The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[nosho]

You mean in your expositon of the eightfold path of the Gautama, that what he displays per your exposition, to be right or healthy, if they be workable they had not been known to the intellignet life form that is man until Gautama came along?


Go over them again and see whether there is anything right or healthy for mankind and not known to mankind until Gautama came along. Hint: Gautama did not learn anything about right and healthful living from his parents and forebears and contemporaries until he went into long years of meditation and came up with them?


Yrreg

The Tathagata did not teach Buddhism or any other "-ism." And of course the teaching and the practice did not originate with a man named Gotama.

We're all walking the eightfold path in our own ways. But for most of us at least part of the time, that walk could be described as the ignoble eightfold path that leads to endarkenment. Because we screw it up so consistently and cause ourselves and others more and more suffering without even realizing what we're doing.

There's a story about a man mortally shot with an arrow in the woods. He's dying, but he wants to know, who shot me? Why did he shoot me? Which way did he run? Completely irrelevant questions, because he's ignoring the most important one: How do I avoid bleeding to death?

It makes no difference whether Gotama came up with a unique new worldview.

 

[Taffer]

No

You expect to get anywhere in a discussion inwhich you bitch and complain when people don't agree with you?

 

[onemind]

Refer to image

 

[Taffer]

Refer to image

So then why did you engage in discourse in the first place?

 

[onemind]

Because it is a thread about my website.. I stopped talking about it once the topic changed to something not regarding my website.

 

[Taffer]

Because it is a thread about my website.. I stopped talking about it once the topic changed to something not regarding my website.

And yet you came back to throw flames and insults...

I wonder, why did you bother if you consider it pointless?

 

[onemind]

Because i come back to check if anyone has started talking about the origanal topic and not your off topic nonsense.

 

[Taffer]

Because i come back to check if anyone has started talking about the origanal topic and not your off topic nonsense.

My off topic nonsense? Am I the only one who has pointed out that you are making a strawman argument when you "disprove" all of Buddhism?

Also, the discussion is very much on topic. You (and your site) make arguments against all of Buddhism which is a strawman. Are you going to comment on this?

 

[onemind]

I have already commented how i deal with the multifacited definition of buddhism on this thread several times. I will paste one such time below.

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.

So to summarise, there are 3 broad categories of buddhists and no, these categories are not generalisations as the are broad enough to incorporate everyone. The categories are those that claim supernatural teachings, those that deny all supernatural and those who are agnostic about the supernatural claims. My website deals with all three groups. Obviously my rebirth article does not deal with with group 2 however group 2 never replies to me and says "rebirth isnt part omy school" blah blah because they agree with the article in the first place and question me on how i deal with their group.

 

[Taffer]

I have already commented how i deal with the multifacited definition of buddhism on this thread several times. I will paste one such time below.

So your argument is "they're not really Buddhists"?

So to summarise, there are 3 broad categories of buddhists and no, these categories are not generalisations as the are broad enough to incorporate everyone. The categories are those that claim supernatural teachings, those that deny all supernatural and those who are agnostic about the supernatural claims. My website deals with all three groups. Obviously my rebirth article does not deal with with group 2 however group 2 never replies to me and says "rebirth isnt part omy school" blah blah because they agree with the article in the first place and question me on how i deal with their group.

What, exactly, is your exception to "group 2"?

 

[onemind]

So your argument is "they're not really Buddhists"?

No, my argument is on the foolishness of calling themselves buddhist. They are buddhist if they call themselves one but my argument is against their reason for doing so.

What, exactly, is your exception to "group 2"?

Zen is talked about extensively on my website. Non mystical buddhism, or coffee shop lifestyle buddhists as i like to call them have their own short comings.

You said on another thread that therevada does not believe rebirth and are not a minority sect. I agree that therevada is not a minority sect but the great irony is that i was a therevadin buddhist and can tell you that rebirth is more theravadin than scaming is to the dalai lama.

 

[Taffer]

No, my argument is on the foolishness of calling themselves buddhist. They are buddhist if they call themselves one but my argument is against their reason for doing so.

So they can't call themselves Buddhists...why? Because you say so?

Zen is talked about extensively on my website. Non mystical buddhism, or coffee shop lifestyle buddhists as i like to call them have their own short comings.

Would you might briefly outlining them?

You said on another thread that therevada does not believe rebirth and are not a minority sect. I agree that therevada is not a minority sect but the great irony is that i was a therevadin buddhist and can tell you that rebirth is more theravadin than scaming is to the dalai lama.

And yet they also promote critical thinking...?

 

[onemind]

So they can't call themselves Buddhists...why? Because you say so?

No, i am not stopping anyone from calling themselves buddhist and couldnt make them if i wanted. Why be so sensitive? Its just a label and buddhists have no attachments anyway. The zenners are wise enough to kill the buddha and realise its just a finger pointing at the moon. People who cling to the label dont even get what the label means.
I cant stop people calling theselves christian but it doesnt stop me from critisizing them for their blind faith.

Would you might briefly outlining them?

Its all on the site.

And yet they also promote critical thinking...?

Yes, they are big on critical thinking. The theravada stance is the "Kalama Sutta". I am sure you have seen the quote buddhists paste all over the place "Dont believe in scripture, dont believe teachers ect ect but find out for yourself." This is somewhat an agnostic approach however, mainstream theravadin abotts and teacher who pass themselves of as arahats or "Enlightened beings" teach rebirth and karma as very literal phenemena they supposedly accessed through direct experience in meditation.

Here in australia, the most famous theravadin monk is called Ajahn Brahm. He oradined at the age of 23 in thailand after completing a degree in theorhetical physics from cambridge university. This was in the 60s when cambridge still had high standards. He was in steven hawking's class and a few other famous scientists so he is no dummy. You can listen to his talks here: http://www.bswa.org/

As you can see, he teaches rebirth and karma as literal facts, not in a metaphorical sense. Therevada, which is the main religion of thailand is one of the most supernatural,uperstitious sects out even though it initially appears as the oldest living school of buddhism based on critical thinking.

Either rebirth is a fact, brahm is lying or he is deluded along with the bulk of the therevada school.

But you would already know this because you are a buddhist expert that can dictate wht i can and cant critisize.

 

[Taffer]

No, i am not stopping anyone from calling themselves buddhist and couldnt make them if i wanted. Why be so sensitive? Its just a label and buddhists have no attachments anyway. The zenners are wise enough to kill the buddha and realise its just a finger pointing at the moon. People who cling to the label dont even get what the label means.
I cant stop people calling theselves christian but it doesnt stop me from critisizing them for their blind faith.

You criticize Buddhists for their blind faith, and call them retards if they do not ascribe to the specific form of Buddhism you are criticizing.

Your criticisms, as far as I can tell, are meaningless unless one believes in the things you are criticizing.

Its all on the site.

Where, exactly?

Yes, they are big on critical thinking. The theravada stance is the "Kalama Sutta". I am sure you have seen the quote buddhists paste all over the place "Dont believe in scripture, dont believe teachers ect ect but find out for yourself." This is somewhat an agnostic approach however, mainstream theravadin abotts and teacher who pass themselves of as arahats or "Enlightened beings" teach rebirth and karma as very literal phenemena they supposedly accessed through direct experience in meditation.

Here in australia, the most famous theravadin monk is called Ajahn Brahm. He oradined at the age of 23 in thailand after completing a degree in theorhetical physics from cambridge university. This was in the 60s when cambridge still had high standards. He was in steven hawking's class and a few other famous scientists so he is no dummy. You can listen to his talks here: http://www.bswa.org/

As you can see, he teaches rebirth and karma as literal facts, not in a metaphorical sense. Therevada, which is the main religion of thailand is one of the most supernatural,uperstitious sects out even though it initially appears as the oldest living school of buddhism based on critical thinking.

Either rebirth is a fact, brahm is lying or he is deluded along with the bulk of the therevada school.

Fair enough.

But you would already know this because you are a buddhist expert that can dictate wht i can and cant critisize.

Care to point to where I said this?

 

[onemind]

I said that because you are critisizing my argument without knowing much about buddhism. Your whole point is about my generalisation and use of the word buddhism and not with the reality of buddhism in the modern world. You came to this thread with a self righteous, ultra politically correct mindset and pick on my points without being a buddhist yourself or even knowing much about what i am critisizing.

The reason buddhists dont use the strawman argument is because the bulk of them accept the teachings of rebirth, karma and nibbana as part of buddhism. The sects that dont reply to me with kind words saying they agree with me, kill the buddha and sign off with a zen koan.

You could argue that the other buddhists that dont believe these things dont even read my website but i disagree.

The bottom line is, as i have already pointed out is that the name of the website "The Buddha Was Wrong" is a cheeky marketing slogan and is really of minor importance as compared to my stance on buddhism.

I am no longer interested the strawman argument, if you would like to insist that my points are invalid because of the poor definition of buddhism then that is completely up to you. You have made your stance clear, i understand it, i disagree with it and do not wish to try and convince you otherwise. There really does not need to be another 10 pages about the superficial title of my website from smug politically correct pedantic people who know nothing about buddhism or contemporary buddhist issues.

 

[Dancing David]

Because i come back to check if anyone has started talking about the origanal topic and not your off topic nonsense.

Funny that, there are a number of possibilities here:

-What do you think of my website?
-What do you think of the topic on my website?

or

-If you don't agree with my ideas you are off-topic?

Granted a train wreck occurs when we argue with Dustin.

So I ask again, and I do agree with much of what your website says, which part of my view of buddhism have you disputed.

I have stated repeatedly that most of buddhism is crap, I find meaning in the eightfold path, impermanence, annatta. They are can be useful concepts to someone who is a hard knock materialist.

 

[Dancing David]

I have already commented how i deal with the multifacited definition of buddhism on this thread several times. I will paste one such time below.




So to summarise, there are 3 broad categories of buddhists and no, these categories are not generalisations as the are broad enough to incorporate everyone. The categories are those that claim supernatural teachings, those that deny all supernatural and those who are agnostic about the supernatural claims. My website deals with all three groups. Obviously my rebirth article does not deal with with group 2 however group 2 never replies to me and says "rebirth isnt part omy school" blah blah because they agree with the article in the first place and question me on how i deal with their group.

And this argument has been discussed.

Why would someone who is an atheist sceptic and does not believe in the supernatural call themselves a buddhist.

Here is my answer, because when I read the Pali canon, I find that most of what I have found in it agrees with the sceptical POV. It is alleged to be the teaching of the alleged historical buddha and the main followers of the path, Sariputta in fact could be a co-founder of buddhism. I feel it may all be fiction, I also feel it may have some roots in an oral tradition.

So why call myself a buddhist?

Because the Pali canon is alleged to be the teaching of the alleged buddha?

I like the eightfold path, I like annatta, I like impermanence. I find that the Pali canon is generally in agreement with my sceptical and materialist viewpoint. I don't always like the abhidharma stuff.


So your argument that I shouldn't call myself a buddhist or why would I call myself a buddhist is a definitional one.

I don't care if other people are foolish, I read what is alleged to be the teachings of the alleged historical buddha and I find that they have merit for me.

 

[Taffer]

I said that because you are critisizing my argument without knowing much about buddhism. Your whole point is about my generalisation and use of the word buddhism and not with the reality of buddhism in the modern world. You came to this thread with a self righteous, ultra politically correct mindset and pick on my points without being a buddhist yourself or even knowing much about what i am critisizing.

How do you know I am not a Buddhist?

The reason buddhists dont use the strawman argument is because the bulk of them accept the teachings of rebirth, karma and nibbana as part of buddhism. The sects that dont reply to me with kind words saying they agree with me, kill the buddha and sign off with a zen koan.

You could argue that the other buddhists that dont believe these things dont even read my website but i disagree.

So you are saying that you have had arguments from Buddhists who do not believe in a literal interpretation of standard Buddhist teachings, and they all had to do with the literal truth of the existence of rebirth?

The bottom line is, as i have already pointed out is that the name of the website "The Buddha Was Wrong" is a cheeky marketing slogan and is really of minor importance as compared to my stance on buddhism.

I have no problem with the title of your site.

I am no longer interested the strawman argument, if you would like to insist that my points are invalid because of the poor definition of buddhism then that is completely up to you.

This just shows you have not been paying attention. I have not once said your argument was invalid because you make a strawman argument, I said it was invalid for all Buddhists, because it is a strawman argument. For many Buddhist teachings, I am in perfect agreement with you.

You have made your stance clear, i understand it, i disagree with it and do not wish to try and convince you otherwise.

That is your prerogative, but I feel you misunderstand my point. You claim that all Buddhists are wrong, because of a viewpoint that not all Buddhists hold. That is a strawman. It has nothing to do with the title of your site, nor with "political correctness".

There really does not need to be another 10 pages about the superficial title of my website from smug politically correct pedantic people who know nothing about buddhism or contemporary buddhist issues.

How do you know I know nothing of Buddhism?

More to the point, this is a religion and philosophy subforum. I have simply been pointing out a logical error in your argument.

 

[Dancing David]

No, i am not stopping anyone from calling themselves buddhist and couldnt make them if i wanted. Why be so sensitive? Its just a label and buddhists have no attachments anyway. The zenners are wise enough to kill the buddha and realise its just a finger pointing at the moon. People who cling to the label dont even get what the label means.
I cant stop people calling theselves christian but it doesnt stop me from critisizing them for their blind faith.



Its all on the site.



Yes, they are big on critical thinking. The theravada stance is the "Kalama Sutta". I am sure you have seen the quote buddhists paste all over the place "Dont believe in scripture, dont believe teachers ect ect but find out for yourself." This is somewhat an agnostic approach however, mainstream theravadin abotts and teacher who pass themselves of as arahats or "Enlightened beings" teach rebirth and karma as very literal phenemena they supposedly accessed through direct experience in meditation.

That would be a warning right there, personal knowledge leading to privileged information.

Not sceptical, agreed.

Here in australia, the most famous theravadin monk is called Ajahn Brahm. He oradined at the age of 23 in thailand after completing a degree in theorhetical physics from cambridge university. This was in the 60s when cambridge still had high standards. He was in steven hawking's class and a few other famous scientists so he is no dummy. You can listen to his talks here: http://www.bswa.org/

Well even smart people can be blind to their lack of critical thinking.
Not sceptical, agreed.

There are times where I skip what T. N. Hahn says as well.

As you can see, he teaches rebirth and karma as literal facts, not in a metaphorical sense. Therevada, which is the main religion of thailand is one of the most supernatural,uperstitious sects out even though it initially appears as the oldest living school of buddhism based on critical thinking.

Perhaps what they call critical thinking, just like when Xians say that the bible is self evident and forget that it is an oral tradition that was created to reinforce itself.

Not sceptical, agreed.

Either rebirth is a fact, brahm is lying or he is deluded along with the bulk of the therevada school.

Mistaken, perhaps deluded.

Not sceptical, agreed.
[/quote]

But you would already know this because you are a buddhist expert that can dictate wht i can and cant critisize.[/QUOTE]

OOOOOK?

 

[onemind]

-If you don't agree with my ideas you are off-topic?

Granted a train wreck occurs when we argue with Dustin.

I have never said that. I have responded properly to proper questions. I am not against those who disagree with me. I am talking about the trainwreck.

So I ask again, and I do agree with much of what your website says, which part of my view of buddhism have you disputed.

all of it.

I have stated repeatedly that most of buddhism is crap, I find meaning in the eightfold path, impermanence, annatta. They are can be useful concepts to someone who is a hard knock materialist.

Again, its the cherry picker argument. There is some common sense stuff in the bible, if you get rid of god, jesus as saviour and heaven and hell it would look quite wise and rational but you wouldnt call yourself a christian.

The trouble with religous texts is that there are lots of wise correct stuff in them. I also agree with anatta, annica and dukkha (nonself, impermanence and suffering) but it doesnt make me buddhist. If science showed otherwise there would be no reason to hold those views. But these teachings are directly inline with scientific materialism so they are scientific materialism. Buddhists also share the same view but what makes them buddhist is other stuff. If i can be an atheist, scientific materialist and hold those views and call myself a buddhist then i'm a buddhist. But cant you see the whole point, why add another label to the mix? Just for historical credit to the buddha? When i learn calculus i tell people i know calculus, i dont call myself a newtonist.

So why call myself a buddhist?

Because the Pali canon is alleged to be the teaching of the alleged buddha?

I like the eightfold path, I like annatta, I like impermanence. I find that the Pali canon is generally in agreement with my sceptical and materialist viewpoint. I don't always like the abhidharma stuff.

I like the pali canon too. I have read a huge chunk of it and still am found of the dhammapada and other buddhist stories, but i disregard all the hell realms, nibbana, karma, rebirth, hungry ghosts, devas, brahmas, gods, future predictions ect ect in it. Cherry picking from that book is no more buddhist than cherry picking from the bible. Its such a foolish argument and i cant believe you even think like this.

So your argument that I shouldn't call myself a buddhist or why would I call myself a buddhist is a definitional one.

Yes, if you want to call it that. Then i would critisize the definitional stance and say it is pointless. You can feel free to disagree and tell everyone that your are a scientfic, rational, materialist, skeptic, ahteist buddhist if it makes you feel good. I still think its stupid and wont even bother debunking cherry pickers.

How do you know I am not a Buddhist?

Just the way you spoke about therevada.

This just shows you have not been paying attention. I have not once said your argument was invalid because you make a strawman argument, I said it was invalid for all Buddhists, because it is a strawman argument. For many Buddhist teachings, I am in perfect agreement with you.

Ok, thats fine. But i disagree that my argument against definitional buddhist is invalid. I agree my articles on rebirth ect dont apply to them, but my definitional cherry picker argument stands. WOuld you consider me a christian if i was an atheist because i like the sayings of jesus in the bible? The definitional argument isnt worth wasting my time on and honestly, you guys are the only ones that have picked me up on that.