The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

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]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

[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]

Originally Posted by Yrreg

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]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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

Originally Posted by dancing david

I just learned today that it is a form of dyslexia! He didn't tell me that.

Originally Posted by dustin

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

and then you boast to david....

Originally Posted by dustin

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]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

[...]


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]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

[...]

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.

.

Originally Posted by 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

.

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




Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Solus

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]

Originally Posted by onemind

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]

Originally Posted by onemind

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]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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]

Originally Posted by Yrreg

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]

Originally Posted by onemind

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]

Originally Posted by onemind

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

Examples of "civility":

Originally Posted by Onemind

I think that is the end of my buddhist debating days. Circular logic and dogmatised sheep tripping on lables. Who can be bothered?.

Originally Posted by Onemind (In reference to pointing out the "True Scotsman fallacy")

I'm the queen of england.

Originally Posted by Onemind

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

Originally Posted by Onemind

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.

Originally Posted by Onemind

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]

Originally Posted by onemind

Those comments were in response to the degenerated thread.

So you went with the flow, then complain that it got that way. Hypocrisy still.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

*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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I take it you're new to the forum?

[onemind]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Onemind

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]

Originally Posted by onemind

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]

Originally Posted by andyandy

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]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Elaborate.

Read.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

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 [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]

Originally Posted by andyandy

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 [i'll see if i can dig up some stats...]

Yeah, but should I always keep them in mind when debunking major religions?

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by onemind

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