The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

I don't see how it can't make sense, though. Even though you said, several post back that you didn't care to discuss Buddhism further, could you elaborate on this? I'm actually quite interested to know.
Click to expand...

There is an article on my website called "Agnostic Buddhism" on the "Articles" menu.
 
andyandy said:
whenever we use terms like "god," "moral," "ethic," "quite," "heap," "evil" etc etc. we can not rely upon any generic, absolute value. This comes up time and time and time again in your posting. How can you still not understand this? The world does not revolve around you. You are not an absolute arbiter of what is and what isn't. Most people grow out of this egocentric concept around the age of 3. I wonder when you will.
Click to expand...

You're making no sense. "Generic absolute value"? We can define "God" pretty easily.

God-[SIZE=-1]the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.[/SIZE]



andyandy said:
dancingdavid provided you with a perfectly adequate summary. You are an absolute waste of time dustin - you come across as an ignorant adolescent struggling to justify his own delusions of grandeur. It's quite sad.
Click to expand...

I refuted his summary just like I refuted (what I understood of) his initial post.
 
onemind said:
Its like being a gay homophobe.
Click to expand...

What, you mean like Ted Haggard? :p

onemind said:
The first noble truth is that life is unsatisfactory but you like existence so you havent even grasped the basics. The cycle of rebirth is not seen as a good thing by buddhists and the whole idea of being buddhist is to follow the eightfold path out of the cycle.
Click to expand...

The first noble truth says that there is suffering, but it doesn't say that that is all there is. Sure, there i suffering in my life, but I've learned to cope with it. The Four Noble Truths has been helpful in that.

I'm still not ready to take that big step to embrace the dhamma as a bhikku. Maybe I cling to much to the life I have, and the things in it? I told you I was a fool. But does that make me a non-Buddhist?
 
onemind said:
Interesting discussion but i skimmed most of it because my forum has over 400 topics in the past 4 days with the same buddhist definition mess. All buddhist debates are the same, semantics, historical misreferences, poorly defined intersectarian contradictions. Its so tedious and pointless.
Click to expand...

Oh yea. I just saw and you're being flooded! I wonder where all those "Buddhists" came from?
 
onemind said:
There is an article on my website called "Agnostic Buddhism" on the "Articles" menu.
Click to expand...

Ah, I did read that. Agnosticism (usually, at least) refers to knowledge about gods, so in this sense you can absolutely have agnostic Buddhism.

But I take it you rather mean if Buddhism is stripped of everything supernatural?

Well, the Four Noble Truths would remain, at least. And far from all the suttas contain anything supernatural, the Kalama Sutta for one.

Dustin Kesselberg said:
....a bit more to being a Buddhist than following simply the 4 noble truths.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems both onemind and Dustin wants to strip away my label as Buddhist.

Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
You're making no sense. "Generic absolute value"? We can define "God" pretty easily.

God-[SIZE=-1]the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

been on dictionary.com again? :)

"god" is an infinite set comprising of any subjective interpretations of the term - such are the inherent contradictions within such a framework to talk in generic terms of "god" is essentially meaningless. Even within your narrowly chosen Abrahamic monothestic framework there is sufficient disagreement with just about every term you provide to render your definition a subjective one.
 
Last edited:
Ryokan said:
Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?
Click to expand...

You need dustin, arbiter of all that is and is not to say that it is so. For once he has spake, it is true and all men in their hearts shall know it. :)
 
andyandy said:
You need dustin, arbiter of all that is and is not to say that it is so. For once he has spake, it is true and all men in their hearts shall know it. :)
Click to expand...

I'll hold my breath while waiting for his ruling, then :D
 
Hello all :D ! I've seemed to have missed out here! Let's see...

Dancing David attempted to answer all of your questions, Dustin. However, you interjected a lot of childish, worthless comments. I understand him perfectly, so I don't think the issue is with him :p . Let me attempt your challenge...

(Note, proper wording not used to make it easier to understand, and because I'm cool like that)

Ahem, a long time ago, in a peninsula far far away... There was (allegedly) a cool dude who we call Buddha. We got our first edition Buddha Bible about five hundred years after his death, which was based upon an oral tradition. This is the most largely recognized text. Over the next centuries a few more sects rose up along with some extra-biblical gospels.

With this in mind, one must realize that it would be very difficult (nigh-impossible) to find the exact, precise, original teachings of the Buddha. Keeping this in mind, we consider all the gospels to be "the teachings of the Buddha." There are a wide variety of beliefs among Buddhists. Generally, one can be considered a "Buddhist" if they follow the four truths and the eightfold path of coolness. In doing so, they are following "the teachings of the Buddha."

Ta da :D ! What do ya think?

Oh, and Ryokan, so you are Theravada? Could you briefly detail your views on Rebirth and Karma?
 
Dancing David said:
So? as you sated repeatedly and most foolishly?

iI that an argument, does that demonstrate what? that you can think for yourself?
Or when asked to confirm that Xians fought over the issue of jesus and the possesion of a purse, you ask to be spoon fed. Or when someone asks how you would determine what might be the look of an original source from seperate sources two thousand years later and you ask to be spoon fed, that demonstartes what?

I'm afraid I don't understand a single thing you've just said. But I don't believe you ever answered my question.

That you can't think for yourself? that you are lazy? that you have no ability to frame a coherent argument other than one of doubt?

[poor attempt at humor]

I am King Dustin! I say that you must use words the way that i say they must be used. Otherwise I shall smite thee with the Sword of Unmeaningful and I shall defend myself with the Shield of Circular Logic. Ishall not create my own coherent arguments nor shall I defend my statements with evidence, nor shall I respond to direct questions.

I give unto you the word of my followers and it is BAA, you must be sheep and you must conform to all that I say. I need not explain myself , nor shall I defend my arguments. Thou shalt obey King Dustin because I am King and I have told you BAA.
[/poor attempt at humor]

Some words have more than one meaning dude, language is a fluid set of self referencing symbols. You need to ponder more deeply upon the nature of words and social interaction.
Xians and Muslims are dogmatic, not all 'religions' are. Some are rather disorganised in fact.

You are small minded because you insist that that people conform to your preconcieved notions. I am not sure why you are bigot. maybe you are, maybe you aren't.

When you can answer a direct question then I will believe you.

especialy when you are so clueless as to respond So? to a statement of fact.

What is the eightfold path?

If I state a historical fact of history it will contradict itself.

Show where I contradicted myself, show me my errors and I shall learn.

Point out the flaws that i may learn, show me where it is incoherent. Or is it your false expectation that people will fall into a neat little box at your convinience? I stated what the different views are on the teachings of the buddha, get over it.


Right back at ya, with a big :)
Click to expand...


I'm done responding to you until you either learn English or get a spell checker and spend more time thinking about what you're going to type and copy editing it before you post it. I can't spend the time deciphering your gibberish just to encounter your blatant contradictions and inconsistencies.
 
Dancing David said:
Those actualy are typing errors, they are not spelling errors, those I need to watch out for.
I can not spell because of the goofy archaic nature of the english language. It doesn't help because I have dysphonia and have to memorise all the words. i usualy mispell Thier and Friend.

thanks for the support!

You are much more patient than I.
Click to expand...

English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem. When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.
 
andyandy said:
been on dictionary.com again? :)

"god" is an infinite set comprising of any subjective interpretations of the term - such are the inherent contradictions within such a framework to talk in generic terms of "god" is essentially meaningless. Even within your narrowly chosen Abrahamic monothestic framework there is sufficient disagreement with just about every term you provide to render your definition a subjective one.
Click to expand...

You're confusing "God" with "god". The first starting with a capital "G" the latter not. "God" with a capital "G" is the monotheistic God of Abraham. "god" with a lower case "g" is any number of male deities.
 
Ryokan said:
Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?
Click to expand...

You follow the 4 noble truths and the 3 Jewels? A few questions...

  1. Why not the eight-fold path? You must follow the eight-fold path to actually follow the 4 noble truths since the 4th noble truth leads to the eight-fold path.
  2. Why not acknowledge Śīla?
  3. The 3rd noble truth says that "craving" is the cause of "suffering". Really? Tell me, if I am bitten by a bear in the leg and am suffering, explain how "craving" causes this suffering. My pain receptors are sending signals to my brain telling me that I am injured. I will feel pain whether I crave to or not to feel the pain. Explain how "craving" causes this suffering.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Dancing David attempted to answer all of your questions, Dustin. However, you interjected a lot of childish, worthless comments.


I understand him perfectly, so I don't think the issue is with him :p . Let me attempt your challenge...
Click to expand...

Let's see...


Tsukasa Buddha said:
Ahem, a long time ago, in a peninsula far far away... There was (allegedly) a cool dude who we call Buddha. We got our first edition Buddha Bible about five hundred years after his death, which was based upon an oral tradition. This is the most largely recognized text. Over the next centuries a few more sects rose up along with some extra-biblical gospels.

With this in mind, one must realize that it would be very difficult (nigh-impossible) to find the exact, precise, original teachings of the Buddha. Keeping this in mind, we consider all the gospels to be "the teachings of the Buddha." There are a wide variety of beliefs among Buddhists. Generally, one can be considered a "Buddhist" if they follow the four truths and the eightfold path of coolness. In doing so, they are following "the teachings of the Buddha."
Click to expand...

Firstly, You claim that it would be impossible to find the original teachings of the Buddha yet "we"(whoever 'we' is) considers all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha? Ok. Who is "We" and why do "we" consider all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha when they can't be proven to be?

Secondly, You claim that one can be a "Buddhist" if they follow the 4 truths and 8fold path? What about other teachings including the 10 unwholesome actions, Prajñā and Śīla or possibly including Patimokkha or 10 precepts?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem. When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

i can understand it fine. Maybe you're the one with the problem.
 
There's nothing wrong with Buddhism, you just don't know the genuine Buddhism.

For the dolid gold, pure, unadulterated, free from all kinds of woo, Buddhism, as intended by Gautama himself except that he accommodated his true, real, inerrant, timeless Buddhism to suit the times and climes of his contemporary followers, there is nothing wrong.

Who know the true, real, genuine, authentic Buddhism as intended by Gautama, but for his condescending adaptations to the infantilistic minds of his original followers?

Ask the Buddhists here like Ryokan and Dancing David and others, who are purebred skeptics and at the same time proud to wear the registered trademark of Buddhism, they are the ones who know the eternally valid teachings of Buddha and his precepts, minus his adjustments to his contemporaries who were not possessed of skeptical ideology founded upon critical thinking and empirical evidence.


Yrreg
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
You're confusing "God" with "god". The first starting with a capital "G" the latter not. "God" with a capital "G" is the monotheistic God of Abraham. "god" with a lower case "g" is any number of male deities.
Click to expand...

within my post i granted you the narrow constraints of the Abrahamic monothestic god which you wish to provide an absolute value for. And yet even this given definition is insufficient for a generic term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom