Debunk My Spiritual Bullshit!

[NotBlinded]

I've never seen why a God has to be intelligent, but then, I read Lovecraft at an early age...

Lovecraft! That's who I was thinking of when I said Culutus (or whoever that was). Cthulhu is what I was trying to say all along!

 

 

Sorry...totally off topic!

[Dave]

Do you exclude me from this "they?" I am a Buddhist, do you know what I practice/follow/teach/believe?

Apparently you know what every Buddhist practices/follows/teaches/believes since you have spoken for all of Buddhism.

 

It appears you have a picture in your mind about what Buddhism is. But, my friend, have you actually practiced Buddhism? Have you read anything that the Buddha actually taught? Or are you basing your "knowledge" on what is presented by certain "forms" of "Buddhism" or simply from what you have read in books?

You know.... I've heard that exact same argument before..... just change the word " buddhism" with "christianity". I don't buy that argument from them, so why should I buy it from you?

 

Obviously I am not a Buddhist. I have absolutely zero interest in being one. It's just another religion to me and like other religions they got a bunch of stuff wrong.

[dr_funkenstein]

No True Buddhist argument?

 

What about the Buddhist regime in Bhutan - are they not true Buddhists?

 

You know, to me buddhism seems to be a philosophy with so many different interpretations, it's almost as though anyone can claim to be a buddhist and believe whetever the hell they like, and if someone claims that they're not a true buddhist they'll just spout something like "oh well you're just thinking in western terms and you simply don't understand."

 

I think buddhism has some things to offer - particularly the aspects to do with meditation and constant awareness. Doing exercises like this have been shown in clinical studies to improve the health of cancer patients, even reversal of metastasis. The mind/body connection is completely natural though - nothing supernatural at all there, simply natural processes whose mechanisms we don't yet understand.

[Grandpa Harley]

One thing about most Buddhist sects I've encountered seem to play a very long game... Just because a society is nominally Buddhist doesn't mean they're representative, and the Buddhist ideal is slow, lasting change, not some rapid 'Ah bin Sayeved!'

[Grandpa Harley]

Do you exclude me from this "they?" I am a Buddhist, do you know what I practice/follow/teach/believe?

Apparently you know what every Buddhist practices/follows/teaches/believes since you have spoken for all of Buddhism.

 

It appears you have a picture in your mind about what Buddhism is. But, my friend, have you actually practiced Buddhism? Have you read anything that the Buddha actually taught? Or are you basing your "knowledge" on what is presented by certain "forms" of "Buddhism" or simply from what you have read in books?

You know.... I've heard that exact same argument before..... just change the word " buddhism" with "christianity". I don't buy that argument from them, so why should I buy it from you?

 

Obviously I am not a Buddhist. I have absolutely zero interest in being one. It's just another religion to me and like other religions they got a bunch of stuff wrong.

 

Which proves what?

[Vigile]

Buddhist seem to be a peaceful bunch. I like Jun and his posts. He offers an interesting perspective. I don't get the draw to the religion/belief system/whatever it is though.

 

The Four Noble Truths

 

1. Life means suffering.

 

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

 

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

 

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

 

These seem to me to be about as healthy a way to view life as the xian belief that we are all born of sin. It starts with a negative that has a highly subjective interpretation and then offers a solution via the tennets of the belief. If I understand correctly, the solution to the contrived problem is to give up desire for everything. I happen to like desire and I spent too many years of my life feeling guilty for my desires. Contrary to the Buddha or the Leviathan, for that matter, life is not necessarily suffering nor does it have to be nasty, brutal or short. Buddhism, or any organized set of beliefs, are definately not for me.

 

If I suddenly find myself incarcerated for life in a Turkish prison, I might be persuaded to change my mind on the subject. At that point I can see how it might be a positive to give up desire in lieu of personal peace of mind.

[Grandpa Harley]

Buddhist seem to be a peaceful bunch. I like Jun and his posts. He offers an interesting perspective. I don't get the draw to the religion/belief system/whatever it is though.

 

The Four Noble Truths

 

1. Life means suffering.

 

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

 

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

 

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

 

These seem to me to be about as healthy a way to view life as the xian belief that we are all born of sin. It starts with a negative that has a highly subjective interpretation and then offers a solution via the tennets of the belief. If I understand correctly, the solution to the contrived problem is to give up desire for everything. I happen to like desire and I spent too many years of my life feeling guilty for my desires. Contrary to the Buddha or the Leviathan, for that matter, life is not necessarily suffering nor does it have to be nasty, brutal or short. Buddhism, or any organized set of beliefs, are definately not for me.

 

If I suddenly find myself incarcerated for life in a Turkish prison, I might be persuaded to change my mind on the subject. At that point I can see how it might be a positive to give up desire in lieu of personal peace of mind.

Life tends to be you get sick, you grow old and you die. none of it is a barrel of laughs. You don't own anything in that it'll either rot, break, or wind up in house sale when you and your name mean nothing to anyone. All your friends and family will die... lovers will leave or die.... Now, if you treat things like 'forever', 'never' and 'always' are real, you're going to get punched in the kidneys on regular basis. Suffering. Basically, if you enjoy things for what they are... just passing through; everyone and every thing... then you get the Joke without being the butt of the Joke...

 

Kipling covers the concept in 'If'

 

"If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

 

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;"

 

and later in the same poem

 

"If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,

if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;"

 

Covers the lack of attachment, to objects, reputation and people to reduce or remove the pain of loss and betrayal...

 

Leastwise that's my take on it...

 

Paging Rev. Jun - Code Blue, I repeat Code BLUE!!!

[Jun]

Rather than de-rail this topic on spiritual/supernatural stuff any further, I will start another thread specifically about criticising Buddhism. If that person who sent the e-mail isn't happy with that, he/she doesn't need to read it!

 

I invite everyone to criticise to their hearts content and poke holes in Buddhism. The Buddha said that we should all question everything and have doubts about all teachings, including his own. Until we can find the truth for ourselves.

[Dave]

Which proves what?

Which proves that buddhism is no different than any other religion; it has a dogma (even though they adamantly deny it), it has core beliefs (OK, same as dogma), it presents that dhogma as answers to just about any question, it uses a lot of tautologies, and so on. And of course, as with any other religion, if you criticize it all you get back is; "You just don't understand."

[Grandpa Harley]

Which proves what?

Which proves that buddhism is no different than any other religion; it has a dogma (even though they adamantly deny it), it has core beliefs (OK, same as dogma), it presents that dhogma as answers to just about any question, it uses a lot of tautologies, and so on. And of course, as with any other religion, if you criticize it all you get back is; "You just don't understand."

 

having studied it a bit...

 

1) People have dogma, not the base teachings, which tell you to ignore what you don't like, and only use for work for you. That is pretty unique in a 'religion'... having said that, I've only found Tantric Buddhist thought religious, with its supernatural Buddha, its pantheon of 'other' Buddhas (who are of the same essence as the Shakyamuni Buddha, and prayed to), its insistence on Guru figures ('spiritual guide' who is regarded as all but infallible), and its insistence of unexamined articles of faith. So, when Jun posts, he tires to be objective, but we're still getting Jun flavoured Zen (which is fair enough, everything we do and say is filtered through our own perceptual net)

 

2) TBH it didn't 'prove' anything other than you confirmed your personal opinion... an article of faith that really is subjective only to you. Objectively, you pretty well do what you accuse others of and present it as 'proof' that reality according ot Dave is the only 'True' reality. News flash, big boy... it ain't.

[Grandpa Harley]

At the risk of instigating a witch hunt here... Dave, did you send the mail?

[Lycorth]

Which proves that buddhism is no different than any other religion; it has a dogma (even though they adamantly deny it), it has core beliefs (OK, same as dogma), it presents that dhogma as answers to just about any question, it uses a lot of tautologies, and so on. And of course, as with any other religion, if you criticize it all you get back is; "You just don't understand."

 

Many anti-religionists also say the same thing. And Buddhism couldn't be more different than many religions. It's not without its imperfections, but it's hardly the same as Xianity, unless indivudual Buddhists make it that way.

 

All religions are not the same

[Dave]

1) People have dogma, not the base teachings, which tell you to ignore what you don't like, and only use for work for you. That is pretty unique in a 'religion'... having said that, I've only found Tantric Buddhist thought religious,.....

There is more to a religion than just gods. They include; a belief in non corporeal beings, and Buddhism certainly has that. A reliance on ancient texts. They got that. A central character. They got that. A dogma or body of beliefs. They got that. Pat answers for everything. They got that. It's a religion.

 

2) TBH it didn't 'prove' anything other than you confirmed your personal opinion... an article of faith that really is subjective only to you. Objectively, you pretty well do what you accuse others of and present it as 'proof' that reality according ot Dave is the only 'True' reality. News flash, big boy... it ain't.

No. Not even close.

[Dave]

At the risk of instigating a witch hunt here... Dave, did you send the mail?

If you had bothered to attempt to even try to understand anything I've said, you'd know the answer to that would be a "FUCK NO!"

[Grandpa Harley]

1) People have dogma, not the base teachings, which tell you to ignore what you don't like, and only use for work for you. That is pretty unique in a 'religion'... having said that, I've only found Tantric Buddhist thought religious,.....

There is more to a religion than just gods. They include; a belief in non corporeal beings, and Buddhism certainly has that. A reliance on ancient texts. They got that. A central character. They got that. A dogma or body of beliefs. They got that. Pat answers for everything. They got that. It's a religion.

 

2) TBH it didn't 'prove' anything other than you confirmed your personal opinion... an article of faith that really is subjective only to you. Objectively, you pretty well do what you accuse others of and present it as 'proof' that reality according ot Dave is the only 'True' reality. News flash, big boy... it ain't.

No. Not even close.

 

Cite that in non-Tantric or Non-Pure Land forms... marvellous sweeping statement...

[Grandpa Harley]

At the risk of instigating a witch hunt here... Dave, did you send the mail?

If you had bothered to attempt to even try to understand anything I've said, you'd know the answer to that would be a "FUCK NO!"

Looking at the level of debate, it didn't take much understanding...

[Dave]

Cite that in non-Tantric or Non-Pure Land forms... marvellous sweeping statement...

Marvelous strawman.

 

There's a group of beings, humans are just one of the groups. I even remember that Sidd had a conversation with two (?) "gods" in his father's garden.

[Dave]

Looking at the level of debate, it didn't take much understanding...

I know. I was waiting for you to raise your level. I guess I expected too much.

[AtheistMommy]

Yes, I realize that, but one of my best online friends happens to be one of those fundie atheists.

 

No, I am doing nothing more than relating real events that happened to me. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a big difference between subjective religious beliefs and real events that happen to real people - in this case, me. But, believe whatever you want. I realize that in your worldview, these events can't happen, so you believe that they didn't. But, nevertheless, these events did happen, regardless of the fact that they don't happen to fit within your narrow, atheistic worldview. That's why I keep an open mind about things and do my best to avoid narrow, closed-minded worldviews, whether religious or atheistic.

 

Would you call me a fundy Atheist, Jeff? Some people have. I've also been accused of putting doubt into the minds of believers and being militant. Just like the man your talking about (reverend Atheistar).

 

I hate to talk in absolutes but all these things you're talking about are totally subjective. Ghosts don't really exist. If they did exist we would see and have more evidence. I've seen the show you're talking about and it's based on energy and personal experience. It hasn't conviced me yet.

 

However, at the same time if you study the brain you get to see some of why people do see ghosts and other things. The brain is a powerful organ. You can make things true if you believe in them.

 

As for the Rev, what makes him closed minded? The fact that he doesn't agree with you or just because you didn't like what he said when you asked him to debunk this same thread?

[AtheistMommy]

The second experience...no idea, honestly. Could John have been controlling the board? I don't think he would have knowingly done so. If he did do it intentionally, he was a genius because he knew how to move it without applying force. That same day I played with a couple other people and it was obvious that they were controlling it. I'm sure this event had to be controlled by one or both of our minds, but I'm not sure how.

 

I've gotta know... How could there be no force applied if something or someone was moving it? Wouldn't it need a force applied?

[AtheistMommy]

I agree. Many Atheists, I think, make way too much of their Atheism, and read into it things it doesn't cover. All it means is the belief that no gods exist. It is silent on other supernatural or paranormal matters, and by definition cannot include a position on these things. It is not A-supernaturalism or A-whatever, just A-theism. They spend way too much time making a big deal out of any sort of supernatural or paranormal ideas, and think that just because they do not believe in the existence of any gods, they must devoid themselves of anything remotely spiritual or such.

 

But what is "way too much of their Atheism?" Is that just a matter of who's more passionate about their way of life then who isn't? Is it merely a matter of passive verses active? IMO, people are quick to judge others without even giving it a second thought.

 

What might be too much to you, may not be too much to me and vice versa. However, would you say that Dawkins makes too much of his Atheism? How about Harris? Or maybe Ohare? I suppose if O'hare didn't make too much of her Atheism, we'd still have manditory prayer in public schools?

 

Just saying, sometimes it helps to speak up, but then again.... You might be accused of making too much of whatever it is you are fighting for.

[Brother Jeff]

Yes, I realize that, but one of my best online friends happens to be one of those fundie atheists.

 

No, I am doing nothing more than relating real events that happened to me. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a big difference between subjective religious beliefs and real events that happen to real people - in this case, me. But, believe whatever you want. I realize that in your worldview, these events can't happen, so you believe that they didn't. But, nevertheless, these events did happen, regardless of the fact that they don't happen to fit within your narrow, atheistic worldview. That's why I keep an open mind about things and do my best to avoid narrow, closed-minded worldviews, whether religious or atheistic.

 

Would you call me a fundy Atheist, Jeff? Some people have. I've also been accused of putting doubt into the minds of believers and being militant. Just like the man your talking about (reverend Atheistar).

 

I hate to talk in absolutes but all these things you're talking about are totally subjective. Ghosts don't really exist. If they did exist we would see and have more evidence. I've seen the show you're talking about and it's based on energy and personal experience. It hasn't conviced me yet.

 

However, at the same time if you study the brain you get to see some of why people do see ghosts and other things. The brain is a powerful organ. You can make things true if you believe in them.

 

As for the Rev, what makes him closed minded? The fact that he doesn't agree with you or just because you didn't like what he said when you asked him to debunk this same thread?

 

I would call anyone who believes that only their beliefs have any validity and that everybody else is wrong or delusional a fundie. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then don't.

 

Ghosts actually do exist. I have seen them on more than one occasion (human and animal). There is actually plenty of evidence (circumstantial and "anecdotal" though it may be) in the form of reports just like mine. Reports of ghost sightings, of course, abound. People who refuse to even consider the possibility that there might be something real to the reports enjoy writing them off as "anecdotal" or claiming that the person seeing the ghost misinterpreted their experience, or whatever. I have my theories about what ghosts actually are based on research and discussions with family and friends, but I'm not prepared to discuss it at the moment.

 

You can make things true if you believe in them.

 

Things are only actually true if they have a basis in reality, but I do see what you are saying.

 

I see the Rev as closed-minded primarily because he refuses to even consider the possibility that he might be wrong. I didn't enjoy being publicly insulted for my differing beliefs, nor did I enjoy having you publicly call me a "poor bastard" (I'm not) or having you accuse me of having voices in my head (I don't). No telling what has been said about me since Yahoo quit sending me group messages. I'm sure I don't want to know. Beyond this one post, I'm not going to discuss this in public. If you want to discuss things further, feel free to PM me.

 

BTW, thanks a lot for making our recent public disagreements on the Yahoo group public here. You'll notice that I didn't name names, but you did.

[Evolution_beyond]

There is more to a religion than just gods. They include; a belief in non corporeal beings, and Buddhism certainly has that.

Only certain forms of Buddhism, namely the mahayana forms that treat Buddhas and Boddhisattvas as god-like entities that can help you out in times of need. But the Buddha would have been apalled at that and Theravada tries to keep closer to Buddha's original teaching.

 

A reliance on ancient texts. They got that.

Not really. There are a huge library of texts associated with Buddhism but none of them are treated as scripture. They are just Buddhist writings.

 

Buddhism (and Hinduism too by the way) though they have texts do not treat the texts as infallible and they are not even central to the religion. The words are not central, the practise is central and the words are secondary. It is only Christianity, Islam and Judaism that put every importance on the words of a book. Other faiths don't do this. Having texts associated with a system of belief but not central to that system of belief is no different to a culture having its own collection of works. Is Shakespeare a religious text of the religion of being English? I don't think so. Buddhist writings are less like the books of the Bible and more like the literary works that define English speaking culture.

 

A central character. They got that.

Science has central characters - Newton, Darwin, Einstein. Any teaching or philosophy is bound to have a character who first came up with the ideas. So what is your point? Buddhism is not and should never be a personality cult. It's about what he said and not about who he was. He's very far from a Jesus figure and is not even a Mohammed or Moses figure. He is more like Darwin or Einstein.

 

A dogma or body of beliefs. They got that.

I'm not sure how dogmatic it is to suggest a few pointers and a few techniques but then encourage people to find and learn their own truth. But a body of beliefs, a handed down wisdom - true enough but then name me a point of view on this planet, whether scientific, philosophical or political that doesn't have a body of beliefs?

 

Pat answers for everything. They got that. It's a religion.

Call it a religion if you will. Or call it a philosophy. Or call it a self-help technique.

 

But Buddhism is nevertheless nothing like Christianity and nowhere near as dangerous. It is far more similar to a form of psychiatry in my opinion than any other 'religion'.

 

It doesn't really matter to me whether something is called a religion or not. It only matters to me whether it is true and whether it is healthy. Buddhism may not be the last word on truth but it's far nearer to it than any other religion. It also seems very healthy to me.

[Dave]

I would call anyone who believes that only their beliefs have any validity and that everybody else is wrong or delusional a fundie. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then don't.

Wouldn't that put you in the fundy category too?

[Dave]

Only certain forms of Buddhism.....

Why does everyone assume I know nothing about Buddhism? Just because I don't believe in it, or do not agree with it, doesn't mean I know nothing about it.

 

People here have made outright blanket statements about Buddhism, but their blanket statements go unchallenged because they are believers. Why the double standard? It's a religion. For ALL the arguments in support of Buddhism all you need to do is change the the word 'Buddhism' to 'christianity' and it's the exact same argument, and they have as much doublespeak, groupspeak, and word twisting as any other religion.