Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

@igm,

igm wrote:

Most of the world's troubles are cause by selfishness which in turn is due to a belief in a truly existent self.

To repeat, there is no greater selfishness in the world today than the self-serving creed of the Buddhist.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Here is some light reading on the subject. When you understand it and refute it get back to me (let Set know will you):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vasubandhu/

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It's not a case of people not understanding, but of people not being fooled by the double talk. As Frank has just pointed out, this is a blatant case of crafting a definition which supports the thesis--the ultimate question begging.

Yeah the buddha does use a lot of double talk. Won't argue that. However; even though I attack frank on his use of atheism, his original statement is actually accurate. He can be both an atheist and also at the same time believe there is a possibility that gods do exist. It is not a contradiction, he just used a more confusing way to explain his position.

Setanta wrote:

If anything, the Buddhists are the most hypocritical, self-deluding religionists out there. It's not about ending sufffering, it's about ending personal angst, it's about ending personal anxiety. Buddhists don't give a rat's ass about the starving peasant family next door, except to the extent they expect the poor bastards to feed them. Buddhism is ultimately selfish, much more selfish than most other major religions. It's about you and you alone, and to hell with everybody else.

I both agree and disagree. I think there are both. I have seen buddhist who go out of their way to feed the starving. They only have so many resources and only so much personal energy. The problem is much larger than what one person can solve. However; on the other hand are there buddhists who don't do anything as you have suggested. Yes, I'll admit that they too exist. In fact I have had a monk tell me once that he would not want everyone to become monks.

He was asked if everyone should become a monk and he said no. He then made a joke to point out why. He said if everyone became a monk who would bring him food? He would have to go become a farmer to help feed all the monks. He rightfully admits that he is as you say, a paracite on the people, however; he does give back in return. He thinks he is developing wisdom that can be useful to help reduce the suffering of those who come to feed him. He exchanges wisdom for their offering of food.

Now you might not think it is wisdom or useful and that is okay. In fact some days I don't even see the wisdom of it. I am skeptical that all of them have this attitude or ability. Some are scam artists who leech off the public and provide no wisdom at all in return. I agree with you on this part.

Setanta wrote:

Buddhist "priests" and monks and nuns in South Asia are parasitic organisms who not only do nothing to end anyone else's suffering, by being useless mouths whom the peasants feed, they increase suffering.

Yes some are. I wouldn't say they all are. I have gone and learned from a handful of ones that do have bits of wisdom that are worthy of learning. When I am able, I like to feed both monks, nuns and the homeless or starving. But then again I am only one person, with limited resources, limited power and ability to feed the entire world. If I had such an ability I would without question but I can't. I think you should be just as fair on this issue.

Some are paracitic and some arn't. I'll admit that prehaps a huge majority offer nothing, there are a small portion that do have something to offer though and are worth the food they are given.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

The Buddha doesn't have to be wrong... you have to be correct if you assert there is a truly existent self.

Earth calling igm; Earth calling igm.

I did not assert there is a truly existent self. I do not know if there is or not...I do not know if what we consider reality is just an illusion.

You are asserting that the Buddha is asserting that there is no self.

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

1 Reply

Frank's problems with the words atheist and agnostic are not relevant to the point that the alleged definition of self from Siddhartha Gautama is egregious question begging. Leaving aside the parasitic behavior of Buddhist monks in South Asia (the specific issue i was addressing), Buddhism is ultimately selfish because it is only concerned with personal "enlightenment." Attaining that "enlightenment" will do absolutely no good to anyone else.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

So the earth is not the same after a meteorite lands? Or the solar system when an entity enters it from space.

Where does that get us?

Yes everything changes. But where does it get us? Well bringing it back to the self it can get you a lot of things. If you explore this idea, don't take my word for it. Investigate it for yourself. However if it is true, it has some consequences that can result in very powerful results. You won't take yourself so seriously. It gives you the ability to see how attached you are to yourself. It reveals your fears, anxieties and why you have them. It actually gives you the ability to over come these fears and anxieties.

When you really see it for what it is, you no longer get angry over petty things. You see people differently. It helps you see that things that use to make you hold grudges are meaningless. You see that everyone has this problem where we all want to be happy but no one knows the best method to obtaining it. We all are sort of tripping over each other to find happiness and this is where all our problems originate. Do I need to continue or am I just talking ****?

Doesn't matter to me if you accept anything I have just said.

Setanta wrote:

And the prisoner in the dock is innocent on all occasions because he's not the guy who did the crime.

Yep. Shouldn't he be given a chance to redeem himself? Why is that such a bad thing? However; you have to remember he believes that he is the same person and holds onto the same beliefs and ideas, therefore he could commit future crimes. It has no garantee that he wouldnt. Just like the water in a river, even though it constantly changes it can still have an effect. Just because he is constantly changing, doesn't mean he won't effect or impact the world in some way.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

Here is some light reading on the subject. When you understand it and refute it get back to me (let set know will you):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vasubandhu/

0 Replies

Have the courtesy not to attribute to me posts which i have not made. In particular, i would prefer not to have the maunderings of that idiotic dypsomaniac Spurious attributed to me.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I'm waiting for one of them to mention the Dalai Lama, their god on earth--and just about the biggest bullshit artist and flim-flam man going.

You think that the dalai lama is a buddhist god on earth? Then you know very little to nothing about buddhism. You do realize there are many different forms and schools of buddhism. He is only a part of one school. I don't agree with everything he talks about or the lavish life style that he has available to him but I wouldn't consider him a god, nor even a buddhist one. Still entertaining to see your level of ignorance on this though.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Frank's problems with the words atheist and agnostic are not relevant to the point that the alleged definition of self from Siddhartha Gautama is egregious question begging. Leaving aside the parasitic behavior of Buddhist monks in South Asia (the specific issue i was addressing), Buddhism is ultimately selfish because it is only concerned with personal "enlightenment." Attaining that "enlightenment" will do absolutely no good to anyone else.

Here you are wrong again. Your level of understanding is limiting you to make an accurate assesment of buddhism

There is a school of thought in buddhism which uses the term Bodhisattva. Now in a very simplistic way, a very general discription if you don't mind is a person who is waiting to help all beings reach enlightenment before they take the finial step to full complete enlightenment. Do you understand what this means?

This means that they refuse to become fully enlightened until every single being reaches enlightenment before they do. They will do everything in their power to spread the teachings, to help all beings who seek wisdom and find the route out of suffering. Only then will they accept enlightenment.

If anything that is the farthest from selfishness that you can get. Now is every buddhist a bodhisattva? No. Some are, some arn't, but I wouldn't call that selfish.

Look up the term bodhisattva, if you don't believe what I have just described.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Yes, i understand your snotty condescending attempt to suggest that i am ignorant. The bohisattva is "spreading the light" so that he himself can attain nirvana (an undemonstrated and undemonstrable proposition)--the goal is still defined by selfishness. Who determines that one is a bodhisattva? The individual himself, which makes it self-congratulatory as well as selfish.

A salient point that Buddhists consistently miss is that this sort of selfish and self-congratulatory activity does not in fact end suffering. It does not end malnutrition or starvation, nor war, nor injustice, nor exploitation--and in fact, parasitic Buddhist monks frequently contribute to the suffering of mankind.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Yes, i understand your snotty condescending attempt to suggest that i am ignorant. The bohisattva is "spreading the light" so that he himself can attain nirvana (an undemonstrated and undemonstrable proposition)--the goal is still defined by selfishness. Who determines that one is a bodhisattva? The individual himself, which makes it self-congratulatory as well as selfish.

How about do some actual investigation before you continue to reveal how very little you understand on the subject?

A bodhisattva doesn't call themselves one. They don't even care about the title. If they are practicing bodhichitta then they don't care what they are called. They are trying to give up all titles, all positions, because they see them as fleeting concepts. They don't relish in the idea of being a bodhisattva, they are refered to as bodhisattvas but they can't admit to it. They just are if they are practicing bodhichitta. As soon as you find one who claims that they are, more than likely they are not for this very same reason. So good luck with your current point of view.

Setanta wrote:

A salient point that Buddhists consistently miss is that this sort of selfish and self-congratulatory activity does not in fact end suffering. It does not end malnutrition or starvation, nor war, nor injustice, nor exploitation--and in fact, parasitic Buddhist monks frequently contribute to the suffering of mankind.

Buddhism isn't about trying to end wars. It can't get you to do anything. Only you can decide to end your own war with your self. That is where all wars originate. Therefore by getting you to realize that you are your own worst enemy all wars will end. Until then, wars will continue.

It even states in the heart sutra. No end to suffering. So you can continue your ideas that buddhists are useless and do nothing but they already know the task is never ending. A buddha knows there is no end to sentient beings. A buddha realizes that there will always be suffering of some kind and a sentient being somewhere who will one day wonder how to minimize it. Where those moments happen a buddha will show up to point the way out, but you have to be the one who takes the steps.

There is no end to suffering. No one would ever make the claim that buddhism ends all suffering. If they do, then they don't have any idea what they are talking about.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Listen, jackass, i know the dogmatic claims, and the whole litany of false modesty which permeates Buddhism, with it's undemonstrable claims and assurances of attaining undemonstrable states of being. I took formal instruction in Buddhism 40 years ago, culminating in my rejection of its phony dogma. People who are considered bodhisattvas don't call themselves that, they sit around with little smiles on their faces waiting for their devotees to call them that. They are just as parasitic as most other Buddhists.

Why don't you call me ignorant a few more times, clown?

Quote:

Buddhism isn't about trying to end wars. It can't get you to do anything. Only you can decide to end your own war with your self. That is where all wars originate. Therefore by getting you to realize that you are your own worst enemy all wars will end. Until then, wars will continue.

This is the kind of puerile crap which lead me to despise the smug attitudes of Buddhism. Wars are caused by venality, greed, the lust for power--by a wide variety of reasons, none of which is that people are at war with themselves. What drivel, what utter nonsense. It's meaingless happy horseshit like that that makes Buddhism all the more pathetic and despicable.

Buddhists are always on about ending suffering, but they're really only talking about ending their own personal angst. If you deny that such a claim is at the heart of Buddhism, then you yourself are pathetically ignorant--that is the goal of enlightenment. You might want to PM igm on this one, too, since that is his consistent claim.

I don't care if Buddhists want to end suffering. The fact that they don't end suffering, and often contribute to it, while they prate about "enlightenment" is precisely why i despise their religion. It is a realigion, too, whether or not you are willing to admit it.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

You know, i'm sick and ******* tired of you telling me i'm ignorant. I don't believe there are any gods, on earth or anywhere else, but if i did that smug Tibetan multi-millionaire would never make the short list.

In fact, i'm so sick and tired of your smug idiocy, and being called ignorant by an idiot like you, that i'm through talking to you at all.

Fool

Clown

Jackass

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Listen, jackass, i know the dogmatic claims, and the whole litany of false modesty which permeates Buddhism, with it's undemonstrable claims and assurances of attaining undemonstrable states of being. I took formal instruction in Buddhism 40 years ago, culminating in my rejection of its phony dogma. People who are considered bodhisattvas don't call themselves that, they sit around with little smiles on their faces waiting for their devotees to call them that. They are just as parasitic as most other Buddhists.

Why don't you call me ignorant a few more times, clown?

Thankx for noticing. Your instruction I must admit must have been very limited or you weren't paying attention then because you got two things incorrect.

Setanta wrote:

This is the kind of puerile crap which lead me to despise the smug attitudes of Buddhism. Wars are caused by venality, greed, the lust for power--by a wide variety of reasons, none of which is that people are at war with themselves.

Sure they are. The reason people chase greed, is because they believe it will make them happy and content at the other end. It actually does, but it doesn't last, so they need to have more, of it and this snow ball effect creates more problems for them as they continue to chase it. Their only crime is that they are chasing happiness and contentment in a way that causes other people pain and misery. They don't care because they want happiness, they want contentment. Everything is like this. This is the war I am referring to.

Setanta wrote:

What drivel, what utter nonsense. It's meaingless happy horseshit like that that makes Buddhism all the more pathetic and despicable.

Yeah it is useless isn't it? Doesn't matter to me one bit if you don't like it, or me for that matter. Does nothing to me if you hate or dispise buddhism. Does nothing to me if you hate or don't like what I have to say. You don't see the value in it, then that is fine, you don't use it's value. Buddhism might as well be a pile of useless junk. That's fine too.

Setanta wrote:

Buddhists are always on about ending suffering, but they're really only talking about ending their own personal angst. If you deny that such a claim is at the heart of Buddhism, then you yourself are pathetically ignorant--that is the goal of enlightenment. You might want to PM igm on this one, too, since that is his consistent claim.

Sure, many talk about it, because our motivation is to find lasting happiness and/or contentment. Usually by reducing suffering it gets replaced with some joy or temporary happiness. A little bit of joy is better than suffering, I doubt you would argue. However; the problem is, what is the source of that joy? What is the source of that happiness? Because sometimes those sources will result in future unhappiness, or uncontentment.

They want to make sure you aren't trying to chase the same thing that will lead to future bad results. This they generally refer to as suffering. It's much more than that but it is hard to talk about something with only a few sentences. People generally fall asleep or stop caring if you take too long to explain.

Setanta wrote:

I don't care if Buddhists want to end suffering. The fact that they don't end suffering, and often contribute to it, while they prate about "enlightenment" is precisely why i despise their religion. It is a realigion, too, whether or not you are willing to admit it.

I don't what it is called. I don't care if it is called a religion. I don't care if it is called a philosophy. I don't care if it is called a pile of junk. Doesn't matter to me what you want to call it. A buddhist can't end your suffering. I don't know if this is what you mean by it when you keep referring to it, but no one can end your suffering. That is impossible. Only you can do it. It doesn't just end all of a sudden either. Not to mention not all of it just ends like that either. So why are you so hooked on this idea that it doesn't end suffering?

It is not an on off switch and the buddha says flip the switch to off and you are good to go. If you think it is like that then you have a bent idea or expectation on buddhism.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You know, i'm sick and ******* tired of you telling me i'm ignorant. I don't believe there are any gods, on earth or anywhere else, but if i did that smug Tibetan multi-millionaire would never make the short list.

yeah probably not, so what?

Setanta wrote:

In fact, i'm so sick and tired of your smug idiocy, and being called ignorant by an idiot like you, that i'm through talking to you at all.

You can learn a lot from an idiot. Well usually.

Setanta wrote:

Fool

Clown

Jackass

Yep I am all of those things and more. You notice those facets why not the others?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

I'll just say for now that from the point of view of the 'Ultimate' truth teachings... reality doesn't start or remain... if this is the case how can it stop... it never actually started... there is 'mere appearance'. If we believe there is a self then there is the illusion of suffering, life, death, birth, karma etc... etc.... Think 'matrix' without the ability to wake up just the ability to know it's an illusion... Buddhas' know that it is an illusion, sentient beings don't. They 'wake up' to this understanding an understanding which arises due to seeing the true nature of misunderstanding. They then show others... if those others request it.. like you've said the Buddhas can't do it for them.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

I'll just say for now that from the point of view of the 'Ultimate' truth teachings... reality doesn't start or remain... if this is the case how can it stop... it never actually started... there is 'mere appearance'. If we believe there is a self then there is the illusion of suffering, life, death, birth, karma etc... etc.... Think 'matrix' without the ability to wake up just the ability to know it's an illusion... Buddhas' know that it is an illusion, sentient beings don't. They 'wake up' to this understanding an understanding which arises due to seeing the true nature of misunderstanding. They then show others... if those others request it.. like you've said the Buddhas can't do it for them.

Sounds really nice. Sounds really great. But what does a buddha do? When you wake up, what happens? Nothing? Something but you are not sure what? If you are not sure what happens, then what good is it? If nothing happens then what is so good about it? If you are unsure, then how do you know the thing that you find nice about it, how can you say it is nice? How can you say it is worth the effort to achieve? How can you motivate yourself to take the steps if you are not sure what happens?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

igm wrote:

I'll just say for now that from the point of view of the 'Ultimate' truth teachings... reality doesn't start or remain... if this is the case how can it stop... it never actually started... there is 'mere appearance'. If we believe there is a self then there is the illusion of suffering, life, death, birth, karma etc... etc.... Think 'matrix' without the ability to wake up just the ability to know it's an illusion... Buddhas' know that it is an illusion, sentient beings don't. They 'wake up' to this understanding an understanding which arises due to seeing the true nature of misunderstanding. They then show others... if those others request it.. like you've said the Buddhas can't do it for them.

Sounds really nice. Sounds really great. But what does a buddha do? When you wake up, what happens? Nothing? Something but you are not sure what? If you are not sure what happens, then what good is it? If nothing happens then what is so good about it? If you are unsure, then how do you know the thing that you find nice about it, how can you say it is nice? How can you say it is worth the effort to achieve? How can you motivate yourself to take the steps if you are not sure what happens?

I've already said what they do above... they show others.

This is what Buddhas are free of (which I've said above):
If we believe there is a self then there is the illusion of suffering, life, death, birth, karma etc... etc....

The happiness we experience as humans is temporary due to ignorance... Buddhas experience the happiness that is unstoppable because the cause of it being temporary has been removed... ignoring the true nature of reality... both have the same nature but one is obstructed and the other is not. So Buddhas don't suffer they experience happiness that is beyond suffering. They then work to liberate others and there is no limit to sentient beings because in a sense it is the infinity of reality misunderstanding itself in infinite ways.

I think you can see that 'mere words' are just able to hint. Hearing, reflecting and meditating are all essential and it's the meditating part that finally allows reality to stop misunderstand itself.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Krumple wrote:

igm wrote:

I'll just say for now that from the point of view of the 'Ultimate' truth teachings... reality doesn't start or remain... if this is the case how can it stop... it never actually started... there is 'mere appearance'. If we believe there is a self then there is the illusion of suffering, life, death, birth, karma etc... etc.... Think 'matrix' without the ability to wake up just the ability to know it's an illusion... Buddhas' know that it is an illusion, sentient beings don't. They 'wake up' to this understanding an understanding which arises due to seeing the true nature of misunderstanding. They then show others... if those others request it.. like you've said the Buddhas can't do it for them.

Sounds really nice. Sounds really great. But what does a buddha do? When you wake up, what happens? Nothing? Something but you are not sure what? If you are not sure what happens, then what good is it? If nothing happens then what is so good about it? If you are unsure, then how do you know the thing that you find nice about it, how can you say it is nice? How can you say it is worth the effort to achieve? How can you motivate yourself to take the steps if you are not sure what happens?

I've already said what they do above... they show others.

This is what Buddhas are free of (which I've said above):
If we believe there is a self then there is the illusion of suffering, life, death, birth, karma etc... etc....

The happiness we experience as humans is temporary due to ignorance... Buddhas experience the happiness that is unstoppable because the cause of it being temporary has been removed... ignoring the true nature of reality... both have the same nature but one is obstructed and the other is not. So Buddhas don't suffer they experience happiness that is beyond suffering. They then work to liberate others and there is no limit to sentient beings because in a sense it is the infinity of reality misunderstanding itself in infinite ways.

I think you can see that 'mere words' are just able to hint. Hearing, reflecting and meditating are all essential and it's the meditating part that finally allows reality to stop misunderstand itself.

So they become an endless lecture speaker? That is all they do is speak the dharma? They just keep repeating the endless dharma over and over again? Nothing else? They don't do anything else? Talk, wait, respond to dharam requests and then wait? That is it?

1 Reply

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know