The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[Tsukasa Buddha]

These are basically synonymous.



Source?




Synonymous with 1st definition.



Synonymous with 1st definition.



Source?



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



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



Read it. See above.



Have done plenty.

The dictionary is not the God that commands that a word can only possess the sole definition that exists within its print.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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.

Some of what is in the Gospels probably came from the historical Jesus.

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.

There's a lot to hate about religion.

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.

And I'm pointing out how it's fallacious to follow Buddhism as much as it is fallacious to follow the Torah or the Koran.

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?

Why call yourself a "Buddhist"?

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.

But how are you still a "Buddhist" if you get to pick and choose what to follow and what not to? Am I automatically a Christian if I agree with a few things Jesus said? Of course not. No one with any sense would claim such a thing. I'm an Atheist. Simply because I agree with Jesus on a few things doesn't make me a christian anymore than you agreeing with a few things in a few buddhist texts makes you a "Buddhist".

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The dictionary is not the God that commands that a word can only possess the sole definition that exists within its print.

The people who author dictionaries are the people who get paid to seek out the common definitions for words and add them. That's what they do and there are dozens of independent dictionaries who all do the same thing. They are the most reliable sources for defining words.

 

[Taffer]

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

Why, because you say so?

What?

Sarcasm, Dustin, sarcasm.

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.

My god you are a self righteous arse. You are now claiming to know what I understood or didn't? You are now claiming that I am lying when I tell you I understood his post? Get over yourself you twit.

 

[onemind]

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

For the last time, i am addressing the buddhist sects that friggin do so stop being a pedantic pain in the ass. Just because some buddhist sects dont doesnt write off the entire deabte. It is rather convenient for people to just cherry pick from the pali canon the bits their warped sectarian cult chooses to believe.

Science is buddhism, islam is another form of buddhism and so is christianity to any nut that likes playing word games.

 

[Taffer]

For the last time, i am addressing the buddhist sects that friggin do so stop being a pedantic pain in the ass. Just because some buddhist sects dont doesnt write off the entire deabte. It is rather convenient for people to just cherry pick from the pali canon the bits their warped sectarian cult chooses to believe.

No, you are making the argument against those who do believe it to be the literal truth, and then blanketing the argument to all Buddhists.

Science is buddhism, islam is another form of buddhism and so is christianity to any nut that likes playing word games.

No, it isn't.

ETA: Heh, just had it pointed out to me. "Nobel Truths". Nobel prize winner Buddhists!

 

[onemind]

No, it isn't

It is if i say it is so please dont exclude my sect in blanket generalisations. My sect believes the great buddha was a master of quantum physics as shown in earlier suttas that aren't in the pali canon but found in a secret dragon cave in the 3rd century.

 

[Taffer]

It is if i say it is so please dont exclude my sect in blanket generalisations. My sect believes the great buddha was a master of quantum physics as shown in earlier suttas that aren't in the pali canon but found in a secret dragon cave in the 3rd century.

Ah, an argument by sarcasm. Good one.

(See what I just did there? )

 

[Solus]

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.

Makes you sound like a prick though when David mentions he has a learning disability. Show at least some empathy even if you think the guy is wrong about everything else.

 

[andyandy]

These are basically synonymous.
Source?
Synonymous with 1st definition.
Synonymous with 1st definition.
Source?

Good grief you're an absolute moron.

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

more moronic drivel. Something can only be said to be defined absolutely if the definition incorporates all describing elements.

Read it.

Have done plenty

If you have read on this topic and are still so woefully ignorant on it, then there is no hope for you - you must just be plain stupid.

I've reached the limit with you dustin. You're an absolute fool.

 

[Solus]

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.

No, although more suffering than you I'd be willing to guess.

This discussion is not about Abrahamic religions it is it about Buddhism... I wanted to end MY suffering. The idea with Buddhism is that all suffering can end if you follow the eightfold path which will lead to the end for desire which causes suffering. The problem is all the woo attached to it. So I went with with no religion on my part, when I was younger I read about it though.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Makes you sound like a prick though when David mentions he has a learning disability. Show at least some empathy even if you think the guy is wrong about everything else.

You're clearly the one with a learning disability!

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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2650333&postcount=164

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Good grief you're an absolute moron.

Ignore my comments, Childishly insult me, Yet I'm the moron?

more moronic drivel. Something can only be said to be defined absolutely if the definition incorporates all describing elements.

No. "Definition" is defined as stating the essential nature of things. You don't need to describe every aspect of a thing to adequately define it.

If you have read on this topic and are still so woefully ignorant on it, then there is no hope for you - you must just be plain stupid.

I've reached the limit with you dustin. You're an absolute fool.

Grow up.
Learn to type.
Learn to spell.
Learn to properly debate.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, although more suffering than you I'd be willing to guess.

This discussion is not about Abrahamic religions it is it about Buddhism... I wanted to end MY suffering. The idea with Buddhism is that all suffering can end if you follow the eightfold path which will lead to the end for desire which causes suffering. The problem is all the woo attached to it. So I went with with no religion on my part, when I was younger I read about it though.

Except you can't end suffering simply by following a few rules. If only life were that easy. In reality suffering is caused by a numerous things opposed to simply "urge" or "desire". In reality to end suffering you must work hard on all fronts to counter the endless causes of suffering and following a few rules won't cut it. This is the problem with religion, it trues to simplify life and attempts to compartmentalize it into simplistic explanations.

 

[Solus]

Dustin, go back to your old avatar the holocaust denier David Irving. I think we can all agree that suits your mindset better. Godwin... I perfer godlose but whatever.

 

[Lonewulf]

Ignore my comments, Childishly insult me, Yet I'm the moron?

Yes.

No. "Definition" is defined as stating the essential nature of things. You don't need to describe every aspect of a thing to adequately define it.

Wrong.

Grow up.

You first.

Learn to properly debate.

You first.

 

[andyandy]

The people who author dictionaries are the people who get paid to seek out the common definitions for words and add them. That's what they do and there are dozens of independent dictionaries who all do the same thing. They are the most reliable sources for defining words.

When are you going to grow out of your dictionary fetish? Just because you can find "God" in a dictionary doesn't mean you've proved an absolute definition of the term. Do you think that all the monothestics in the world are suddenly going to have your epihany -

Greek Orthodox A "hey look - there's an absolute definition of what God is in this Princetown dictionary!"

Evangelical B "really? And we were all busy looking at the bible....."

Shiia C "and the Koran....."

Orthodox Jew D "and the torah...."

Sunni E "when all the time...."

Roman Catholic F "the answer..."

Kaballah G "was right here!"

Mormon H "silly us!"

Protestant I "Well, isn't dustin clever? How about we all worship him instead?"

All "Yes let's!"

 

[Lonewulf]

When are you going to grow out of your dictionary fetish? Just because you can find "God" in a dictionary doesn't mean you've proved an absolute definition of the term. Do you think that all the monothestics in the world are suddenly going to have your epihany -

Greek Orthodox A "hey look - there's an absolute definition of what God is in this Princetown dictionary!"

Evangelical B "really? And we were all busy looking at the bible....."

Shiia C "and the Koran....."

Orthodox Jew D "and the torah...."

Sunni E "when all the time...."

Roman Catholic F "the answer..."

Kaballah G "was right here!"

Mormon H "silly us!"

Protestant I "Well, isn't dustin clever? How about we all worship him instead?"

All "Yes let's!"

Well said, orangutang, well said.

 

[andyandy]

I'm the moron?

yes you are.

No. "Definition" is defined as stating the essential nature of things. You don't need to describe every aspect of a thing to adequately define it.

so your absolute definition isn't absolute? LOL

Grow up.
Learn to type.
Learn to spell.
Learn to properly debate.

 

[Solus]

You're clearly the one with a learning disability!

Ad hominems, boring.

You evaded the serious comments that I made. Believe me that I rarely make serious comments in such threads. Well you're just entertainment, and someday maybe you'll realize what you are.