The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site - Page 5

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Solus

The other major religions do not say suffering is a part of life in the major tenets.

Firstly, This doesn't answer my question. Your initial comment was phrased in a way you made it seem you somehow have been through more suffering than the rest of us.

Secondly, The Abrahamic religions teach of "Original sin" and that all suffering is an inherent part of life and is caused by our sins and the only way to end suffering is to be purified from our sins either by asking for forgiveness or accepting Jesus as ones savior.

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Ah, you are the master of logic!

ROTFLMAO!

Dude you are so, sheepish.

How do you know that Frey worshipers don't call their deity "God" or "Lord".

"Frey"? Do you mean Freyja? She was a Norse Goddess and in which case she would of probably been referred to as an "Ásynjur".

onemind · 31st May 2007, 02:25 PM

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

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Solus

Dustin you push too far, insulting someone who has actually CLAIMED they are dyslexic. David may be annoying but you’re just being cruel here. Try living with a disability for a while Dustin and lets see how you handle it...

David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker.

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I have dysphonia and I was lazy, I shall use the spell check. It is a learning disability. Fortunately my other issues are well treated.

Thanks for the support!

No it isn't.

http://www.dysphonia.org/

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/spasdysp.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spasmodic_dysphonia

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

It is a personal choice, the student should use their own skills to decide which texts agree with their thinking.

And if they disagree with them then by definition they aren't "Buddhists".

Originally Posted by Dancing David

As you ignored earlier the Ten Unwholesome Acts are part of a particular tradition.

So not Buddha's teachings?

Originally Posted by Dancing David

The ten precepts are post AHB, I believe.

"AHB"?

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Proof , evidence?

More baseless assertion.

You will find that sceptics have been called cafeteria buddhists by one wit.

But please show your lack of knowledge and make baseless accusations.

You ain't no scpetic.

What do you want proof for? You're a Buddhist right? Buddhism is a 2,500 year old religious doctrine. You believe in this religious doctrine. Ergo...

andyandy · 31st May 2007, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant...

good grief! Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it's an absolute definition. Here are some commonly used definitions of "God"

G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being”

(G3) “God” = “love” [less common]
(G4) “God” = “the universe” [less common]

(G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”
(G6) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”

(G7) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
nonmaterial, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”
(G8) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal creator and ruler of the universe”

(G9) “God” = ? (No definition is possible; the term is indefinable.)

(G10) “God” = “that being to which no positive properties can be ascribed”

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Jo...02/Conifer.htm

this is by no means exhaustive - nor are any of those definitions sufficient to describe an individual's interpretation of "God." Take a cross section of 10 monothestics from across the faiths, and do you honestly think they'd agree on the absolute definition of what "God" means? Take a cross section within a major faith group, look further into a denominational subset, when do you think your absolute definition is going to arrive?

If you were genuinely interested in the topic, I'd recommend "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - which documents the evolution of how God is defined through the ages - within the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith, in unity, in trinity, in philosophy, in mysticism, in reformation, in enlightenment, in secularism, in political conservatism, in liberalism and beyond.

of course, you don't appear interested in anything more than trying to justify your delusions of grandeur through proving just how much cleverer you are than everyone else here. It would be of benefit however to consider actually doing a little reading on the subject.

Ryokan · 31st May 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist".

You've just cut Buddhism in half, as Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism doesn't put emphasis on Gautama Buddha at all. Nor do they put emphasis on the four noble truths, and don't use the same texts as other Buddhist sects do.

That's the problem with making up a definite definition of Buddhism; it can't be done.

onemind · 31st May 2007, 03:06 PM

My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

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.

Taffer · 31st May 2007, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

I'm trying to be consistent to have a discussion. If you want to claim that Buddhism means 'anything and everything' and anyone who says they are a buddhist is a buddhist then we can't have any sort of meaningful discourse.

It doesn't seem to be a problem to the majority of people in the world. I suggest it is you who is making a deal out of it.

Taffer · 31st May 2007, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant...

Yes, because of course that's what I mean.

Taffer · 31st May 2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English.

And the fact that the rest of us have no trouble understanding him?

I think the fault lies with yourself.

Taffer · 31st May 2007, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by onemind

Yes, you are right, there is much more proof of rebirth, nibbana and karma.

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

Quote:

I am not interested in arguing semantics and lame definitions on who gets to label themselves what.

My site is based on debunking the 3 core teachings that lie at the center of mainstream buddhism.

Like i said, label yourself what you like. I couldnt care less.

But you obviously do. I am forced to wonder why you even bothered to make a website if "you couldn't care less".

Taffer · 31st May 2007, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by onemind

My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

Because you label all Buddhists as believing in the literal truths of these.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Semantics? You are the one who is ascribing traits to all Buddhists when it does not exist. You are arguing with the Straw Buddhist.

Ryokan · 31st May 2007, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by onemind

My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment..

What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous.

There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core.

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.

Err, are you calling Pure Land a minority sect? It's by large the biggest sect there is! But of course, by your definition they're not Buddhists at all. Nor are the Zennists.

andyandy · 31st May 2007, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by ryokan

Semantics? You are the one who is ascribing traits to all Buddhists when it does not exist. You are arguing with the Straw Buddhist.

it's just a parroting of the great straw creator Sam Harris

"needless to say all non-buddhists believe buddhism to be a religion"

A quote of staggering agricultural byproduct proportions - which forms the basis of his argument to "kill the buddha"

In it he also goes on to make the simply ludicrous inference that the Northern Ireland conflict [labelled Protestant vs Catholic] was explicitly caused by religion. This is simply not true. Many of the other examples he gives are equally far better understood through nationalist geographical tension. I am actually staggered by the shoddiness of this article.

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by andyandy

good grief! Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it's an absolute definition. Here are some commonly used definitions of "God"

G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”
(G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being”

These are basically synonymous.

Originally Posted by andyandy

(G3) “God” = “love” [less common]
(G4) “God” = “the universe” [less common]

Source?

Originally Posted by andyandy

(G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything”
(G6) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”

Synonymous with 1st definition.

Originally Posted by andyandy

(G7) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
nonmaterial, eternal creator and ruler of the universe”
(G8) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal creator and ruler of the universe”

Synonymous with 1st definition.

Originally Posted by andyandy

(G9) “God” = ? (No definition is possible; the term is indefinable.)

Source?

Originally Posted by andyandy

(G10) “God” = “that being to which no positive properties can be ascribed”

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Jo...02/Conifer.htm

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

Originally Posted by andyandy

this is by no means exhaustive - nor are any of those definitions sufficient to describe an individual's interpretation of "God." Take a cross section of 10 monothestics from across the faiths, and do you honestly think they'd agree on the absolute definition of what "God" means? Take a cross section within a major faith group, look further into a denominational subset, when do you think your absolute definition is going to arrive?

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

Originally Posted by andyandy

If you were genuinely interested in the topic, I'd recommend "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - which documents the evolution of how God is defined through the ages - within the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith, in unity, in trinity, in philosophy, in mysticism, in reformation, in enlightenment, in secularism, in political conservatism, in liberalism and beyond.

Read it. See above.

Originally Posted by andyandy

of course, you don't appear interested in anything more than trying to justify your delusions of grandeur through proving just how much cleverer you are than everyone else here. It would be of benefit however to consider actually doing a little reading on the subject.

Have done plenty.

Tsukasa Buddha · 31st May 2007, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Much of what is in the gospels is from the authors and isn't even claimed to be directly from Jesus.

Are you trying to be dull? I said "include," as in the teachings of Christ are in the gospels. I did not say that every single sentence is considered a teaching of Christ.

Quote:

So why not follow them? Are them on a level of "less holiness" from the other teachings? Are they less right? Or do you just like to pick and choose like most Christians?

Oh, you insinuated that I have something in common with Christians! Gasp! The horror

!

Perhaps if you took the time to actually study the philosophy of religion we could have a reasonable discussion about this. However, as your statement makes it clear, you just hate religion.

Quote:

Let's dissect this bit by bit...

Questionable. See bottom for further criticism.

Blamable?

Who? What "Wise"? Also, this is an appeal to authority.

Assuming this is true, This isn't an argument for their validity or reliability. Many Christians lead happy lives because of their religion however this in no way attests to it's legitimacy.

Did you really just read Wiki articles about Buddhism? That was from the Kalama Sutra. It was in response to your inquiry of why people follow Buddhism.

Quote:

No. Mill taught a lot more than utilitarianism.

Why not a "Saganist"?

However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist".

Look, Buddhist and Skeptic etc. are all just labels. They are labels that we in society use to group people of homologous traits. I am not the grand arbitrator of labels that people have commonly accepted. And neither are you. So why go through this game?

You seem to have issues with Buddhism being a dogmatic religion. While this may be true in many places, it doesn't always have to be true. Read "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Read the Kalama sutra. If one doesn't look at all the texts as Holy and containing ultimate truth, it is not hypocrisy to follow some parts while not others.

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Taffer

It doesn't seem to be a problem to the majority of people in the world. I suggest it is you who is making a deal out of it.

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

Originally Posted by Taffer

Yes, because of course that's what I mean.

What?

Originally Posted by Taffer

And the fact that the rest of us have no trouble understanding him?

I think the fault lies with yourself.

The fact that you claim you have no trouble understanding him is simply proof you're a liar and haven't even read his posts. His grammar is terrible, his spelling is terrible, his syntax is terrible, his posts are nearly incomprehensible as they are not to even mention the internal inconsistencies.

Tsukasa Buddha · 31st May 2007, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

These are basically synonymous.

Source?

Synonymous with 1st definition.

Synonymous with 1st definition.

Source?

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

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

Read it. See above.

Have done plenty.

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

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Are you trying to be dull? I said "include," as in the teachings of Christ are in the gospels. I did not say that every single sentence is considered a teaching of Christ.

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

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Oh, you insinuated that I have something in common with Christians! Gasp! The horror

!

Perhaps if you took the time to actually study the philosophy of religion we could have a reasonable discussion about this. However, as your statement makes it clear, you just hate religion.

There's a lot to hate about religion.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Did you really just read Wiki articles about Buddhism? That was from the Kalama Sutra. It was in response to your inquiry of why people follow Buddhism.

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

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Look, Buddhist and Skeptic etc. are all just labels. They are labels that we in society use to group people of homologous traits. I am not the grand arbitrator of labels that people have commonly accepted. And neither are you. So why go through this game?

Why call yourself a "Buddhist"?

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

You seem to have issues with Buddhism being a dogmatic religion. While this may be true in many places, it doesn't always have to be true. Read "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Read the Kalama sutra. If one doesn't look at all the texts as Holy and containing ultimate truth, it is not hypocrisy to follow some parts while not others.

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

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

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

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

Taffer · 31st May 2007, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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

Why, because you say so?

Quote:

What?

Sarcasm, Dustin, sarcasm.

Quote:

The fact that you claim you have no trouble understanding him is simply proof you're a liar and haven't even read his posts. His grammar is terrible, his spelling is terrible, his syntax is terrible, his posts are nearly incomprehensible as they are not to even mention the internal inconsistencies.

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

onemind · 31st May 2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

Taffer · 31st May 2007, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by onemind

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

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

Quote:

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

No, it isn't.

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

onemind · 31st May 2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

No, it isn't

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

Taffer · 31st May 2007, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by onemind

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

Ah, an argument by sarcasm. Good one.

(See what I just did there?

)

Solus · 31st May 2007, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English.

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

andyandy · 31st May 2007, 11:42 PM

[quote=Dustin Kesselberg;2651429]

Quote:

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

Good grief you're an absolute moron.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Read it.

Have done plenty

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

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

Solus · 31st May 2007, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Firstly, This doesn't answer my question. Your initial comment was phrased in a way you made it seem you somehow have been through more suffering than the rest of us.

Secondly, The Abrahamic religions teach of "Original sin" and that all suffering is an inherent part of life and is caused by our sins and the only way to end suffering is to be purified from our sins either by asking for forgiveness or accepting Jesus as ones savior.

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Solus

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

You're clearly the one with a learning disability!

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=164

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by andyandy

Good grief you're an absolute moron.

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

Originally Posted by andyandy

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

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

Originally Posted by andyandy

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg · 31st May 2007, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by Solus

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

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

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

Solus · 1st June 2007, 12:01 AM

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

Lonewulf · 1st June 2007, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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

Yes.

Quote:

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

Wrong.

Quote:

Grow up.

You first.

Quote:

Learn to properly debate.

You first.

andyandy · 1st June 2007, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Catholic F "the answer..."

Kaballah G "was right here!"

Mormon H "silly us!"

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

All "Yes let's!"

Lonewulf · 1st June 2007, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Catholic F "the answer..."

Kaballah G "was right here!"

Mormon H "silly us!"

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

All "Yes let's!"

Well said, orangutang, well said.

andyandy · 1st June 2007, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

I'm the moron?

yes you are.

Quote:

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

so your absolute definition isn't absolute? LOL

Quote:

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

Solus · 1st June 2007, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

You're clearly the one with a learning disability!

Ad hominems, boring.

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

31st May 2007, 02:17 PM	#161
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Solus The other major religions do not say suffering is a part of life in the major tenets. Firstly, This doesn't answer my question. Your initial comment was phrased in a way you made it seem you somehow have been through more suffering than the rest of us. Secondly, The Abrahamic religions teach of "Original sin" and that all suffering is an inherent part of life and is caused by our sins and the only way to end suffering is to be purified from our sins either by asking for forgiveness or accepting Jesus as ones savior.
	__________________

31st May 2007, 02:21 PM	#162
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Dancing David Ah, you are the master of logic! ROTFLMAO! Dude you are so, sheepish. How do you know that Frey worshipers don't call their deity "God" or "Lord". "Frey"? Do you mean Freyja? She was a Norse Goddess and in which case she would of probably been referred to as an "Ásynjur".
	__________________

31st May 2007, 02:25 PM	#163
onemind Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 128	So do all the smart people stay out of the religion and philosophy section?
onemind Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 128

31st May 2007, 02:25 PM	#164
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Solus Dustin you push too far, insulting someone who has actually CLAIMED they are dyslexic. David may be annoying but you’re just being cruel here. Try living with a disability for a while Dustin and lets see how you handle it... David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker.
	__________________ Last edited by Dustin Kesselberg; 31st May 2007 at 02:27 PM.

31st May 2007, 02:28 PM	#165
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Dancing David I have dysphonia and I was lazy, I shall use the spell check. It is a learning disability. Fortunately my other issues are well treated. Thanks for the support! No it isn't. http://www.dysphonia.org/ http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/spasdysp.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spasmodic_dysphonia
	__________________

31st May 2007, 02:30 PM	#166
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Dancing David It is a personal choice, the student should use their own skills to decide which texts agree with their thinking. And if they disagree with them then by definition they aren't "Buddhists". Originally Posted by Dancing David As you ignored earlier the Ten Unwholesome Acts are part of a particular tradition. So not Buddha's teachings? Originally Posted by Dancing David The ten precepts are post AHB, I believe. "AHB"?
	__________________

31st May 2007, 02:31 PM	#167
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Dancing David Proof , evidence? More baseless assertion. You will find that sceptics have been called cafeteria buddhists by one wit. But please show your lack of knowledge and make baseless accusations. You ain't no scpetic. What do you want proof for? You're a Buddhist right? Buddhism is a 2,500 year old religious doctrine. You believe in this religious doctrine. Ergo...
	__________________

31st May 2007, 02:53 PM	#168
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant... good grief! Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it's an absolute definition. Here are some commonly used definitions of "God" G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe” (G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being” (G3) “God” = “love” [less common] (G4) “God” = “the universe” [less common] (G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything” (G6) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and ruler of the universe” (G7) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, eternal creator and ruler of the universe” (G8) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal creator and ruler of the universe” (G9) “God” = ? (No definition is possible; the term is indefinable.) (G10) “God” = “that being to which no positive properties can be ascribed” http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Jo...02/Conifer.htm this is by no means exhaustive - nor are any of those definitions sufficient to describe an individual's interpretation of "God." Take a cross section of 10 monothestics from across the faiths, and do you honestly think they'd agree on the absolute definition of what "God" means? Take a cross section within a major faith group, look further into a denominational subset, when do you think your absolute definition is going to arrive? If you were genuinely interested in the topic, I'd recommend "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - which documents the evolution of how God is defined through the ages - within the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith, in unity, in trinity, in philosophy, in mysticism, in reformation, in enlightenment, in secularism, in political conservatism, in liberalism and beyond. of course, you don't appear interested in anything more than trying to justify your delusions of grandeur through proving just how much cleverer you are than everyone else here. It would be of benefit however to consider actually doing a little reading on the subject.
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks." Last edited by andyandy; 31st May 2007 at 03:40 PM.

31st May 2007, 02:59 PM	#169
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,200	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist". You've just cut Buddhism in half, as Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism doesn't put emphasis on Gautama Buddha at all. Nor do they put emphasis on the four noble truths, and don't use the same texts as other Buddhist sects do. That's the problem with making up a definite definition of Buddhism; it can't be done.

31st May 2007, 03:06 PM	#170
onemind Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 128	My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment.. What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous. There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core. 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.
onemind Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 128

31st May 2007, 03:07 PM	#171
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg I'm trying to be consistent to have a discussion. If you want to claim that Buddhism means 'anything and everything' and anyone who says they are a buddhist is a buddhist then we can't have any sort of meaningful discourse. It doesn't seem to be a problem to the majority of people in the world. I suggest it is you who is making a deal out of it.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

31st May 2007, 03:08 PM	#172
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg I guess the folks over at Princeton are simplistic and ignorant... Yes, because of course that's what I mean.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

31st May 2007, 03:10 PM	#173
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English. And the fact that the rest of us have no trouble understanding him? I think the fault lies with yourself.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

31st May 2007, 03:11 PM	#174
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by onemind Yes, you are right, there is much more proof of rebirth, nibbana and karma. Not all interpretations of Buddhist teachings take these things to be literal truths. Quote: I am not interested in arguing semantics and lame definitions on who gets to label themselves what. My site is based on debunking the 3 core teachings that lie at the center of mainstream buddhism. Like i said, label yourself what you like. I couldnt care less. But you obviously do. I am forced to wonder why you even bothered to make a website if "you couldn't care less".
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

31st May 2007, 03:14 PM	#175
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by onemind My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment.. What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous. There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core. Because you label all Buddhists as believing in the literal truths of these. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Semantics? You are the one who is ascribing traits to all Buddhists when it does not exist. You are arguing with the Straw Buddhist.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

31st May 2007, 03:20 PM	#176
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,200	Originally Posted by onemind My buddhist sect believes eating lots of chocolate leads to enlightenment.. What is it with you guys? This arguing over the definiton of buddhism stuff is ludicrous. There are tons of minority sects in buddhism, so what? We are dealing with the majority, mainstream buddhist doctrine as found in the pali canon and is fundamental to therevada, mahayana and tibetan buddhism. The bulk of these three main schools, and i'm not talking minority sects within each school, have the 4 noble truths, the 8fold path, rebirth, karma and nirvana at their core. 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. Err, are you calling Pure Land a minority sect? It's by large the biggest sect there is! But of course, by your definition they're not Buddhists at all. Nor are the Zennists.

31st May 2007, 03:31 PM	#177
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	Originally Posted by ryokan Semantics? You are the one who is ascribing traits to all Buddhists when it does not exist. You are arguing with the Straw Buddhist. it's just a parroting of the great straw creator Sam Harris "needless to say all non-buddhists believe buddhism to be a religion" A quote of staggering agricultural byproduct proportions - which forms the basis of his argument to "kill the buddha" In it he also goes on to make the simply ludicrous inference that the Northern Ireland conflict [labelled Protestant vs Catholic] was explicitly caused by religion. This is simply not true. Many of the other examples he gives are equally far better understood through nationalist geographical tension. I am actually staggered by the shoddiness of this article.
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks." Last edited by andyandy; 31st May 2007 at 04:24 PM.

31st May 2007, 07:51 PM	#178
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by andyandy good grief! Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it's an absolute definition. Here are some commonly used definitions of "God" G1) “God” = “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe” (G2) “God” = “the most Perfect Being” These are basically synonymous. Originally Posted by andyandy (G3) “God” = “love” [less common] (G4) “God” = “the universe” [less common] Source? Originally Posted by andyandy (G5) “God” = “the Ground of Being; the Source of Everything” (G6) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and ruler of the universe” Synonymous with 1st definition. Originally Posted by andyandy (G7) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, eternal creator and ruler of the universe” (G8) “God” = “the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, nonmaterial, atemporal creator and ruler of the universe” Synonymous with 1st definition. Originally Posted by andyandy (G9) “God” = ? (No definition is possible; the term is indefinable.) Source? Originally Posted by andyandy (G10) “God” = “that being to which no positive properties can be ascribed” http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Jo...02/Conifer.htm This comes from an essay by Steven J. Conifer. It's not a reliable source for definitions of words. Originally Posted by andyandy this is by no means exhaustive - nor are any of those definitions sufficient to describe an individual's interpretation of "God." Take a cross section of 10 monothestics from across the faiths, and do you honestly think they'd agree on the absolute definition of what "God" means? Take a cross section within a major faith group, look further into a denominational subset, when do you think your absolute definition is going to arrive? You're confusing "Definitions" with "Descriptions". Defining a thing and describing all attributes perceived or real of said thing are two totally different actions. Originally Posted by andyandy If you were genuinely interested in the topic, I'd recommend "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - which documents the evolution of how God is defined through the ages - within the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith, in unity, in trinity, in philosophy, in mysticism, in reformation, in enlightenment, in secularism, in political conservatism, in liberalism and beyond. Read it. See above. Originally Posted by andyandy of course, you don't appear interested in anything more than trying to justify your delusions of grandeur through proving just how much cleverer you are than everyone else here. It would be of benefit however to consider actually doing a little reading on the subject. Have done plenty.
	__________________

31st May 2007, 07:53 PM	#179
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,926	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg Much of what is in the gospels is from the authors and isn't even claimed to be directly from Jesus. Are you trying to be dull? I said "include," as in the teachings of Christ are in the gospels. I did not say that every single sentence is considered a teaching of Christ. Quote: So why not follow them? Are them on a level of "less holiness" from the other teachings? Are they less right? Or do you just like to pick and choose like most Christians? Oh, you insinuated that I have something in common with Christians! Gasp! The horror ! Perhaps if you took the time to actually study the philosophy of religion we could have a reasonable discussion about this. However, as your statement makes it clear, you just hate religion. Quote: Let's dissect this bit by bit... Questionable. See bottom for further criticism. Blamable? Who? What "Wise"? Also, this is an appeal to authority. Assuming this is true, This isn't an argument for their validity or reliability. Many Christians lead happy lives because of their religion however this in no way attests to it's legitimacy. Did you really just read Wiki articles about Buddhism? That was from the Kalama Sutra. It was in response to your inquiry of why people follow Buddhism. Quote: No. Mill taught a lot more than utilitarianism. Why not a "Saganist"? However "Buddhism" in the English language means someone who is a Buddhist which is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha including the rituals of the organized religion. You're not a Buddhist if you simply agree with a few things Guatama said. In that case you're simply "A guy who agrees with a few things Guatama said", Not necessarily a "Buddhist". Look, Buddhist and Skeptic etc. are all just labels. They are labels that we in society use to group people of homologous traits. I am not the grand arbitrator of labels that people have commonly accepted. And neither are you. So why go through this game? You seem to have issues with Buddhism being a dogmatic religion. While this may be true in many places, it doesn't always have to be true. Read "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Read the Kalama sutra. If one doesn't look at all the texts as Holy and containing ultimate truth, it is not hypocrisy to follow some parts while not others.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

31st May 2007, 07:55 PM	#180
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Taffer It doesn't seem to be a problem to the majority of people in the world. I suggest it is you who is making a deal out of it. The majority of people in the world rarely need to adequately define these sorts of terms because they rarely think deeply about them. Originally Posted by Taffer Yes, because of course that's what I mean. What? Originally Posted by Taffer And the fact that the rest of us have no trouble understanding him? I think the fault lies with yourself. The fact that you claim you have no trouble understanding him is simply proof you're a liar and haven't even read his posts. His grammar is terrible, his spelling is terrible, his syntax is terrible, his posts are nearly incomprehensible as they are not to even mention the internal inconsistencies.
	__________________

31st May 2007, 07:57 PM	#181
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,926	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg These are basically synonymous. Source? Synonymous with 1st definition. Synonymous with 1st definition. Source? This comes from an essay by Steven J. Conifer. It's not a reliable source for definitions of words. You're confusing "Definitions" with "Descriptions". Defining a thing and describing all attributes perceived or real of said thing are two totally different actions. Read it. See above. Have done plenty. The dictionary is not the God that commands that a word can only possess the sole definition that exists within its print.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

31st May 2007, 07:59 PM	#182
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Are you trying to be dull? I said "include," as in the teachings of Christ are in the gospels. I did not say that every single sentence is considered a teaching of Christ. Some of what is in the Gospels probably came from the historical Jesus. Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Oh, you insinuated that I have something in common with Christians! Gasp! The horror ! Perhaps if you took the time to actually study the philosophy of religion we could have a reasonable discussion about this. However, as your statement makes it clear, you just hate religion. There's a lot to hate about religion. Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Did you really just read Wiki articles about Buddhism? That was from the Kalama Sutra. It was in response to your inquiry of why people follow Buddhism. And I'm pointing out how it's fallacious to follow Buddhism as much as it is fallacious to follow the Torah or the Koran. Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Look, Buddhist and Skeptic etc. are all just labels. They are labels that we in society use to group people of homologous traits. I am not the grand arbitrator of labels that people have commonly accepted. And neither are you. So why go through this game? Why call yourself a "Buddhist"? Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha You seem to have issues with Buddhism being a dogmatic religion. While this may be true in many places, it doesn't always have to be true. Read "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor. Read the Kalama sutra. If one doesn't look at all the texts as Holy and containing ultimate truth, it is not hypocrisy to follow some parts while not others. But how are you still a "Buddhist" if you get to pick and choose what to follow and what not to? Am I automatically a Christian if I agree with a few things Jesus said? Of course not. No one with any sense would claim such a thing. I'm an Atheist. Simply because I agree with Jesus on a few things doesn't make me a christian anymore than you agreeing with a few things in a few buddhist texts makes you a "Buddhist".
	__________________

31st May 2007, 08:03 PM	#183
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha The dictionary is not the God that commands that a word can only possess the sole definition that exists within its print. The people who author dictionaries are the people who get paid to seek out the common definitions for words and add them. That's what they do and there are dozens of independent dictionaries who all do the same thing. They are the most reliable sources for defining words.
	__________________

31st May 2007, 08:29 PM	#184
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg The majority of people in the world rarely need to adequately define these sorts of terms because they rarely think deeply about them. Why, because you say so? Quote: What? Sarcasm, Dustin, sarcasm. Quote: The fact that you claim you have no trouble understanding him is simply proof you're a liar and haven't even read his posts. His grammar is terrible, his spelling is terrible, his syntax is terrible, his posts are nearly incomprehensible as they are not to even mention the internal inconsistencies. My god you are a self righteous arse. You are now claiming to know what I understood or didn't? You are now claiming that I am lying when I tell you I understood his post? Get over yourself you twit.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

31st May 2007, 10:45 PM	#185
onemind Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 128	Quote: Not all interpretations of Buddhist teachings take these things to be literal truths. For the last time, i am addressing the buddhist sects that friggin do so stop being a pedantic pain in the ass. Just because some buddhist sects dont doesnt write off the entire deabte. It is rather convenient for people to just cherry pick from the pali canon the bits their warped sectarian cult chooses to believe. Science is buddhism, islam is another form of buddhism and so is christianity to any nut that likes playing word games.
onemind Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 128

31st May 2007, 11:04 PM	#186
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by onemind For the last time, i am addressing the buddhist sects that friggin do so stop being a pedantic pain in the ass. Just because some buddhist sects dont doesnt write off the entire deabte. It is rather convenient for people to just cherry pick from the pali canon the bits their warped sectarian cult chooses to believe. No, you are making the argument against those who do believe it to be the literal truth, and then blanketing the argument to all Buddhists. Quote: Science is buddhism, islam is another form of buddhism and so is christianity to any nut that likes playing word games. No, it isn't. ETA: Heh, just had it pointed out to me. "Nobel Truths". Nobel prize winner Buddhists!
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple. Last edited by Taffer; 31st May 2007 at 11:13 PM.

31st May 2007, 11:19 PM	#187
onemind Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 128	Quote: No, it isn't It is if i say it is so please dont exclude my sect in blanket generalisations. My sect believes the great buddha was a master of quantum physics as shown in earlier suttas that aren't in the pali canon but found in a secret dragon cave in the 3rd century.
onemind Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 128

31st May 2007, 11:32 PM	#188
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by onemind It is if i say it is so please dont exclude my sect in blanket generalisations. My sect believes the great buddha was a master of quantum physics as shown in earlier suttas that aren't in the pali canon but found in a secret dragon cave in the 3rd century. Ah, an argument by sarcasm. Good one. (See what I just did there? )
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

31st May 2007, 11:36 PM	#189
Solus Tinkering with my brain Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: L.A. area Posts: 1,723	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg It's not an argument. It's a matter of fact. I can't understand what he is saying therefore I can't respond to what he's saying. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong I'm simply saying I can't respond to him unless he brushes up on his English. Makes you sound like a prick though when David mentions he has a learning disability. Show at least some empathy even if you think the guy is wrong about everything else.

31st May 2007, 11:42 PM	#190
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	[quote=Dustin Kesselberg;2651429] Quote: These are basically synonymous. Source? Synonymous with 1st definition. Synonymous with 1st definition. Source? Good grief you're an absolute moron. Quote: You're confusing "Definitions" with "Descriptions". Defining a thing and describing all attributes perceived or real of said thing are two totally different actions. more moronic drivel. Something can only be said to be defined absolutely if the definition incorporates all describing elements. Quote: Read it. Have done plenty If you have read on this topic and are still so woefully ignorant on it, then there is no hope for you - you must just be plain stupid. I've reached the limit with you dustin. You're an absolute fool.
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

31st May 2007, 11:47 PM	#191
Solus Tinkering with my brain Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: L.A. area Posts: 1,723	Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg Firstly, This doesn't answer my question. Your initial comment was phrased in a way you made it seem you somehow have been through more suffering than the rest of us. Secondly, The Abrahamic religions teach of "Original sin" and that all suffering is an inherent part of life and is caused by our sins and the only way to end suffering is to be purified from our sins either by asking for forgiveness or accepting Jesus as ones savior. No, although more suffering than you I'd be willing to guess. This discussion is not about Abrahamic religions it is it about Buddhism... I wanted to end MY suffering. The idea with Buddhism is that all suffering can end if you follow the eightfold path which will lead to the end for desire which causes suffering. The problem is all the woo attached to it. So I went with with no religion on my part, when I was younger I read about it though.

31st May 2007, 11:48 PM	#192
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Solus Makes you sound like a prick though when David mentions he has a learning disability. Show at least some empathy even if you think the guy is wrong about everything else. You're clearly the one with a learning disability! Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg David said he wasn't Dyslexic. He said he has "Dysphonia" which is actually a problem with the voice and isn't a learning problem. He might of meant "Dysphasia" but I doubt that. He has said that his spelling problems arise from the "goofy archaic nature of the english language" but that's nonsense as well since he's a native english speaker and English would only seem strange to a foreign speaker. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=164
	__________________

31st May 2007, 11:52 PM	#193
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by andyandy Good grief you're an absolute moron. Ignore my comments, Childishly insult me, Yet I'm the moron? Originally Posted by andyandy more moronic drivel. Something can only be said to be defined absolutely if the definition incorporates all describing elements. No. "Definition" is defined as stating the essential nature of things. You don't need to describe every aspect of a thing to adequately define it. Originally Posted by andyandy If you have read on this topic and are still so woefully ignorant on it, then there is no hope for you - you must just be plain stupid. I've reached the limit with you dustin. You're an absolute fool. Grow up. Learn to type. Learn to spell. Learn to properly debate.
	__________________

31st May 2007, 11:56 PM	#194
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Solus No, although more suffering than you I'd be willing to guess. This discussion is not about Abrahamic religions it is it about Buddhism... I wanted to end MY suffering. The idea with Buddhism is that all suffering can end if you follow the eightfold path which will lead to the end for desire which causes suffering. The problem is all the woo attached to it. So I went with with no religion on my part, when I was younger I read about it though. Except you can't end suffering simply by following a few rules. If only life were that easy. In reality suffering is caused by a numerous things opposed to simply "urge" or "desire". In reality to end suffering you must work hard on all fronts to counter the endless causes of suffering and following a few rules won't cut it. This is the problem with religion, it trues to simplify life and attempts to compartmentalize it into simplistic explanations.
	__________________

1st June 2007, 12:01 AM	#195
Solus Tinkering with my brain Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: L.A. area Posts: 1,723	Dustin, go back to your old avatar the holocaust denier David Irving. I think we can all agree that suits your mindset better. Godwin... I perfer godlose but whatever.