The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[Dustin Kesselberg]

lol

damn, you posted before i corrected :D

trouble is though dustin, i'm not the one boasting about how well i can spell. You obviously can't "spell fine" - or at least not as well as you like to think. Perhaps you should lay off criticizing others for something you're obviously no better at than the rest of us....especially when the person you're criticizing admits to a form of dyslexia. Does it make you feel big? Does it make you feel clever? Because it makes you look like a real piece of work.

I make a few mistakes here and there simply due to the fact I am human and therefor fallible. I have never said I have perfect or immaculate spelling. I simply criticized David's spelling and grammar due to the fact I could not comprehend it. I said my spelling was "fine" which is a different thing from saying I have "flawless spelling". I'm not attacking David or calling him stupid, I'm simply saying that if he wants me to respond to his posts then he needs to make it so I can comprehend them. It's a purely fact of utility.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And? We were talking about what are considered the teachings of the Buddha are and why. Do you get it now? Or did you lose track of the conversation?

The point isn't his teachings.


So why don't you study it? You know, there are these things called liberal theologians, who aren't complete fundies? They are probably more common than the fundies, as well.

I do study religion.


What? When have I displayed a dogmatic belief in Buddhism? How do you even know if I consider myself to be a Buddhist?

You hold beliefs in a religious doctrine and you can't justify it's validity using anything other than appeal to belief.


By basic I meant fundamental. All Christians believe in a just god, how ever they can range extremely far in other beliefs.

Indeed.




What? You consider a novice's misunderstanding a calling into doubt? Please. Read more than Wiki. Or else all you have are ignorant childish complaints.

I'm calling into doubt the premises and conclusions of the basic teachings of Buddhism.

[andyandy]

The difference is that in this very thread you've told me to "learn to spell," you've continued to criticize Dancing David even after he clarified about suffering from a form of dyslexia, and you've boasted that you can spell "just fine" - following that up with a challenge "I can, so why can't you?"

under such circumstances you are indeed setting yourself up for a fall. Look, here's another mistake on this same thread page.

I'm used to it. Therefor I use it.

sloppy sloppy.

oh dear, and another one in that last post....

you can't justify it's validity

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The difference is that in this very thread you've told me to "learn to spell," you've continued to criticize Dancing David even after he clarified about suffering from a form of dyslexia, and you've boasted that you can spell "just fine" - following that up with a challenge "I can, so why can't you?"

under such circumstances you are indeed setting yourself up for a fall. Look, here's another mistake on this same thread page.



sloppy sloppy.

I haven't criticized David for his spelling after he pointed out he had dyslexia. I pointed out that I can't be bothered to reply to his incomprehensible posts but that isn't criticism. I have never said I have perfect or immaculate spelling. I said my spelling was "fine" which is a different thing from saying I have "flawless spelling". I make a few mistakes here and there simply due to the fact I am human and therefor fallible.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

oh dear, and another one in that last post....

That is a punctuation error not a spelling error.

[andyandy]

therefor fallible.

oops again!

[andyandy]

That is a punctuation error not a spelling error.

yes - it was labeled as another mistake in your post - you make quite a lot of them.

[andyandy]

I haven't criticized David for his spelling after he pointed out he had dyslexia. .

You're a liar. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

7.30am
You need to read on dear sir, as I did, my friend said that it was something called 'dysphonetic' based upon the way I read and understand words. I just learned today that it is a form of dyslexia! He didn't tell me that.

8.19am


I looked it up and it is not dysphonia (my assumption), it is a form of dyslexia,


Just in case you'd missed it, he claified again at 9.20am
I said i was wrong, I was mistaken, it is dysphonetic dyslexia.

I learned something today! I am still young at mind if not in the body.


and then at 4.31 you replied....

It sounds to me that you're making it up as you go along.

and then you boast to david....


I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The point isn't his teachings.

WTF? Then why all the debate about what the "teachings of the Buddha" are?

I do study religion.

And yet you cannot comprehend liberal theology. Either you suck at studying, or you haven't really studied it.

(Yes, you have to pick one :p )

You hold beliefs in a religious doctrine and you can't justify it's validity using anything other than appeal to belief.

Evidence?

Indeed.

And the fundamentals in Buddhism include the four truths and eightfold path. Ergo people who follow those are labeled Buddhist.

I'm calling into doubt the premises and conclusions of the basic teachings of Buddhism.

No, you're not. Get reading. Seriously. You are just spouting one of the most ignorant arguments against Buddhism.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Ta Da! (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=12039)

This should answer many of your basic questions.

[andyandy]

Ta Da! (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=12039)

This should answer many of your basic questions.

a good article :)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You're a liar. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

7.30am


8.19am



Just in case you'd missed it, he claified again at 9.20am



and then at 4.31 you replied....



and then you boast to david....

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.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

WTF? Then why all the debate about what the "teachings of the Buddha" are?

Because when I was initially debating that, David was trying to narrow all of the Buddha's teachings to the eight fold path.



And yet you cannot comprehend liberal theology. Either you suck at studying, or you haven't really studied it.

(Yes, you have to pick one :p )

I can comprehend it.



Evidence?

All of your posts in this thread.

And the fundamentals in Buddhism include the four truths and eightfold path. Ergo people who follow those are labeled Buddhist.

1. Those aren't the only fundamentals.

2. I'm criticizing those and denying their validity.


No, you're not. Get reading. Seriously. You are just spouting one of the most ignorant arguments against Buddhism.

Please address my actual arguments then.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Because when I was initially debating that, David was trying to narrow all of the Buddha's teachings to the eight fold path.

When did he do that?

I can comprehend it.

So what's your problem with it?

All of your posts in this thread.

No. My posts in this thread show I know about Buddhism. They do not show what you said.

1. Those aren't the only fundamentals.

2. I'm criticizing those and denying their validity.

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

Please address my actual arguments then.

I told you to read. Then I told you what to read. Now I've given you the perfect link. Read it. It really does answer all of your questions.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

When did he do that?

Pretty much all through this thread. At least that's what I got from his posts. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't his actual implication because I could hardly understand his posts anyway.


No. My posts in this thread show I know about Buddhism. They do not show what you said.

Are you a Buddhist? Your name suggests it.


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

If we're going to argue popularity then I'd say that reincarnation and karma are also fundamentals in Buddhism.



I told you to read. Then I told you what to read. Now I've given you the perfect link. Read it. It really does answer all of your questions.

If it answers them all then why don't you answer them for me since you've read it, which I am assuming you have. It's disingenuous to direct me to some other site to read something when you can answer my questions directly here.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Pretty much all through this thread. At least that's what I got from his posts. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't his actual implication because I could hardly understand his posts anyway.

Ah, so he didn't and you just misunderstood. Kay.

Are you a Buddhist? Your name suggests it.

Ah, so now you have to ask? Well, I shan't tell you now :p . That's what you get when you make rude assumptions about people (But be sure to make nice assumptions about people).

But even if I was, would it prove your statement?

If we're going to argue popularity then I'd say that reincarnation and karma are also fundamentals in Buddhism.

It isn't only about popularity. And if you would read anything I suggest you would know that those things have an extremely wide variety of interpretations.

If it answers them all then why don't you answer them for me since you've read it, which I am assuming you have. It's disingenuous to direct me to some other site to read something when you can answer my questions directly here.

Because I would prefer you to read it to preempt any further silly misunderstandings. And you should really read beyond Wiki. However, just for fun, I will tackle your problem with suffering and physical pain.

Think auto-erotic asphyxiation ;) .

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ah, so he didn't and you just misunderstood. Kay.

That's a possibility. Many of his posts are incomprehensible.



Ah, so now you have to ask? Well, I shan't tell you now :p . That's what you get when you make rude assumptions about people (But be sure to make nice assumptions about people).

But even if I was, would it prove your statement?

Yes. I'll assume you're a buddhist. Your defense of Buddhism and your name suggest you're a buddhist so I will assume you are.


It isn't only about popularity.

Your initial assertion about the "fundamentals" implied it was.


Because I would prefer you to read it to preempt any further silly misunderstandings. And you should really read beyond Wiki. However, just for fun, I will tackle your problem with suffering and physical pain.

I've had no misunderstandings. My critique of Buddhism is spot on.

Think auto-erotic asphyxiation ;) .

Ok. What about it? Is this supposed to be an example of how "Desire leads to suffering"? Even if it is an example of such, It's one example. The premise of Buddhism is that ALL suffering is caused by desire. It doesn't say "Some suffering" it says suffering in general.

[Lonewulf]

Try again.

http://www.bartelby.com/68/54/454.html

Awww, it's so cute! Dustin actually thinks he's correcting me. So precious!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That's a possibility. Many of his posts are incomprehensible.

An English question: If others can comprehend it, but you can't, does that make the posts incomprehensible?

Yes. I'll assume you're a buddhist. Your defense of Buddhism and your name suggest you're a buddhist so I will assume you are.

So you are just making assumptions and can offer no proof that "you hold beliefs in a religious doctrine and you can't justify it's validity using anything other than appeal to belief." You think all Buddhists are like that?

Your initial assertion about the "fundamentals" implied it was.

No it didn't.

I've had no misunderstandings. My critique of Buddhism is spot on.

No, it's not. Read.

Ok. What about it? Is this supposed to be an example of how "Desire leads to suffering"? Even if it is an example of such, It's one example. The premise of Buddhism is that ALL suffering is caused by desire. It doesn't say "Some suffering" it says suffering in general.

No, I said it was about physical pain and suffering.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Awww, it's so cute! Dustin actually thinks he's correcting me. So precious!


Is this a retort? It looks to me like you're avoiding my proof that you were corrected. Please address my initial link that proves that I didn't misspell that word.

[Lonewulf]

Is this a retort? It looks to me like you're avoiding my proof that you were corrected. Please address my initial link that proves that I didn't misspell that word.

That proves that you didn't misspell the word? I wasn't even responding to you originally.

Wow. You taking drugs recently?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

An English question: If others can comprehend it, but you can't, does that make the posts incomprehensible?

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


So you are just making assumptions and can offer no proof that "you hold beliefs in a religious doctrine and you can't justify it's validity using anything other than appeal to belief." You think all Buddhists are like that?

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.


No it didn't.

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


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

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.




No, it's not.

Elaborate.


No, I said it was about physical pain and suffering.

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.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That proves that you didn't misspell the word?

Yes. It proves that I did not misspell the word. It's spelled either way in the English language.

I wasn't even responding to you originally.

Liar. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2652222&postcount=204)

You quoted me and said "It's spelled apologize." and weren't responding to me? Hmm...

Wow. You taking drugs recently?

None that would interfere with my ability to see your posts as B.S. Are YOU taking drugs? You quote me directly yet claim you weren't responding to me? :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

Liar. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2652222&postcount=204)

You quoted me and said "It's spelled apologize." and weren't responding to me? Hmm...

I was quoting "Dancing David". See, when you quote someone, the name is up there at the top. If you look, you can see. Unless you're taking some kind of hallucinogenic.

Wow. Either you are taking drugs, or you're just the liar you proclaim me to be.

What is it, Dustin? Is it hallucinogens or dishonesty? Or just outright stupidity? Curious minds want to know.

None that would interfere with my ability to see your posts as B.S. Are YOU taking drugs? You quote me directly yet claim you weren't responding to me?

But I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting Dancing David. You are not Dancing David. Thus, my mental capabilities are not in question here.

Also... look at where the quote was traced, would you? That's done by the arrow. This is the post I was responding to:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2652219#post2652219

And you called me the childish simpleton. Oh, man, irony is strong.

[yrreg]

Hi all,

I am the author of this website and appreciate the comments.

Geez you skeptics are fast, its only been up for a few days and your already pulling it to peices :P

Quote:
Anyway, these folks that run this website seem to be motivated by hatred, which isn't good.

??

Hatred? I'm sorry that you get that impression. Other than my immature nazi page about esangha i think i have presented my views in a respectful manner.

Anyway, its not "folks" running this site, just me :)

Thanks again for the critique. Any further construcive critisism is greatly appreciated.

Cheers



.

You see, it is like this which everyone knows who has some acquaintance with human nature: when they can't gainsay you, they accuse you of hatred; even though all you are doing is to exercise critical thinking and practice the search for empirical evidence, all for the joy of exercising your brain cells on a subject that is most worthy of the sincerest skeptic, i.e., devotee of critical thinking and empirical evidence.


Welcome, onemind.


By the way, I am now into applying critical thinking and empirical evidence to stock trading -- or more correctly, asking oldtime skeptics here to look for the science and methodology of stock trading.


Yrreg

[onemind]

Thanks Yrreg.

This thread isnt even about my website or its articles. Its about a few little egos trying to win gold stars.

Good luck with your stock trading :)

P.S Speaking of stock trading, i started a skeptic thread about the uselessness of technical analysis and got banned from an aussie stock forum for questioning their techniques. Check the out here:

http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6580

http://www2.oanda.com/cgi-bin/msgboard/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=008339

[yrreg]

Not every Buddhist version has supernatural aspects.

In particular, Chinese Buddhism is rather devoid of the supernatural.

Ancient Chinese Buddhism, that is.

.

So, the supernatural ingredients come after, not original with the prinstine redaction?


Sapienti pauca -- that makes you a sap.


Just joking, no offense.


Yrreg

[Lonewulf]

This thread isnt even about my website or its articles. Its about a few little egos trying to win gold stars.

Actually, it's about diverging beliefs, and how you can have beliefs that do not automatically subscribe to the fundamentals.

Why do you think there are so many different sects of Christianity? Hint: it involves changing ideas.

Though with your childish insults, I felt like responding to kind with kind.

[yrreg]

[...]

Quote from Dustin:
This makes no sense. Either there is an accepted teaching of Buddhism or there isn't. If there is then those who follow those teachings are Buddhists. If there isn't then "Buddhism" is a meaningless term.

Are you a catholic or something? That is a rather narrow defintion of what comprises a group of people....

[...]



.

True to form, Dancing David; next you will shout, theist, theist, theist, theist...

We had been through that path, hadn't we, Dancing David? but I grant you the credit of being a true Buddhist in the best tradition of the true believer's syndrome.


Yrreg

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know this is very old--probably water under the bridge by now. . .

Where did Buddha say that his followers should believe what they see as true and not what he himself has said?

That is precisely the teaching in the Kalama Sutra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra).

I doesn't actually say to rely on what you see as true, but gives a more detailed discussion of good and bad ways to discern what is true. It definitely says don't believe anything on authority, even what's in the scriptures.

[yrreg]

I liked your site because it made a serious attempt at criticizing Buddhism, something other anti-Buddhist sites do not. In my mind, nothing is beyond criticism. Your Dalai Lama article made me literally laugh out loud.

Who said I didn't practice the dhamma? Just because I haven't gone to a monastery to become a bhikku and long to meditate myself into non-existance? I can't be a Buddhist because, in general, I rather like existance?

[...]



.
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., 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.

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

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


Yrreg

[yrreg]

[directed toward Dustin...]

[...]

And when it comes to your lack of history knowledge and your histrionic need for conformity I assume you must be from the USA, which also explains your total lack of language comprehension.


Nanny nanny boo boo.

[...]

Poseur, sceptic wannabe, charlatan. those are defined terms that fit your behavior.
I draw the line at intellectual fascist, you are close but haven't crossed the line yet.

Your father was a hamster and your mather smelled of elderberry. I wave my private parts (kept in a special safe just for the occasion) at your aunties. Go away you silly english kinigit before I taunt you again.

======================

Last edited by Dancing David : 31st May 2007 at 03:49 AM. [Sic]



.
Paging Loss Leader: see any hate speech here? or at least extremely cruel content against a fellow poster?


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.


Just my spontaneous evaluation.


Take cover, everyone, he is going to hurl his private parts at you, for contradicting his views and logic and spelling -- or keep your aunties out of sight.


Yrreg

[Lonewulf]

Just my spontaneous evaluation.


Thanks! I'll file that where it belongs.

*Throws in trashcan*

Seriously, "extreme cruelty"? Do you not even see how ludicrous your claim is?

[andyandy]

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.

Dustin - stop lying!


You responded to this post

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.

and then you boast to david....

I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?

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!

[Lonewulf]

Dustin's getting mighty sloppy in this thread...

[yrreg]

[...]


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?

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.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

.

I hate to say this, but it is my honest and unbiased observation.

From what I read, Western Buddhists do not observe the Eastern Buddhist anti sex libertinism rife among the formers.

If you read homilies from Eastern Buddhist mentors even of contemporary history, they mention that Western Buddhists are not true to their Buddhism for in effect teaching that Buddhism accepts sex libertinism.

They are practically horrified by open scandals in some Western Buddhist sanghas where sexual liberties are rife, and intrigues plus rivalries plague disciples over the favors of their masters, err, gurus.


sorry to say what is a kept silent taboo topic; but that is the fact.


What a combination, spirituality in the quest for enlightenment and sexual liberality to boot -- that is what they make of Buddhism in the West among some otherwise most meditative Buddhists, investing hours of mental concentration to reach Nirvana on this side of the grave.

Ah, you say, that is only for monks, but not for ordinary lay Buddhists. Well, that is very convenient; What about those Zen tenants in sanghas doing their community life, are they in effect monks, or what are they, weekend visitors only?



Yrreg

[yrreg]

[...]

So why not the Prajñā, Śīla or Patimokkha? Why not include them as well? Are these the teachings of Buddha? If not, what worth are they in Buddhism apart from any odd teachings? If they are then shouldn't they be followed just as anything else the Buddha taught?

[...]

So how is the Buddha special apart from any other philosopher? Why call yourself a "Buddhist" simply because you agree with a few of the things he taught? One does not call themselves a "Millist" if they follow the teachings of John Stewart Mill or a "Saganist" if they follow what Carl Sagan wrote.

.



I hate to say this, but it is my honest and unbiased observation.

From what I read, Western Buddhists do not observe the Eastern Buddhist anti sex libertinism rife among the formers.

If you read homilies from Eastern Buddhist mentors even of contemporary history, they mention that Western Buddhists are not true to their Buddhism for in effect teaching that Buddhism accepts sex libertinism.

They are practically horrified by open scandals in some Western Buddhist sanghas where sexual liberties are rife, and intrigues plus rivalries plague disciples over the favors of their masters, err, gurus.


Sorry to say what is a kept silent taboo topic; but that is the fact.


What a combination, spirituality in the quest for enlightenment and sexual liberality to boot -- that is what they make of Buddhism in the West among some otherwise most meditative Buddhists, investing hours of mental concentration to reach Nirvana on this side of the grave.

Ah, you say, that is only for monks, but not for ordinary lay Buddhists. Well, that is very convenient; What about those Zen tenants in sanghas doing their community life, are they in effect monks, or what are they, weekend visitors only?



Yrreg

.

There, now the message is complete. Thanks for your forbearance.




Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Tanstaafl
So, who won the pool on when Yrreg would show up?

Or did no one think it would be past the first page?

I knew it was going to happen but I should have typed it. What does the winner get?

.

I will gift you with an online text of The Cloud of Unknowing, of which I suspect the author could have been Gautama in a postdated Christian rebirth as a 14th century English monk.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

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

.

The way I see it, in religion and in philosophy, we truly have the right guaranteed in the Constitution to practice free thought and free speech, that is, without the constraints of critical thinking and empirical evidence, unlike in science and in logic and in mathematics.


That is why you see people here saying that there should be no absolutism in definitions of words, when they mean that there should be no conventionality in words; you just use any meaning you want to attach to any word, whatever the conventions already accepted by the mass of people speaking a language where that word is in the vocabulary.

Next, you don't have to set up the premises agreed upon by the people engaged in a discourse, and draw conclusions from them; you just keep on and on and improvise premises as you proceed, and make exceptions to them as convenient; and then put in the justification that you know from your heart and mind that what you assert is so, because of your conviction, which others can't understand because they don't have the convincing experience.



Yrreg

[andyandy]

This deserves a place in the JREF archives as the biggest, most appalling train-wreck of a thread ever to sully the forum. Truly.

[onemind]

agreed

[Dancing David]

Of course, or you would continue with your bs for another 10 pages. I think the clear moral of this story is that when discussing buddhism or anything for that matter gross generalisations are a mistake and lead to pointless arguments. I have enough common sense to admit that rather than you guys being to pig headed to actually pick a concept of buddhism to debate rather than argue about definitions.

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

And i'll save you the time and say it for you.

Boom boom, another troll point.

Go and meditate for f sake.


Quite the social skills, well i am glad you know we are retards i thought that you said you were just here to point out the errors in mainstream buddhism.

I am sorry you are a bigot, you must be another young one like Dustin. It must provide you some comfort to pretend that you know stuff about people just because they use the word buddhist.

Oh well you took the cover off your fake sceptic nature rather quickley didn't you.

Apparently you are here because you like to flame.

Whatever.

[Dancing David]

Yes you're right about that. However it's irrelevant and off topic. The point was that the old Norse didn't call her by the English term "God".

So did they call Frey LORD or Freya LADY?

Geez, I thought you could think for yourself.

[Dancing David]

It sounds to me that you're making it up as you go along.

Not really, I can give you his phone number if you like. Lets see he came back from LA in 1990 after he got his PhD at UCLA and taught at Weslyan for three years, we haven't talked much since he divorced his wife and I was her f-buddy for seven years. But I know the facts don't matter to you.

I said i was mistaken, I said why i said what i said. I didn't know he meant a variety of dyslexia, so I was wrong.





I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?

There are a lot of us poor spellers of english, but hey, whatever.

[Dancing David]

Some Christians define Christianity as a "Relationship with Jesus" and not a religion. It's irrelevant and they're wrong.



Either it is or it isn't.

Is or isn't what Dustin?

Somethings can not be determined some can.

Do all Xians use the same texts?

[Dancing David]

Who's possessed over it?



No it doesn't.



That's the name my parents gave me. It'd be too much trouble to change it. I'm used to it. Therefor I use it.



Technically they are wrong.

I am glad you are confident that you are right.

Whatever.

[Dancing David]

The essential nature of things varies from thing to thing.

What "Unknowable objects" are you talking about?

The things that we refer to as things. As humans we are limited in our ability to directly have knowledge of things. In science and reality we can only approximate the behavior of things, we can not know them directly. I am a hard knock materialist, I believe very strongly in the nature of things as they are.

However the things that we use to describe things are simply a set of self referencing symbols, they are approximations with different degrees of validity. So as humans we have to remind ourselves that our brain makes up the perceptions out of the sensations, and that often the things we perceive do not have a valid reference in reality. And in fact our brain often makes our internal reality up.

So words are symbols that point to made up perceptions that we all hopefully share based upon sensations. So i feel we must be careful when talking about the essential nature of things, it exists but our hold on it is rather manufactured by our brain at points.

Close one eye, look at a complex visual pattern, do you see the blind spot. No.

Because our brains manufacture the perception of visual material in the blind spot. that is true of many perceptions. Reality exists from what i can tell, but we must be careful to distinguish valid perception from invalid perception.

[Lonewulf]

I hate to say this, but it is my honest and unbiased observation.

Lol.

[Mashuna]

I only managed to read the first two pages and the last page of this thread, but I was amazed to see the transformation of Dustin into Yregg! It was faultless, I couldn't see the join. Well done to the two of you.

[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?
:D

[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]

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 :D [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 :D [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 ;)

[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. :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

.

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

[onemind]

i know you are but what am i :rolleyes:

[andyandy]

i know you are but what am i :rolleyes:

and a new low is reached :D

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

[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....:D

[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 :D

"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.

[RIGHT]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..

Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.
You brought up the example of "auto-erotic asphyxiation".
That isn't example of suffering being caused by an urge or desire.
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. :D

[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://forums.randi.org/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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77708) 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? :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

No. You've always been weaselly about your 'fantasies' however you clearly implied (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77708) 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? :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

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! :)

[Lonewulf]

goodness, you seem to have a pathological tendency to lie

Also, apparently, bring up his own delusions of other people's fantasies up, at random, for no reason, in threads they don't belong.

Maybe next he'll talk about how Lonewulf sounds like a black name, and thus, because I am most likely black (because he's almost never wrong), go onto a rant about how us blacks are all prone to violence.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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

You edited after I posted.


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

Sure it was. See my signature.


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

Maybe you mean some nobodies on hundreds or thousands of miles away sniggered at their computer because in their feeble understanding they thought something I said was amusing, However no one "laughed in my face".



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.

Ah, So insulting and off topic posts that refer to posts in this thread are OK but insulting and off topic posts that refer to posts in another thread aren't? :rolleyes:

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.

What have I lost? The only thing I've lost is my valuable time due to arguing over the internet with some 16 year old kid who has fantasies about torturing and raping people.

[Lonewulf]

Sure it was. See my signature.

You call that "specific"? :rolleyes:

Sigh.

Maybe you mean some nobodies on hundreds or thousands of miles away sniggered at their computer because in their feeble understanding they thought something I said was amusing, However no one "laughed in my face".

Ah, darn. See, this is the part where you can say they all laughed at you, and then laugh maniacally.

Ah, So insulting and off topic posts that refer to posts in this thread are OK but insulting and off topic posts that refer to posts in another thread aren't? :rolleyes:

Now you got it.

What have I lost? The only thing I've lost is my valuable time due to arguing over the internet with some 16 year old kid who has fantasies about torturing and raping people.

6 years off. I'm 22. Also, I have fantasies, yes, but not about that specifically. Try again! This is fun. Your guess on my fetish was wrong: I'll give you another chance to give it a go. Need some hints?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

goodness, you seem to have a pathological tendency to lie

you quoted his flipping comment in your reply!




Spin that web of lies dustin! Spin Spin away! :)




You need to read on dear sir, as I did, my friend said that it was something called 'dysphonetic' based upon the way I read and understand words. 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.

And your second argument is just arrogant garbage. I can't spell english because it hasn't had orthographic reform and is not a phonetic spelling but archaic forms that were standardized randomly when there were multiple spelling of the words.
I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?In his initial assertion I drew into question his changing story about "just learning" that he has dyslexia specifically because 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' wouldn't affect his ability to actually spell words simply his ability to sound them out. 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' is a form of auditory dyslexia while "Dyseidetic dyslexia" is is the type of dyslexia that would hinder spelling. If someone with 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' has a problem spelling then it's likely a phonics problem not related to that individuals dyslexia.

http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981130


In the second part of his post I said "I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?" because he was making up excuses SEPARATE from the dyslexia which involved the inherent traits of the English language.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Except I question whether even HE comprehends his own posts.

Ah yes. When you lose you resort to insults. The Buddha tells me that this conversation will end poorly.

That's what I've been saying.

What? All you've been talking about is trying to label everyone. You've also displayed a wonderful ability to distort arguments all around.

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

Says who? "Most people"?

Not at all. The four noble truths set up the basis for Buddhism. They also set up the purpose and methods.

Elaborate.

Either spend ten minutes educating yourself, or post your uneducated rebuttal of the four truths and eightfold path.

Let's break it down into simple parts..

Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.
You brought up the example of "auto-erotic asphyxiation".
That isn't example of suffering being caused by an urge or desire.
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.

Is your fetish torturing conversations? Auto-erotic asphyxiation is far from suffering, yet still includes physical pain. This demonstrates that physical pain does not have to lead to suffering, and is not the cause of it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Hm, assuming more and more things about people without proper evidence, Dustin Kesselberg?

C'mon, guess my fetish along with my religion and disorder :p !

[Lonewulf]

Hm, assuming more and more things about people without proper evidence, Dustin Kesselberg?

He does that often.

But he's almost always right. He told me himself!

Right after he "put" me in my "place" (yes, he actually said that once). And then went off to argue with a bunch of "nobodies on hundreds or thousands of miles away". I think some sneering and condescension was involved, I'm not sure.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Not at all. The four noble truths set up the basis for Buddhism. They also set up the purpose and methods.

Didn't answer the question.



Either spend ten minutes educating yourself, or post your uneducated rebuttal of the four truths and eightfold path.

Already have.

Is your fetish torturing conversations? Auto-erotic asphyxiation is far from suffering, yet still includes physical pain. This demonstrates that physical pain does not have to lead to suffering, and is not the cause of it.

"Auto-erotic asphyxiation" might be both painful and pleasurable (I wouldn't know) and might be a single example of how "Pain" doesn't necessarily lead to "Suffering" however again, this is a single example and is totally off topic from my initial criticism of the Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.

[qayak]

In his initial assertion I drew into question his changing story about "just learning" that he has dyslexia specifically because 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' wouldn't affect his ability to actually spell words simply his ability to sound them out. 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' is a form of auditory dyslexia while "Dyseidetic dyslexia" is is the type of dyslexia that would hinder spelling. If someone with 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' has a problem spelling then it's likely a phonics problem not related to that individuals dyslexia.

My daughter has auditory dyslexia and her spelling is terrible. Mostly not even close enough to use a spell check program. It hinges on the fact that she cannot hear the subtleties of speech and if she cannot hear the sound she does not know which letter should be put in when spelling the word. In my daughter's case it is a direct result of her auditory dyslexia.

Her's is thought to have been caused by the constant upper respitory and inner ear infections she suffered as a child.

[andyandy]

In his initial assertion I drew into question his changing story about "just learning" that he has dyslexia specifically because 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' wouldn't affect his ability to actually spell words simply his ability to sound them out. 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' is a form of auditory dyslexia while "Dyseidetic dyslexia" is is the type of dyslexia that would hinder spelling. If someone with 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' has a problem spelling then it's likely a phonics problem not related to that individuals dyslexia.

http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981130


In the second part of his post I said "I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?" because he was making up excuses SEPARATE from the dyslexia which involved the inherent traits of the English language.

ah, the shifting shifting sands.....

first you deny posting derogatory comments after david had told you he had dyslexia

then you say, well, yes your post was made after he'd told you, but you hadn't read his comments

now your saying that yes, actually he did tell you about having dyslexia - but you chose not to believe him.

:D

[Lonewulf]

ah, the shifting shifting sands.....

first you deny posting derogatory comments after david had told you he had dyslexia

then you say, well, yes your post was made after he'd told you, but you hadn't read his comments

now your saying that yes, actually he did tell you about having dyslexia - but you chose not to believe him.

:D

You can't be wrong if you change reality!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Didn't answer the question.





Already have.



"Auto-erotic asphyxiation" might be both painful and pleasurable (I wouldn't know) and might be a single example of how "Pain" doesn't necessarily lead to "Suffering" however again, this is a single example and is totally off topic from my initial criticism of the Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.

If there is one thing worse than an ignoramus it is a willful ignoramus with a bloated ego. You seem so intent on quibling about every tiny aspect that you are blind to the larger picture. You can't see the forest for the trees. Holding a conversation with you is like banging my head against a wall. The wall doesn't move and all I've succeeded in doing is wasting my time.

So I will once again bring to your attention "Buddhism Without Belief" and "Buddhism for the Modern Skeptic". If you ever have the desire to educate yourself and correct your novice misunderstandings, then study beyond mere Wiki pages.

However, I am not worming out of being proven wrong, as you have done many times. To correct you, here is the writting of Thich Nhat Hanh in "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching":

Another common misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching is that all of our suffering is caused by craving. In the Discourse on Turning the Wheel od the Dharma, the Buddha did say that craning is the cause of suffering, but he said this because craving is the first on the list of affliction...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

ah, the shifting shifting sands.....

first you deny posting derogatory comments after david had told you he had dyslexia

then you say, well, yes your post was made after he'd told you, but you hadn't read his comments

now your saying that yes, actually he did tell you about having dyslexia - but you chose not to believe him.

:D

He doesn't have dyslexia. And EVEN IF he does have the dyslexia he claims he has, it wouldn't affect his ability to spell.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Tsukasa Buddha, Unless you respond to my actual post addressing every point, I won't respond to yours.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Tsukasa Buddha, Unless you respond to my actual post addressing every point, I won't respond to yours.

So now you will ignore information because you don't like the format? Great.

1. The primary teachings of the Buddha consist of the four truths. These set the purpose of Buddhism and the methodology of Buddhism. These are the fundamentals that link all forms of Buddhism and are the most similarly interpreted.

2. If you haven't read what I gave you a link to, then you refuse to properly educate yourself. You choose to remain in ignorance. If you want to attempt to refute Buddhism before even comprehending it, be my guest. But to do so is an exercise in futility.

3. The second truth is the cause of suffering. That all suffering is caused by craving is a common misunderstanding.

[Taffer]

My god...

Dustin, as always, you show yourself to be an ignorant bigot and are not worth replying to anymore. And for the record, I laughed quite a lot when you claimed Lonewulf to have "rape fantasies". Also when you proclaimed victory because of it. Ad hom much? :rolleyes:

Onemind, your arguments against "mainstream" Buddhism may be correct, but not all Buddhists believe those things.

Yrreg, go away. Also, I am unsure what you mean by "Sapienti pauca". I was under the impression it was a musical term. Also, I never claimed it was originally metaphorical, only that it can be interpreted as such.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

My god...

What God?

Dustin, as always, you show yourself to be an ignorant bigot and are not worth replying to anymore.

How's that?


Onemind, your arguments against "mainstream" Buddhism may be correct, but not all Buddhists believe those things.

This has been addressed dozens of times in this thread. Do yourself a favor. Read the thread and stop making dumb comments.

[Lonewulf]

How's that?

LOL! YOU HAVE FANTASIES I FIND OBJECTIONABLE! I WIN THE ARGUMENT!

Yeah, okay.

[Lonewulf]

I just saw this one:

He's a condescending **** is what he is.

What, seriously? You're not condescending at all? Haha. :D

Reading his posts is sort of like watching a midget threaten Andre the Giant.

Ego ego ego.

Read my signature and the thread where he brags about having fantasies about raping people.

Eh, wrong. Again.

[Taffer]

What God?

It's a figure of speech.

How's that?

"Bigot: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Sounds about right to me...

This has been addressed dozens of times in this thread. Do yourself a favor. Read the thread and stop making dumb comments.

I have read this thread, Dustin. I have read it right from the start, you may notice. I have yet to see this addressed. But by all means, please quote where it has been addressed, so I may see the error of my ways.

[andyandy]

He doesn't have dyslexia. And EVEN IF he does have the dyslexia he claims he has, it wouldn't affect his ability to spell.

wow, different reason number 4 now

1) first you deny posting derogatory comments after david had told you he had dyslexia

2) then you say, well, yes your post was made after he'd told you, but you hadn't read his comments

3) then you're saying that yes, actually he did tell you about having dyslexia - but you chose not to believe him.

4) Now not only are you saying categorically that he does not have dyslexia - but you're now also redefining dysphonetic dyslexia to be a condition which has no effect on a person's ability to spell.

The terms 'dysphonetic' and 'dyseidetic' are words used to describe typical symptoms of dyslexia. The person labeled 'dysphonetic' has difficulty connecting sounds to symbols, and might have a hard time sounding out words, and spelling mistakes would show a very poor grasp of phonics. This is also sometimes called "auditory" dyslexia, because it relates to the way the person processes the sounds of language. http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981130


I await excuse number 5 with interest - and perhaps justification as to why you're categorically sure that dancing david is lying.

[onemind]

planet of the apes

[Taffer]

planet of the apes

I'm sorry, but did you have something meaningful to bring to this discussion?

[onemind]

is it wrong to fantasize about having sex with aliens?

[Taffer]

is it wrong to fantasize about having sex with aliens?

Do you have a point at all? Or have you fallen to off-topic randomness in a vain hope that we'll give up and go away, and you will thus be able to claim victory?

[onemind]

I think you will find that i am the only one that attempted to bring this back on topic only to have my posts ignored with gibberish and the battle of one upmanship continues.

Now please anwer my question, is alien sex too kinky for humans?

[andyandy]

I think you will find that i am the only one that attempted to bring this back on topic only to have my posts ignored with gibberish and the battle of one upmanship continues.

Now please anwer my question, is alien sex too kinky for humans?

i think you'll find that you demanded "civility" and then derided the replies to your post as "pathetic." Given that you've offered nothing of substance in 10 pages, beyond a very simplistic, "I get to choose who is and isn't a Buddhist so i can set up the strawman i want," it's not any real surprise people have stopped bothering debating with you. Maybe if you said something interesting, you'd spark some interest.

[onemind]

I'll take that as a yes, where are the aliens?

[Dancing David]

.
Paging Loss Leader: see any hate speech here? or at least extremely cruel content against a fellow poster?


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.


Just my spontaneous evaluation.


Take cover, everyone, he is going to hurl his private parts at you, for contradicting his views and logic and spelling -- or keep your aunties out of sight.


Yrreg


So close,

"I wave my private parts at your aunties!"

Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Hey this is a good thread for you , you have at least two more people to join the Yrreg Club!

Dustin is capable of hate speech as i am! i actualy agree with a lot of his politics.

Welcome bag Yrreg, I shall endevour to be less rude this time.

I apologise.

[Dancing David]

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


I believe that 90% of what can be termed buddhism is hogwash for the weakminded, although the rituals have the same appeal as most rituals.

As stated before i follow the pali canaon mainly , in it I have found that it agrees with my view on the main subjects of contention in mainstream buddhism

kamma: is the consequences of choices in act, word and thoughts

reincarnation: is not possible because there is no soul or atman to be transmitted

nibbanna: the extinguishment of conditioned responses to pain and pleasure


I think that faith based buddhism is a crock, I find the twelve links as usueful metaphor but as a way of showing reincarnation, absolute hokum.

I believe that anyone who has seen a monk fly is easily deluded.

there is no "future buddha", the path is the path, all who follow may become enlightened.

the Alleged Historical Buddha:
-did not make a mango tree grow from a seed in a moment
-was not born of the mating of a white elephant with his mother in a dream
-did not chide his followers for flying to the top of a pole on a dare
-could not predict the future
-did not claim there was one universal mind
-did not claim that his path cured all ills
-did not glow in the dark
-did not talk to the animals

the Alleged Historical Buddha:
-did not accept women into the sangha until his mother and wife forced him to
-likely disdained homosexuality
-probably had crabs as various times
-pooped in a ditch
-had days where he was cranky and rude
-ate meat when it was put in his bowl
-secretly maturbated or had sex Ananda

[Dancing David]

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.

And I believe that 90% of what is termed buddhism is rubbish.

I believe that most mainstream practices go against the teachings of the Alleged Historical Buddha as represented in the heavily edited Pali canon.


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.

Why would it matter, Yrreg called us "elite buddhists", does it matter that we are not "ethnic buddhists". If we choose to call ourselves buddhists, than so be it.

I am not sure i would call a disorganised group of sceptics who call themselves buddhists either 'retards' or "a sect".


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.

The buddha said(again the AHB is alleged to have said) that followers of the path should think for themselves and us the tools and ideas on their own. there is no need to organise as a sect except to go out and get drunk or play D&D or something.
The school doesn't need a name, it is a disorganised group of individual who meet at the JREF.

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.

It is also true that many people don't wash their hands after they use the bathroom. Some even voted for GW Bush. ;)


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

You seemed to call us artards without evidence by claiming that we were not what we think we are?

that is straw arguing, putting statements in the mouths of others and then defeating the statement. Although you do pale in comparison to the King of Straw.

then you tell us how to define words so you seem to not acutaly want to discuss things.


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.

Then stop telling me what I think and how to use words so that they conform to your defintions and expectations.

[Dancing David]

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.


Hmmm,

So I aknowledge that most of buddhism as it is practiced is rubbish, and you have yet to address the POV I hold on kamma, reincanation and nibbanna. And then you say that you have refuted my arguments.


Where, I missed that part?

So where have you refuted my argument? What?

[Dancing David]

Pathetic. :rolleyes:

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

Now that looks to me like more straw.

I don't believe that people here have said that buddhism is exempt from criticism. i am very critical of it.

Where in this thread did someone say buddhism is above criticism?
Show us please that we may learn.

And it is not undefinable so far we have:
-the beliefs and practices of people who are ethin/cultural/converted buddhists
-the beliefs and practices of people who call themselves buddhists
-the beliefs that are in common to most people labeled as buddhists, the eightfold path, the four truths, etc.

[Dancing David]

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

Hmm, what about neo-pagans who speak english.

i am not sure I follow but i think that is what i want to say. What language is an english speaking neopagan using when they address Frey or Frey?

[Dancing David]

Let's break it down into simple parts..
[LIST=1]
Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.

Citations, evidence, proof that tanha is the source of all dukkha, or that dukkha means all suffering?

[Dancing David]

In his initial assertion I drew into question his changing story about "just learning" that he has dyslexia specifically because 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' wouldn't affect his ability to actually spell words simply his ability to sound them out.

That would hinder me in learning to spell. Fortunately my mother taught me to read in third grade.

I said I misused the term dysphonia. And I apologised. If you can't sound out words as in "Hooked on Phonics", than you memorise all the words you speel, or rely on spell check, which i will try to do more often.

'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' is a form of auditory dyslexia while "Dyseidetic dyslexia" is is the type of dyslexia that would hinder spelling. If someone with 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' has a problem spelling then it's likely a phonics problem not related to that individuals dyslexia.

How do you think phonic spelling works.
1. You say the word or hear the word.
2. You associate the sounds with the symbols used to spell.
3. You spell the words based upon the transfering of the sounds to the symbols.

Which part of perhaps not being able to do 2 don't you understand?

dysphonetic dyslexia is "a phonics problem " related to spelling.


[quote]

http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981130


In the second part of his post I said "I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?" because he was making up excuses SEPARATE from the dyslexia which involved the inherent traits of the English language.

Thanks for being a jerk, you could change your ways Dustin.

[Dancing David]

Hm, assuming more and more things about people without proper evidence, Dustin Kesselberg?

C'mon, guess my fetish along with my religion and disorder :p !

Bondage, most likely submissive
Unitarian Universalist
Posting on the JREF

:D

[Dancing David]

He doesn't have dyslexia. And EVEN IF he does have the dyslexia he claims he has, it wouldn't affect his ability to spell.


Thanks again Dustin, you are greatly appreciated by one and all.

Why would I lie?

Would you like to talk to my mother, or brother or my friend who told me I was dysphonetic?

Yours must be a very interesting life.

[Dancing David]

planet of the apes


You are wise to not say Planet of the Monkeys!

:D

[Dancing David]

is it wrong to fantasize about having sex with aliens?


Living in Mexico, I was a young alien fantasizing about the native females.

[onemind]

The school doesn't need a name, it is a disorganised group of individual who meet at the JREF.


So you throw my whole website away just because i dont include you and 2 other guys nutjob definitions of buddhism?

When i talk about buddhism i am talking about 60 million thais living in a country with buddhist laws, millions of tibetans led by a reincarnated fraud, millions of therevadans who genuinely believe giving food to monks gains merits for a rebirth. I am talking about real buddhism, not your retarded bs.

Call it a strawman and i call you a retard so that makes us even.

[andyandy]

So you throw my whole website away just because i dont include you and 2 other guys nutjob definitions of buddhism?

When i talk about buddhism i am talking about 60 million thais living in a country with buddhist laws, millions of tibetans led by a reincarnated fraud, millions of therevadans who genuinely believe giving food to monks gains merits for a rebirth. I am talking about real buddhism, not your retarded bs.

Call it a strawman and i call you a retard so that makes us even.

My, you are angry. You could do with some of that inner peace. :)

[onemind]

And how do you get inner peace? Label yourself a buddhist, make up your own philosophy and sit around on the internet all day.

No thanks.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Bondage, most likely submissive
Unitarian Universalist
Posting on the JREF

:D

Wow, I'm impressed :D ! You win the Million Dollar Challenge*!!!

*Warning, Million Dollar Challenge may not actually be worth one million dollars, currency subject to change, social security number and bank codes required.

[Lonewulf]

And how do you get inner peace? Label yourself a buddhist, make up your own philosophy and sit around on the internet all day.

No thanks.

Onemind continues to dazzle us with his civility.

[andyandy]

And how do you get inner peace? Label yourself a buddhist, make up your own philosophy and sit around on the internet all day.

No thanks.


My comment about inner peace was facetious - but it seems to have been lost on you. In any case i don't regard myself as a Buddhist - it's a little presumptuous to think that i must regard myself as such simply because i have the audacity to disagree with your anti-Buddhism diatribe.

[onemind]

you're a pain in the ass

[andyandy]

more dazzling civility. :)

[Dancing David]

So you throw my whole website away just because i dont include you and 2 other guys nutjob definitions of buddhism?

Now that isreally funny Onemind, where did I say to throw your website away?


When i talk about buddhism i am talking about 60 million thais living in a country with buddhist laws, millions of tibetans led by a reincarnated fraud, millions of therevadans who genuinely believe giving food to monks gains merits for a rebirth. I am talking about real buddhism, not your retarded bs.

Call it a strawman and i call you a retard so that makes us even.

Interesting, this is a sceptic's forum and you haven't demonstrated critical thinking skills. Which one is name calling?

[Dancing David]

And how do you get inner peace? Label yourself a buddhist, make up your own philosophy and sit around on the internet all day.

No thanks.
I like gardening and hiking. How do you find inner peace?

Does calling people retartds help?

[Dancing David]

Yay for sceptics, i will see if they quote the alleged historical buddha or the folowers of the alleged historical buddha.

Time for Yrreg to appear.

Here is what I found, some good ,some attributions to the buddha that might or might not be the product of the AHB



From the buddha part:
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/buddha.php

Certainly the belief of some of the buddha's followers and up there with the sex change of Avolokiteshivara, but in some people's minds not a teaching of the AHB.


From the dammha part
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/nibbana.php

I think there has been a great discussion about the subject of nibbanna on this board, and miost would disagree with this characterization of nibbanna.

I would disagree with these statements as well.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/rebirth.php

I disagree with this as well.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/meditation.php

i agree.

From the section on the sangha
http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/sangha.php

Makes sense to me.

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/dana.php

I agree.

Quite true, but not all buddhists follow the silly dogma.


Hmm, no where does it say to throw the web site away. I think I even used the word 'good' and made some agreement in anumber of spots.

Hmmm, do you read before you speak?

[onemind]

Does calling people retartds help?

I find it to be therapeutic.

Hmmm, do you read before you speak?

It must have got lost amongst your vast piles of bs.

[yrreg]

[...]

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?

[...]



.

You are the Buddhist or you call yourself proudly Buddhist.

So, you tell me what you find in Buddhism that makes sense to you, and I will tell you if it does make sense to mankind from time immemorial with the rise of civilization and society predating Gautama, or that it makes for nonsense in the light of timeless wisdom from the dawn of consciousness and intelligence.


I really deplore that after all my efforts for your best changes in life, you have reverted to the illogic of Buddhism and restored you trade signboard of "Resident Buddhist", and this is an educational foundation of a website.


Just tell me so that I will still entertain the hope that you are not immune to education:

Is Buddhism a discovery by Gautama or a speculation with enormous borrowings from other earlier and contemporary fiction seers?

If you cannot understand the question, then consider it this way:

Is Buddhism a discovery by Buddha like blood circulation by Harvery, or is it his guesswork invention like the koteka is presumably an invention among the male highlanders of New Guinea -- which I submit is more useful by far than the invention of Buddhism by Gautama.


Have fun thinking about the question.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

[...]

Yrreg, go away. Also, I am unsure what you mean by "Sapienti pauca". I was under the impression it was a musical term. Also, I never claimed it was originally metaphorical, only that it can be interpreted as such.

You said Chinese Buddhism was not woo-ish at the beginning, in very few words; that is why I call you a Doctor of Buddhism, subclass, Chinese; and you are one wise man with few words.


Yrreg

[Dustin Kesselberg]

http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981130


I await excuse number 5 with interest - and perhaps justification as to why you're categorically sure that dancing david is lying.

That site says that someone who has spelling problems and has Dysphonetic dyslexia would have simply a very poor grasp of phonics. It's the site I quoted.

The terms 'dysphonetic' and 'dyseidetic' are words used to describe typical symptoms of dyslexia. The person labeled 'dysphonetic' has difficulty connecting sounds to symbols, and might have a hard time sounding out words, and spelling mistakes would show a very poor grasp of phonics. This is also sometimes called "auditory" dyslexia, because it relates to the way the person processes the sounds of language.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hmm, what about neo-pagans who speak english.

i am not sure I follow but i think that is what i want to say. What language is an english speaking neopagan using when they address Frey or Frey?


I have no idea what they call Freya. Even if they called her "God" with a capital G it would technically be incorrect since that refers to the monotheistic God in the English language.

That would hinder me in learning to spell. Fortunately my mother taught me to read in third grade.

I said I misused the term dysphonia. And I apologised. If you can't sound out words as in "Hooked on Phonics", than you memorise all the words you speel, or rely on spell check, which i will try to do more often.

How do you think phonic spelling works.
1. You say the word or hear the word.
2. You associate the sounds with the symbols used to spell.
3. You spell the words based upon the transfering of the sounds to the symbols.

Which part of perhaps not being able to do 2 don't you understand?

dysphonetic dyslexia is "a phonics problem " related to spelling.



Thanks for being a jerk, you could change your ways Dustin.

You keep getting the terms wrong.

Thanks again Dustin, you are greatly appreciated by one and all.

Why would I lie?

Would you like to talk to my mother, or brother or my friend who told me I was dysphonetic?

Yours must be a very interesting life.

Is your mother or brother or friend experts on dyslexia or even medical doctors? People can make mistakes. You MIGHT have 'dysphonetic dyslexia', I don't know. However I do know that having it would not impair your ability to spell. Simply comprehend sounds.

[Complexity]

Yrreg - Once again, your ignorance of, hatred for, and envy of Buddhism keeps bringing it to people's awareness in a postive way. Kind of sweet that this is the last thing you'd want.

We could spend some time speculating about why you are so threatened by it, but why bother. Its a lot more interesting to think about Buddhism after its had superstition-goo scraped off. I don't give a fig leaf for the religion - I want to learn from its philosophy.

I like to slowly reread the Dhammapada every so often. I haven't wanted to read other Buddhist documents or commentary for some time now. I have no desire to become a scholar of Buddhism or to intellectualize it. I benefit from revisiting that challenge every so often. It is enough for me for now.

I'm an atheist who finds something in Buddhism that resonates for me, something about life, how to live well, and why to live well.

I first encountered Buddhism 36 years ago, felt its attraction, and disliked the religious clutter it had accreted. I touch base with it occasionally. Yrreg's hatred of it has let me to visit it again.

When I read Yrreg's messages, always with their Buddhist slant, I've got smile a bit sadly.

[onemind]

I use high doses of heroin..

[Taffer]

It must have got lost amongst your vast piles of bs.

The point where you admitted your 'disproof' of Buddhism only worked for certain forms of Buddhism must have been lost as well, I see...

[onemind]

Because the other forms of buddhism dont need to be disproved because they dont say anything to start with hence my argument of why use the word buddhism for such bs.

[Lonewulf]

Because the other forms of buddhism dont need to be disproved because they dont say anything to start with hence my argument of why use the word buddhism for such bs.

This post of yours makes a lot more sense taking in this previous post:

I use high doses of heroin..

'nuff said.

[onemind]

I dont see what heroin use has to do with anything. Its a play on ending suffering incase you missed it einstein.

[Lonewulf]

I dont see what heroin use has to do with anything. Its a play on ending suffering incase you missed it einstein.

And mine was a play on you being childish in case you missed it, Chopin.

[onemind]

rofl

[Taffer]

"Following the Four Noble Truths can lead to a happy life" doesn't say anything? :rolleyes:

[Taffer]

rofl

Your nettiquette is not strong, grasshopper. ;)

[Lonewulf]

rofl

Well, can't argue with that!

[andyandy]

That site says that someone who has spelling problems and has Dysphonetic dyslexia would have simply a very poor grasp of phonics. It's the site I quoted.

quite - and dyphonetic dyslexia itself has a detrimental effect on one's ability to spell!

How do you think phonic spelling works?
1. You say the word or hear the word.
2. You associate the sounds with the symbols used to spell.
3. You spell the words based upon the transfering of the sounds to the symbols.

Which part of perhaps not being able to do 2 don't you understand?

dysphonetic dyslexia is "a phonics problem " related to spelling.

Are you completely confident that dysphonetic dyslexia has no impact on an individual's ability to spell? Are you still completely confident that Dancing David is lying about having dysphonetic dyslexia?

Dustin are you physically incapable of admitting you made a mistake? You seem to have a pathological tendency to lie, shift the boundaries, deceive and be deeply disingenuous, all to "save face" - just so you never have to admit to yourself that you were wrong.

Here we go - i've prepared three templates - all you need to do is cut and paste.

I apologise to___________ for ___________________________________ I made a mistake. Sorry about that.
Dustin


Thanks for that correction.

Dustin


Ah! That makes more sense now! I can see what I was doing wrong.

Dustin


:D

[Dancing David]

I find it to be therapeutic.

Okay, sort of like an enema? :D




It must have got lost amongst your vast piles of bs.

"I didn't read your first post because I was too busy playing with myself" or "I have this desire to improve myself esteem by just lashing out".

Shows a lack of accountability.

[Lonewulf]

Okay, sort of like an enema? :D

An enemy is taking the crap out, not shoving it in...

[Dancing David]

.

You are the Buddhist or you call yourself proudly Buddhist.

So, you tell me what you find in Buddhism that makes sense to you, and I will tell you if it does make sense to mankind from time immemorial with the rise of civilization and society predating Gautama, or that it makes for nonsense in the light of timeless wisdom from the dawn of consciousness and intelligence.

Ah Welcome back Yrreg!

You were never able to substantiate that claim the first time or all the other times you made it.

Can you show us where that is true?

Will you show us where the eightfold path is predated in other places?

[Dancing David]

Is your mother or brother or friend experts on dyslexia or even medical doctors? People can make mistakes. You MIGHT have 'dysphonetic dyslexia', I don't know. However I do know that having it would not impair your ability to spell. Simply comprehend sounds.


Thanks Dustin you are showing that you are just like a drunk who throws up on themselves and calls it perfume.

[andyandy]

oh i missed that last post, so dustin are you going to apologise?

You've shifted your stance - from accusing david of lying, to admiting that you have absolutely no reason for that accusation.

He doesn't have dyslexia. And EVEN IF he does have the dyslexia he claims he has, it wouldn't affect his ability to spell.

Is your mother or brother or friend experts on dyslexia or even medical doctors? People can make mistakes. You MIGHT have 'dysphonetic dyslexia', I don't know. However I do know that having it would not impair your ability to spell. Simply comprehend sounds.

that would constitute grounds for apologising for most people.....

[Lonewulf]

For how many pages has Dustin been trying to justify his moronic claim that someone is a liar without relevant evidence?

I thought the conversation was on Buddhism. Not Dustinism.

[andyandy]

For how many pages has Dustin been trying to justify his moronic claim that someone is a liar without relevant evidence?

I thought the conversation was on Buddhism. Not Dustinism.

about half the thread :)

it'd been a trainwreck of a thread anyway, so i thought i'd actually chase dustin up on his comments and see what happens.......

we're up to 5 different positions and counting....

1) Dustin, first you deny posting derogatory comments after david had told you he had dyslexia

2) then you say, well, yes your post was made after he'd told you, but you hadn't read his comments

3) then you say that yes, actually he did tell you about having dyslexia - but you chose not to believe him.

4) Then you say categorically that he does not have dyslexia - but you're now also redefining dysphonetic dyslexia to be a condition which has no effect on a person's ability to spell.

5) Now you say he MIGHT have dyslexia - but this has absolutely no effect on a person's ability to spell.


and yes, i know it's childish - but it's fun :D

[andyandy]

get laid you sad twits

are you still here? People lost interest in discussing your website - get over it.

[Dancing David]

Is your mother or brother or friend experts on dyslexia or even medical doctors? People can make mistakes. You MIGHT have 'dysphonetic dyslexia', I don't know. However I do know that having it would not impair your ability to spell. Simply comprehend sounds.

Just to give you more ways to call vomit perfume.

Yes my firend has PhD is Child Developmental Psychology

and you don't know how to think or read

http://www.diaread.com/dyslexiatypes.htm

Dysphonetic Dyslexia
If a child can’t read (decode) and/or spell (encode) because he or she is unable to break phonetically regular words (also known as phonetic words) down into their sound parts, this condition is known as Dysphonetic Dyslexia.
http://educator.readingsuccesslab.com/Glossary/Dysphonetic_Dyslexia.html
Dysphonetic dyslexics are not able to link the auditory equivalent of a word to the visual component.

Dysphonetic dyslexia has also been called auditory dyslexia. This person has difficulty connecting sounds to symbols. The Auditory dyslexic might have difficulty sounding out words with spelling mistakes showing a difficulty with phonics.

http://educator.readingsuccesslab.com/Glossary/Dysphonetic_Dyslexia.html

A Reader With Phonological Processing Problems Has Difficulty Attaching Speech Sounds To Letters. This difficulty creates problems in learning to read because a student with phonological processing problems has difficulties attaching speech sounds to letters and letter combinations. If a beginning reader cannot attach sounds to letters, they cannot use sounding out procedures to identify words, and this greatly slows down the acquisition of reading skills. For example, a beginning reader who has difficulty in attaching speech sounds to letters and letter combinations would have difficulty attaching the sound "cuh" to the letter "c" in the word "cat" and would have even greater difficulty in sounding out the entire word and then repeating the sounds rapidly so that the word could be identified.

http://www.adcov.com/Dyslexia.html

• Dysphonetic Dyslexia
Dysphonetic dyslexia is caused by a dysfunction of the Wernicke's Area in the left hemisphere of the brain. Children with this form of dyslexia have difficulty sequentially analyzing and remembering what and where the sounds are in words. The resulting phonemic processing problems make it difficult to sound out new words, learn phonics, and make them dependent on their sight vocabulary. When they come to an unknown word they will often substitute a word using context clues. For example, "pony" for "horse", even though the substituted word doesn't look or sound anything like the original word. When spelling unknown words it is often difficult to determine what the original word is. For example, they may write "fmlue" for "familiar" or "lap" for "lamp". They cannot learn phonics because they cannot process where the sounds are. Their short term sequential auditory memory can be poor and result in repeating "8167" as "8671", or remember to go to their room but forgetting to get the item requested.

[Dancing David]

Because the other forms of buddhism dont need to be disproved because they dont say anything to start with hence my argument of why use the word buddhism for such bs.

And which form of buddhism did you disprove and how is it related to what the people here are posting?

[Dancing David]

I dont see what heroin use has to do with anything. Its a play on ending suffering incase you missed it einstein.


I suppose an OD could end suffering.

[Dancing David]

get laid you sad twits


Huh, my trophy wife and I have sex on a very regular basis.

So what was that starw about?

Are you here insulting people because....

[Dancing David]

lol, hows that door knob going?

When your done lets us know.

[onemind]

Huh, my trophy wife and I have sex on a very regular basis

hmmm.. a buddhist with a trophy wife. What a great sect you have created with such respect for women.

Down with buddhism and the hypocrits that defend it.

[Taffer]

get laid you sad twits

:rolleyes:

[Taffer]

Down with buddhism and the hypocrits that defend it.

Are you calling me a "hypocrit"? How have I been "hypocrit"ical?

[Lonewulf]

lol, hows that door knob going?

Out of curiosity, Onemind, how old are you? 12?

[onemind]

11 actually.

Are you calling me a "hypocrit"? How have I been "hypocrit"ical?

not sure, am not keeping track of all the hypocrits in this thread. Are you practicing right speech?

[Lonewulf]

11 actually.

Should I assume that this was a sarcastic response not representing reality?

not sure, am not keeping track of all the hypocrits in this thread.

Be specific, and give evidence.

Are you practicing right speech?

People are practicing free speech, yes.

[onemind]

I guess right speech didnt make it into your sect.

The 7 fold path.

[Lonewulf]

I guess right speech didnt make it into your sect.

I don't have a sect.

I'm not Buddhist.

You remind me of people that believe that if you oppose racism, you MUST be black (or whatever race is being discriminated against)... or that if you oppose the banning of gay marriage, you MUST be gay.

[onemind]

I am critising a philosophy and its place in the modern world. Not people or race. Ideology is not ethnicity.

You remind me of every other clueless bleeding heart activist that takes a self righteous holier than thou stance on everything.

[Lonewulf]

I am critising a philosophy and its place in the modern world. Not people or race. Ideology is not ethnicity.

I didn't say they were the same. I just said that you reminded me of one. You think that if someone dares question you, they must believe in something fully. Which is a childish assumption, at best.

You remind me of every other clueless bleeding heart activist that takes a self righteous holier than thou stance on everything.

How shweet. "Bleeding heart" is wrong, though, because I honestly really just don't care one way or the other. If Buddhism disappeared from the world, I wouldn't care. If it stayed around, I wouldn't care. Buddhism has done nothing bad to me, nor have I seen anything harmful about it or it's philosophies. Maybe you're different; maybe Buddhism ran over your dog or something. Or maybe you just really need something to be angry about. I dunno.

As for "holier than thou", no, but I like to call people out on their hypocrisy or childishness.

Hell, how can I be holier than anyone? I'm an atheist to the core, and even if I believed in any particular religion, I'd have broken so many of the laws of that religion, I'd be destined for whatever unholy pit I'd belong in according to that religion. I guess I might be "unholier than thou", though...

Do you have any rhetoric that makes rational sense?

[onemind]

If Buddhism disappeared from the world, I wouldn't care. If it stayed around, I wouldn't care.

Incivil remark removed.

[Lonewulf]

Then get the **** off this thread.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oooohhh...

...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, I'm ready now, wait...

HAHAHAHA!

Okay, seriously, I'm done now.

Okay. Okay...

HAHA!

Bah.

Anyways.

Make me.

[onemind]

yawn..

I just thought at first you actually knew what you were talking about but you turned out to be just a little **** stirrer.

[Lonewulf]

yawn..

I just thought at first you actually knew what you were talking about but you turned out to be just a little **** stirrer.

Buddy, the crap was stirred before I got here.

Besides, I was waiting for actual points to be started. You were the one talking about how you were waiting for "civil discussion". I was actually hoping you'd actually like to engage in some.

It takes two to tango. It takes an orgy to get **********.

[onemind]

well i thought i did but it was ignored with the strawman argument and everyone went back to talking about dyslexia..

[Lonewulf]

well i thought i did but it was ignored with the strawman argument

It still takes two to tango, and an orgy to get **********. If you want a civil discussion, you can't let yourself get drawn into the mud pit. That's lesson #1 of internet forums.

...and everyone went back to talking about dyslexia..

That happens in every thread Dustin is a part in. He makes continuous assumptions and mistakes, and then refuses to admit that he's wrong. He has to justify everything, and never backs down. He's like a pit bull, only less cute.

[onemind]

has to justify everything, and never backs down.

You could easily say that about the other side.

If you cant ignore a troll you cant blame anyone else for feeding them.

Inappropriate remark removed.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Hm, so DD is a retard and we all are hypocrites.

And Dustin is ignoring everything.

Excuse me, but my UU church is in need of a sub :D !

[Lonewulf]

Dancing david is a retard even if he isnt dyslexic.

Yet more of your incredible civility. You are truly an angel amongst men, onemind.

[Dancing David]

hmmm.. a buddhist with a trophy wife. What a great sect you have created with such respect for women.

Down with buddhism and the hypocrits that defend it.


Ah as Asthmatic Camel asked me "Did you have your sense of humor surgicaly removed?"

My wife is my second wife and is fourteen years younger than I am, she is also very wonderful and has a great sense of humor. So I love her dearly and call her my trophy wife as a lark.

She thinks it is funny and I just asked her if she minded, as she came in the door, "No. Why , who says that?"

[Dancing David]

You could easily say that about the other side.

If you cant ignore a troll you cant blame anyone else for feeding them.

Dancing david is a retard even if he isnt dyslexic.

My trophy was says "Bite me". She knows a joke when she hears one. :D

You obviously do not care to respond to any discussion of the original topic you stated in the OP. Perhaps posting direct questions will cause you to ignore my take on buddhism. Even now you just hop in for a little flame and you don't even do a reach around and participate by answering direct questions.

I am a direct hard knock materialist and I believe that I have found merit in the eightfold path. It is somewhat like cognitive behavioral therapy.

So if I try to follow the eightfold path and I do not believe in reincarnation, I believe there may have been a human or group of humans that started the myth of the alleged historical buddha. I don't believe in a soul, spirit or any sort of magic. I don't think faith will solve your problems. I think that the only way to change ones life is through the choices we make.


SO WHERE DO YOU DISPUTE MY BELIEFS AS STATED THERE?

Sorry for yelling but you ignored the last round of questions.

[Dancing David]

Yet more of your incredible civility. You are truly an angel amongst men, onemind.

Well Crowley did always say it was hard to tell a demon from a diva or angel.

[Taffer]

not sure, am not keeping track of all the hypocrits in this thread. Are you practicing right speech?

What has that got to do with the arguments presented in this thread?

[Taffer]

Then get the **** off this thread.

Unfortunately you don't have the power to enforce that. In fact, it is very childish to think you do. Grow up and move on, onemind. Do you have arguments to present or are you going to continue bitching and moaning like a little child?

[Taffer]

yawn..

I just thought at first you actually knew what you were talking about but you turned out to be just a little **** stirrer.

Do you think one has to believe in Buddhism to discuss it?

[Taffer]

well i thought i did but it was ignored with the strawman argument and everyone went back to talking about dyslexia..

Where?

[Taffer]

Dancing david is a retard even if he isnt dyslexic.

Why, because he doesn't agree with you?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

quite - and dyphonetic dyslexia itself has a detrimental effect on one's ability to spell!

That isn't what the site says.



Are you completely confident that dysphonetic dyslexia has no impact on an individual's ability to spell? Are you still completely confident that Dancing David is lying about having dysphonetic dyslexia?

The site says it has no impact on spelling.

Dustin are you physically incapable of admitting you made a mistake? You seem to have a pathological tendency to lie, shift the boundaries, deceive and be deeply disingenuous, all to "save face" - just so you never have to admit to yourself that you were wrong.

I admit mistakes when I've made them.


Here's another link proving my point.

Dysphonetic dyslexia has also been called auditory dyslexia. This person has difficulty connecting sounds to symbols. The Auditory dyslexic might have difficulty sounding out words with spelling mistakes showing a difficulty with phonics.

http://educator.readingsuccesslab.com/Glossary/Dysphonetic_Dyslexia.html

This makes it clear that if someone who has Dysphonetic dyslexia has spelling problems then it's a result of difficult with phonics and not due to their Dysphonetic dyslexia.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Thanks Dustin you are showing that you are just like a drunk who throws up on themselves and calls it perfume.

You ignored my post content and then insult me. Address the post.


Just to give you more ways to call vomit perfume.

Yes my firend has PhD is Child Developmental Psychology

Keep adding to your ever more absurd story and excuse for not being able to spell.

and you don't know how to think or read

http://www.diaread.com/dyslexiatypes.htm

http://educator.readingsuccesslab.com/Glossary/Dysphonetic_Dyslexia.html

http://www.adcov.com/Dyslexia.html

All of that supports my initial claim. Re-read what it says. The Auditory dyslexic might have difficulty sounding out words with spelling mistakes showing a difficulty with phonics.

[Lonewulf]

This makes it clear that if someone who has Dysphonetic dyslexia has spelling problems then it's a result of difficult with phonics and not due to their Dysphonetic dyslexia.

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/2649/facepalmim7.png

[yrreg]

Yrreg - Once again, your ignorance of, hatred for, and envy of Buddhism keeps bringing it to people's awareness in a postive way. Kind of sweet that this is the last thing you'd want.

[...]

... I have no desire to become a scholar of Buddhism or to intellectualize it. ...

[...]



I am just exercising critical thinking and doing the habit of search for empirical evidence by taking up critique of Buddhism in an academic manner -- and enjoying it tremendously.

I am now doing that tack also with stock trading.

---------------

I am amazed how people can be like you for one infatuated with Buddhism, all because they can't tell the difference between what is discovery and what is fiction -- they are dazzled with the fiction, all because they are so immature in thinking process.


Now, yu will hate me even more.

What is that about hatred being the most sincere praise, or envy. You can't think for yourself, everything must be borrowed, glaring proof is your blind faith in Buddhism.



Just joking only, no offense intended.

Yrreg

[yrreg]

Ah Welcome back Yrreg!

You were never able to substantiate that claim the first time or all the other times you made it.

Can you show us where that is true?

Will you show us where the eightfold path is predated in other places?

I don't want to state anything anymore about what the whole world understands to be Buddhism, because the Buddhists here will say that it is not the genuine Buddhism, as intended by Gautama.

So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.

At this point they will demure, and say instead that they are Buddhists because they call themselves Buddhists.

That is why it is impossible to have an intelligent and productive discussion with Buddhists here. They don't have any idea of communication.


Yrreg

[andyandy]

All of that supports my initial claim. Re-read what it says. The Auditory dyslexic might have difficulty sounding out words with spelling mistakes showing a difficulty with phonics.





i am astounded you continue to try to argue this - you obviously hadn't bothered to read david's links. I've added some more. I've also highlighted the relevant sentences as you seem to have trouble with English comprehension.

Dysphonetic Dyslexia

If a child can’t read (decode) and/or spell (encode) because he or she is unable to break phonetically regular words (also known as phonetic words) down into their sound parts, this condition is known as Dysphonetic Dyslexia.
http://www.diaread.com/dyslexiatypes.htm

Dysphonetic dyslexia is caused by a dysfunction of the Wernicke's Area in the left hemisphere of the brain. Children with this form of dyslexia have difficulty sequentially analyzing and remembering what and where the sounds are in words. The resulting phonemic processing problems make it difficult to sound out new words, learn phonics, and make them dependent on their sight vocabulary. When they come to an unknown word they will often substitute a word using context clues. For example, "pony" for "horse", even though the substituted word doesn't look or sound anything like the original word. When spelling unknown words it is often difficult to determine what the original word is. For example, they may write "fmlue" for "familiar" or "lap" for "lamp". They cannot learn phonics because they cannot process where the sounds are. Their short term sequential auditory memory can be poor and result in repeating "8167" as "8671", or remember to go to their room but forgetting to get the item requested.http://www.adcov.com/Dyslexia.html

The major characteristics of dysphonetic dyslexia include 1) inability to sound out most words and those that are correct are based upon a very limited sight vocabulary, 2) reading contextually; that is, basing the word on the context of the story or upon the pictures in the story. For example, seeing the word “puppy” and substituting the word “dog” based upon the story line because the child is unable to sound out the word “puppy”, 3) spelling words with letters left out, substituted or inappropriately added. http://www.dyslexiacentershelp.com/id8.html


The dysphonetic type of dyslexia results in poor word attack skills (phonetic decoding) and transposition of letters when writing, for example solw for slow.http://www.scco.edu/ecc/visiontherapy/Dyslexia.html


When talking about dyslexia, some people may hear the terms ‘dysphonetic’ and ‘dyseidetic,’" says Dr. Wax. Dysphonetic refers to those who have a hard time sounding out words or with spelling. This can also be called auditory dyslexia because it is associated with how people process the sounds of language
http://healthisnumberone.com/libdyslexia.htm


You are categorically, 100% wrong in your claim that Dysphonetic Dyslexia has no effect on a persons' ability to spell. You have called david a liar about his condition despite no evidence to back it up. You continue to mount your absurd defense of your position simply to avoid having to admit that you might have made a mistake. You claim you admit mistakes when you've made them - well go on then - do it - or you'll give everyone here categorical proof that you are a liar.

[Dancing David]

You ignored my post content and then insult me. Address the post.

Funny thing about that, you ignore my post content and then called me a liar.

Keep adding to your ever more absurd story and excuse for not being able to spell.

Now that is even funnier Dustin, I explained my behavior, I did not ask you to excuse it in the least.

BOGUS CHALLENGE TO THE DUSTIN: Show me my post in this thread where I asked you to excuse my behavior. I in fact took accountability and said I had been lazy and would start using spell check.

BTW: Did you read this from the first site I marked and quoted?

http://www.diaread.com/dyslexiatypes.htm

ENCODING: Ability to spell words. Words are spelled two ways:

(A) Spelling by sight or visualizing the word as a whole
(B) Spelling by sound or breaking the word down into its sound parts or phonemes.
….
….
…..
Dysphonetic Dyslexia
If a child can’t read (decode) and/or spell (encode) because he or she is unable to break phonetically regular words (also known as phonetic words) down into their sound parts, this condition is known as Dysphonetic Dyslexia.


Did you see that part? Remember when you told me I just need Hooked on Phonics and I said that phonic spelling doesn't work so well for me?

It you don't believe that the archaic spelling of english is the problem, than why call me a liar?





All of that supports my initial claim. Re-read what it says. The Auditory dyslexic might have difficulty sounding out words with spelling mistakes showing a difficulty with phonics.




Reread what I quoted above. You need a bath.

[Dancing David]

I don't want to state anything anymore about what the whole world understands to be Buddhism, because the Buddhists here will say that it is not the genuine Buddhism, as intended by Gautama.

Uh, the whole world recognizes the eight fold path as part of buddhism. You stated repeatedly that the eightfold path is predated in other cultures.

So have you got any evidence, any citations, any documents or any data to suggest that the parts or whole of the eightfold path are preceded?

The funny thing is that none of the buddhists here claimed that the Alleged Historical Buddha was original to begin with.

But you made the claim, can you support it?


So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.

The eightfold path.

There that is a piece of genuine buddhism, it is the fourth alleged truth of the AHB.


At this point they will demure, and say instead that they are Buddhists because they call themselves Buddhists.

Try the eightfold path, as in the fourth alleged truth of the AHB.


That is why it is impossible to have an intelligent and productive discussion with Buddhists here. They don't have any idea of communication.


Yrreg

Brother Kettle, I would like you to meet Brother Pot.

[Complexity]

I am amazed how people can be like you for one infatuated with Buddhism, all because they can't tell the difference between what is discovery and what is fiction -- they are dazzled with the fiction, all because they are so immature in thinking process.

Now, yu will hate me even more.

What is that about hatred being the most sincere praise, or envy. You can't think for yourself, everything must be borrowed, glaring proof is your blind faith in Buddhism.

Just joking only, no offense intended.

Yrreg

I'm not infatuated with Buddhism - I found something at its core worth thinking about.

I'm not the first person to live. Many others have had interesting thoughts. The best thoughts I find are worth keeping close at hand.

I think for myself and am open to the best of others. I prefer thinking for myself - it is fun and I understand it better than I do the end products of the thinking of others. I also have more confidence in the words that I think with than the words that others have used.

Hate you? I haven't been thinking about you.

[andyandy]

dustin, you've gone a bit quiet.....

admit a mistake, or be proved a liar?

decisions, decisions :)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

dustin, you've gone a bit quiet.....

admit a mistake, or be proved a liar?

decisions, decisions :)


You're quite right about that. The recent websites you provided made it clear that the dysphonetic type of dyslexia could result in impaired ability to spell words. I admit I was mistaken on that account.

However It's not really relevant to this discussion. Davids post are still far too difficult to decipher due to his spelling for me to respond to point by point.

[yrreg]

Uh, the whole world recognizes the eight fold path as part of buddhism. You stated repeatedly that the eightfold path is predated in other cultures.

[...]



And make an affirmation to the effect that you believe in your cogitation and adheration and verbalization of your understanding of the eightfold path, like this:

"I declare from my honest mind that I accept the eightfold path of Buddhism as I have here explicitly declared it, in accordance with my cogitation and adheration and verbalization, etc., etc., etc., so help me the members of this JREF forum, etc., etc. etc."

Because I don't want anymore to invest time and trouble showing you how the materials concerned if they make sense on critical thinking and empirical evidence they antedate Gautama, and if they make for nonsense they are not in accordance with critical thinking and empirical evidence upon which scientific and rationalist skepticism is founded.


I have to impose this requirement on you, Dancing David and also the Buddhists in JREF forum, otherwise you keep behaving like slippery eels.


Yrreg

PS Nothing personal here though; I am just having some fun with mental exercises, and I hope we all are into the kind of fun I have in my mind and heart, mental exercises as in mental pastimes.

[Taffer]

However It's not really relevant to this discussion. Davids post are still far too difficult to decipher due to his spelling for me to respond to point by point.

Yet no-one else seems to have a problem...

[andyandy]

You're quite right about that. The recent websites you provided made it clear that the dysphonetic type of dyslexia could result in impaired ability to spell words. I admit I was mistaken on that account.

However It's not really relevant to this discussion. Davids post are still far too difficult to decipher due to his spelling for me to respond to point by point.

hallelujah :D

i've only been hounding you because i've never, ever seen you admit a mistake before.....

....could have done without the "however...." and you should really apologise to david, but you can't have everything....:)

[yrreg]

I'm not infatuated with Buddhism - I found something at its core worth thinking about.

[...]



By your own cogitation and adheration and verbalization of your core Buddhism worth your thinking process, tell me what it is, and whether it is a discovery or an invention from Gautama, or from your own thinking process and you tag on it the label of Buddhism.


Yrreg

[Complexity]

By your own cogitation and adheration and verbalization of your core Buddhism worth your thinking process, tell me what it is, and whether it is a discovery or an invention from Gautama, or from your own thinking process and you tag on it the label of Buddhism.

Yrreg

No. I won't play your games, Yrreg.

Conclude erroneously away.

As far as I can tell, you're intent on destroying Buddhism because you believe that it threatens your beliefs (silly Christianity, if I'm not mistaken).

You don't seem to have anything worth listening to on the subjects of Buddhism, Christianity, philosophy, or anything else.

Since I don't believe in the supernatural, it doesn't matter to me what the source of an idea is - if it is interesting and catches my attention, I'll ponder on it awhile; if it stays interesting, I'll put it in my pocket. I've got some pretty cool ideas in my pocket, none of which I'm inclined to share with you. CPBS, and all that.

You don't seem to have a proper appreciation for fiction. I won't attempt to teach you about it.

To what do you aspire? If it is respect or friendship, you've been doing a lousy job. Inspiring fear? Nope. Persuasion? You've got to be kidding. The pursuit of truth? You wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ***, as I'm sure it has, many times.

I think you're ready to move on to your next intellectual adventure - the stock market awaits you.

[Dancing David]

And make an affirmation to the effect that you believe in your cogitation and adheration and verbalization of your understanding of the eightfold path, like this:

"I declare from my honest mind that I accept the eightfold path of Buddhism as I have here explicitly declared it, in accordance with my cogitation and adheration and verbalization, etc., etc., etc., so help me the members of this JREF forum, etc., etc. etc."

Because I don't want anymore to invest time and trouble showing you how the materials concerned if they make sense on critical thinking and empirical evidence they antedate Gautama, and if they make for nonsense they are not in accordance with critical thinking and empirical evidence upon which scientific and rationalist skepticism is founded.

Uh huh, so after all this time, you still haven't actually read any buddhism. Just making fun of your mother in law still, how sad.

:D



I have to impose this requirement on you, Dancing David and also the Buddhists in JREF forum, otherwise you keep behaving like slippery eels.


Yrreg

PS Nothing personal here though; I am just having some fun with mental exercises, and I hope we all are into the kind of fun I have in my mind and heart, mental exercises as in mental pastimes.

Nothing personal taken.

Did you find your soul yet?

Here is the eightfold path as presented by me. With apologies to one and all, this is just my POV.

First is the use of the word right, so substitute healthy.


1. Healthy view
(To remember that thoughts are just thoughts, emotions are just emotions, perceptions are just perceptions, that the body is just the body and that habits are just habits. They are conditioned, ephemeral and are what they are, there is no transcendent self. The practice of the eightfold path is a practice, not a goal.)
2. Healthy intention
(To approach the world with the intent of not harming things, people or other critters. To intend to avoid harming, to intend to be mindful and aware of acts, to intend to create less harm in the world.)
3. Healthy speech
(To approach the world with speech that is peaceful, polite and friendly. To avoid gossip, negative speech and harmful speech.)
4. Healthy action
(To act in a fashion which is not harmful, to refrain from harmful acts.)
5. Healthy livelihood
(To find a profession that does not create harm.)
6. Healthy effort
(To apply one's efforts to reducing harm, avoiding harm, taking accountability for choices, being patient and flexible. To remember that thoughts are choices, that there is the conditioned and that a person may choose to change the routines of life.)
7. Healthy mindfulness
(To focus on the healthful, to focus on one activity at a time, to monitor the thoughts, emotions and acts. To be gentle but to notice that which is harmful and that which is healthy. To encourage the health and discourage the harmful.)
8. Healthy concentration
(To bend all of one's life, acts, thoughts and self awareness to the promotion of health and the avoidance of that which is harmful.)

[yrreg]

No. I won't play your games, Yrreg.


[etc., etc., etc., etc.]


See? He says he has some core of Buddhism which he finds meaningful to himself, then you ask him to say it in his own words, by his own excogitation, adheration, and verbalization; what happens? He runs away.

As I say say in that thread about money experts, etc.: Avoiding the beef and seeking a safe house in quibbles.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

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

[Complexity]

See? He says he has some core of Buddhism which he finds meaningful to himself, then you ask him to say it in his own words, by his own excogitation, adheration, and verbalization; what happens? He runs away.

As I say say in that thread about money experts, etc.: Avoiding the beef and seeking a safe house in quibbles.

Yrreg


Not at all, Yrreg.

I'm able to talk about Buddhism and other things of interest to me. I've done so with friends.

You are not my friend.

I have contempt for you, your beliefs, and your agenda.

I will do nothing to encourage you.

[Dancing David]

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

Yoiks and away!

I am not sure you have read anything other people post on the board Yrreg.

On this forum and in science and skepticism in general, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim!

A. Yrreg is the one stating and claiming that there is nothing original in buddhism that is not predated by something somewhere else .

B. Therefore if in this forum, science and skepticism the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

c. It is up to Yrreg to prove his unsubstantiated claim that there is nothing original in buddhism that is not predated by something somewhere else .


And for you to state

Go over them again and see whether there is anything right or healthy for mankind and not known to mankind until Gautama came along.

Shows only the following (choose one or more):

1. You are incapable of finding evidence to support your claim.
2. There is no evidence to support your claim.
3. You are unwilling to find evidence to support your claim.
4. You lack the motivation to support your claim.
5. You do not believe that you should find evidence to support your claim.
6. You feel that you can make baseless assertions from your personal perspective and just have them taken as gospel because of your personal perspective.



And then there is the whole straw-man logic, I did not state that all of the alleged historical buddha's teaching was original. So I do not have to defend a statement I did not make.

[Dancing David]

Hita Dustin:

In an effeort to make amends I have corrected the spelling errors in three of my posts.



First post



Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg
I read it from one of the Dali Lama's books. The 10th unwholesome action is listed as being "Wrong views" which include denying the fact that consciousness is eternal(afterlife or reincarnation) as well as the efficacy of moral actions. I don't know about any sources.

Perhaps you could address the other parts of my post.

Hiya Dustin!

It comes down to a number of things, I really despise most forms of fundamental Xianity, but have met many a decent fundamentalist. I could blame the structure of the church for the behavior of the individuals, and I sure used to foam at the mouth about it.

However obnoxious I find the particulars of the institutions and the behavior of the individuals I can not blame the individual who might or might not have existed and was called Jesus and who might or might not have made the statement attributed to them. In fact I am still rather a fan of the teachings of Jesus.

Now when it comes to your post. There are a number of questions that can be answered to generate my POV:

1. Who made the statements that “universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness”. Not the AHB? The four noble truths (definitely valued laden words there) are the four noble truths about what? Suffering? And while the buddha(alleged and likely mythological) stated that he felt he found the cause of suffering and the path to it's easing, he also put a lot of stock on self examination, critical thinking and rejecting his path f one disagreed with it.

2. Who made the statements about "meaning of life and understanding of the universe”? And should buddhism be held to the statements of a particular woo woo individual?

I and many others have stated repeatedly and endlessly on this forum that there are many foolish, mistaken, superstitious and stupid beliefs that are practiced in buddhism.

However is one examines the Pali canon which had five hundred years of oral traditions and then was edited by a mass conclave after the alleged teaching of the alleged historical buddha, you will find that the 'buddha' was rather careful in the statements that they made, that there is a rather careful statement of the teachings, that there is an underlying foundation of critical thought and that self knowledge and scepticism seem to be encouraged.

Now this does not of course prevent the followers of the AHB from acting really stupid, the first major schism in buddhism was caused by what? A debate over whether an arharant has seminal emissions after attaining a state of nibbanna? And then there is the syncretic path of the phenomena known as religions. So yes, the majority of buddhists around the world may engage in foolish superstitions and dangerous woo beliefs.

Just as the Xians have argued if Jesus wore a purse and others have made statements that "Jesus would support the Iraq war."

So one can find the lotus above the mud or the jewel in the sow’s ear.

(eight spelling errors)

Next post

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg
I didn't miss it. That fact doesn't make the Dali Lama wrong about the 10th unwholesome action. The fact is, Buddhism is like any other religious movement. It has it's dogmas and it's religious leaders and it has numerous "sects" like any other religious movement does. I frequently see people claiming that they are Buddhists but they don't believe in reincarnation, karma and don't even always follow what the Buddha himself said. So in what sense are they Buddhists?
What makes one a Buddhist?
Calling one's self a buddhist.

Quote:
Even if it's simply following what the Buddha said, what makes one thing that what the Buddha said is true? As I mentioned earlier, it's absurd to think that some Indian philosopher or spiritual leader 2,500 years ago figured out the meaning of life, cause of suffering, path to end suffering, and path to "enlightenment" whatever that really even means.

I completely agree and totally understand, there is a lot, and I mean a whole lot of foolish nonsense in buddhism.

There are answers if you want to know them. The AHB taught that a person should examine the teachings and judge them for merit and then if they are found useful to follow them.

I doubt you can show that the AHB said they had found the meaning of life.

The buddha taught the following.

There is suffering and a way to ease that suffering.

There is impermanence in all things. There is no self or soul.

There is a way to live your life to reduce suffering.

The buddha (AHB) did not teach that there was one and only one true path, the buddha9AHB) did not teach reincarnation. The buddha (AHB) taught that he was human. The buddha (AHB) taught that there were other paths and other teachers. The Pali Canon is alleged to contain the teachings of a number of people, Sariputta very notably.

The buddha (AHB) did appear to have some issues with recognizing the equality of women.

The AHB died after eating poison mushrooms or bad pork.


(one spelling error)

next post

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg
But you aren't answering my questions and you're asking many yourself when you're supposed to be the Buddhist.
They are simple questions. If you don't want to answer them then don't. But please be snarky if you wish, it is not my problem.

Quote:
Didn't Buddha? Doesn't Buddhism?
I make no assumptions about what you know or don't know so I state what I believe and have studied.

The buddha is alleged to have been a male who lived in northern India 2500 BCE, he founded a system of philosophy and practice. He had many followers, they spread to many different places. There is a thread of monastic buddhism which was an oral tradition set down five hundred years later when a bunch of monks got together and recited the oral tradition and wrote down what they felt was consistent with the recitations. They say they just recited their separate oral traditions and wrote down the ones that agreed with each other. This is the so called Pali Canon.

Meanwhile there were other strains of monastic buddhism that spread. In the Mahayana tradition buddhism merged with many different local traditions, in the mahayana traditions anything which leads to enlightenment is considered to be buddhism. Most of their traditions were written down at various times after the writing of the Pali canon.

So there are multiple threads to what comprise the teachings of the buddha. There is the 'southern' monastic tradition where there is an oral tradition that is collated and edited five hundred years after the death of the AHB. There are all the other traditions of buddhism which are monastic in origin but much more syncretic.

So what is a teaching of the buddha? Some will say that anything put in the mouth of the buddha is a teaching of the buddha. Many (myself included) take the historical perspective that from the archeological perspective the Pali Canon seems to be very consistent with the recording of an oral tradition of buddhism that is self consistent, either through the stated process of collation or a process of editing an oral tradition.

The texts of the other traditions are harder to verify as to the date of writing and transmission from the Alleged Historical Buddha. There are similarities in the teaching of certain stories and doctrines, there is a complete divergence of other stories and doctrines.

So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places.

Which is the teaching of the AHB? Most likely none of them, no more than the Gospels represent the actual teachings of Jesus. We can look at the similarities in the documents, it would appear that the four truths and the eightfold path and some of the precepts are very consistent. In buddhism most schools take the Pali Canon to be the best source of the teachings of the buddha. It is the source of most of the sutras/suttas. The Pali canon does seem to represent the most consistent of the documents, it contradicts very few of the things that are consistent across all the documents. But that is also because it is the source text for much of buddhism.

So I tongue in cheeks state the Pali canon is the "teachings of the buddha".

But anything placed in the mouth of the buddha is also a 'teaching of the buddha'.

And as to what comprises a buddhist, any one who calls themselves a buddhist.

Quote:

Here are some more "truths" of Buddhism...
• Refrain from using a high, luxurious bed.
• Refrain from dancing, using jewelery, going to shows, etc.
• Refrain from eating at the wrong time (only eat from sunrise to noon)



Where do they come from? What makes you a Buddhist if you don't practice them?
It depends upon the tradition and calling yourself a buddhist.

Some traditions practice 'no harm to life' others eat meat, they are all buddhists.

What makes you a buddhist is following the eightfold path and the 'teaching of the buddha'.

Quote:



Where did Buddha say that his followers should believe what they see as true and not what he himself has said?
Many places, I can cite my sources, can you?

According to the story of the death of the buddha his dying words were "Be ye lamps unto yourselves", he is alleged to have told Ananada when he was wailing about the loss of the buddha.

The Kalama sutta is the main one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra

Quote:

If this is the case(which I doubt it is) what is the value of Buddhism?
It is up to each person to study the buddha's teaching and decide the value for themselves.

The value or lack thereof is up to the individual. I can tell you what I find to be valuable.

Quote:
Huh?
You have a teacher (alleged) and you have the followers, 2 1/2 thousand years later how do you decide what is a teaching of the teacher and what is a teaching of the follower? That is called history.

The first big schism in buddhism came about because of an argument over whether an arharant/arhat would have seminal emissions when they slept. Sounds silly to me.

Quote:


I don't know what you mean in the 1st part.
Misspelling. the phenomena of religion is syncretic. I believe it means acquiring other traditions.

Quote:

Wore a Purse?
Google, "Two Popes", "i dui Papi", Avignon Papacy

Quote:



I don't know what this means either.
If ya don't know I won't tell you.

(sixteen spelling errors)

[Dancing David]

Dustin, I also looked for the ten unwholesome acts in the Pali canon, it would appear that it is not attributed to the buddha in that tradition. There are ten wholesome acts I can find.

[yrreg]

What I really should be doing as we all should be doing when it comes to worldviews, study the psychology of people holding to a worldview, in particular the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum who claim to be and are proud to be called and to call themselves Buddhists, withal professing to practice critical thinking and to be keen on empirical evidence.

And what are the source materials for such a study? What else but the messages of people like the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum.


Just read the responses of Buddhists here to my comments about their core Buddhism or their belief that Gautama's teachings in the eightfold path are original with him, Gautama, and you will know their kind of peculiar psychology on the one hand, and on the other that it is futile to engage in any decent academic discussion with them about the Buddhism they have designed for themselves.


The one Buddhist here will continuously tell the whole world that he hates me, and the other will continuously drum on the principle of his own kind of burden of proof, so that it is the denier who is burdened with the proof and not the allegator or the one making the allegation [pun not intended].


But it is truly enjoyable for a mental exercise in critical thinking and in the search for empirical evidence.

For readers and visitors to this thread, remember the distinction between discovery and invention; so that when it comes to a worldview to adopt for living, you stand a better chance of getting a realistic one from the modern philosophy and science of psychology, than from Buddhist lore mongers and other cultivators of ancient speculative systems, who did not know and had absolutely no inkling at all that plants are like humans, with sex organs and sexual reproduction.


Yrreg

[Tanstaafl]

You're quite right about that. The recent websites you provided made it clear that the dysphonetic type of dyslexia could result in impaired ability to spell words. I admit I was mistaken on that account.


Well, that may not have been pleasant to type, but for what it's worth (okay, admittedly not much) you went up a notch on my respectometer.

[Ryokan]

Just read the responses of Buddhists here to my comments about their core Buddhism or their belief that Gautama's teachings in the eightfold path are original with him, Gautama, and you will know their kind of peculiar psychology on the one hand, and on the other that it is futile to engage in any decent academic discussion with them about the Buddhism they have designed for themselves.

If you can find evidence that any Buddhist on this board claimed the eightfold path are original to Gautama Buddha, I will give you a million dollars.

All we have done is contested your claim that they're not. Something you've claimed more than once. When are you going to show us evidence that you're right? I'll probably agree with you if the evidence is good enough.

But evidence, sources and citations is not really your schtick, is it?

[Lonewulf]

Well, that may not have been pleasant to type, but for what it's worth (okay, admittedly not much) you went up a notch on my respectometer.

Don't worry, he'll go back down in due time.

Especially since he's flaunting his "ability to admit he's wrong" in another thread...

[Dancing David]

What I really should be doing as we all should be doing when it comes to worldviews, study the psychology of people holding to a worldview, in particular the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum who claim to be and are proud to be called and to call themselves Buddhists, withal professing to practice critical thinking and to be keen on empirical evidence.

And what are the source materials for such a study? What else but the messages of people like the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum.


Just read the responses of Buddhists here to my comments about their core Buddhism or their belief that Gautama's teachings in the eightfold path are original with him, Gautama, and you will know their kind of peculiar psychology on the one hand, and on the other that it is futile to engage in any decent academic discussion with them about the Buddhism they have designed for themselves.


The one Buddhist here will continuously tell the whole world that he hates me, and the other will continuously drum on the principle of his own kind of burden of proof, so that it is the denier who is burdened with the proof and not the allegator or the one making the allegation [pun not intended].


But it is truly enjoyable for a mental exercise in critical thinking and in the search for empirical evidence.

For readers and visitors to this thread, remember the distinction between discovery and invention; so that when it comes to a worldview to adopt for living, you stand a better chance of getting a realistic one from the modern philosophy and science of psychology, than from Buddhist lore mongers and other cultivators of ancient speculative systems, who did not know and had absolutely no inkling at all that plants are like humans, with sex organs and sexual reproduction.


Yrreg


And what allegation did I make Yrreg? You asked:


posted by Yrreg
So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.


To which I answered:

Uh, the whole world recognizes the eight fold path as part of buddhism. You stated repeatedly that the eightfold path is predated in other cultures.

So have you got any evidence, any citations, any documents or any data to suggest that the parts or whole of the eightfold path are preceded?

The funny thing is that none of the buddhists here claimed that the Alleged Historical Buddha was original to begin with.

But you made the claim, can you support it?

So I answered your question:
"a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.'

and stated the eightfold path

and then I brought up your prior claim that it had been predated in other cultures.

This is your response:

posted by Yrreg
And make an affirmation to the effect that you believe in your cogitation and adheration and verbalization of your understanding of the eightfold path, like this:

"I declare from my honest mind that I accept the eightfold path of Buddhism as I have here explicitly declared it, in accordance with my cogitation and adheration and verbalization, etc., etc., etc., so help me the members of this JREF forum, etc., etc. etc."
Because I don't want anymore to invest time and trouble showing you how the materials concerned if they make sense on critical thinking and empirical evidence they antedate Gautama, and if they make for nonsense they are not in accordance with critical thinking and empirical evidence upon which scientific and rationalist skepticism is founded.


I have to impose this requirement on you, Dancing David and also the Buddhists in JREF forum, otherwise you keep behaving like slippery eels.



So you did not address the answer or the question.

I responded with my view of the eightfold path here:


To which you responded thusly;

posted by yrreg
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?



So in the usual fashion of Yrreg, you did not answer my question about your claim, but even more like yourself, you forgot your actual statement!


posted by Yrreg
So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.

I mentioned a genuine piece of buddhism and you equivocated and didn't do AS YOU SAID YOU WOULD!

You failed to evaluate it for its merits from a rational and sceptic POV, rather typical of you it would seem, you make promises and never keep the.

Then I responded to your statement

Where you just assert that the buddha never made anything original, which may be true, what I asked you was to back up your claim that the eight fold path is predated in other cultures.

Your statement, yours to defend.

So we have you breaking your statements of intent and we have you failing to support your own statements, except for empty rhetoric.

As usually, you just hate the fact that there are people who are buddhists and that they may also call themselves sceptics.

SO WHAT IS NOT SCEPTICAL ABOUT MY PRESENTATION OF THE EIGHTFOLD PATH?

[Complexity]

So now Yrreg has a thing for the sex organs of plants?

I wonder if he think's I'm a Buddhist? Or if I'm not a Buddhist?

I think he think's I hate him. I have contempt for him - different thing.

Silly Yrreg.

[onemind]

Breach of Rule 8 removed.

[Taffer]

Y'know, onemind, you're the one started the discussion, weren't you?

[onemind]

No

[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

:rolleyes:

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.

:rolleyes:

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.