

All you have is your own strawman argument to hide behind.

your "valid argument" seems to consist of

"that's not what i think Buddhism is!"

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