@Fil Albuquerque,
It's very useful when condemning what someone else says to restate what they've said in a manner conducive to one's argument. The argument here is a weak one, so the misstatement is all the more crucial. The point, which is evident in what i posted, is not that there is no "excellency" in Buddhism, but that it is no greater than the excellency of any other religious group, and that this can be seen in that Buddhism does not prevent venality or criminality in its adherents any more than does any other religion. The problem i have with the prattling of Buddhists is not that they tout it's excellence, but that in so doing they ignore that the practice of Buddhism does not guarantee exemplary behavior among its adherents, any more than is the case for any other religion. Therefore, i see no basis upon which Buddhists can assert the superiority of their doctrine. No such superiority is evident in the behavior of the adherents, which doesn't differ from the behavior of the adherents of any other religious confession.
As my objection is based upon the assertion of the superiority of Buddhism by some practitioners, that there may be "excellencies" is not at issue, rather, whether or not there is evidence that those excellencies warrant asserting that it is superior. In fact, although Fil is either not honest enough or not bright enough to see it, it is plain (as clear as water) in what i posted that i am simply denying that Buddhism is spiritually superior--not that it has no excellencies.
So, in fact, whether or not Buddhism has merit is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is any justification in asserting that it is superior. Pointing out that the adherents of any belief set will assert the superiority of their point of view is not relevant, since the point of departure is not whether or not they do, but whether or not it is justified. Therefore, if one wishes to divorce Buddhism from the behavior of its adherents, to exculpate it, without a sound evidentiary basis, one can no more (and no less) do so than with any other religion.
The issue was never whether or not Buddhism is good or bad, but rather, whether or not it is better. I see no evidence presented to substantiate such a claim. It is, sadly, no surprise to me that that distinction is lost on Fil or igm. The response of igm was to demand a "debate" on whether or not Buddhism and Christianity are similar, for which he offered an argument that they are not identical, rather than whether or not they are similar.
A pathetic performance all around.
