Atheists... Your life is pointless

The same sort of reasoning errors that the rest of mankind is prone to fall into.

Like the fall where there is a drunk guy with his head on the crotch of this other drunk guy?

FBM, may I say... pretty much a perfect reply... IMHO... thank you.

You're very welcome. I spent a year as a Buddhist monk in Thailand (forest tradition) and it helped dispel my illusions about the whole thing. There's no shortage of woo among the laity or greed among the bureaucrats, but you find a few people here and there who have got past that.

Just Set the Vietnam veteran. who killed or knew someone that killed some 'collateral' damaged Buddhists and wants to view 'all' Buddhists as sub-human.. so as not to feel too guilty.... close to the truth or not?

Indeed . . . IGM prates about dualism (which is not, in fact, originally a Buddhist concept, being far older than Buddhism) and yet here recently he stated that if someone were not happy, then obviously they are unhappy. He didn't qualify that with reference to definitions, he just stated it outright.

Holy Duality, Batman ! ! !

You are a vicious liar. I have never killed anyone in my life. I spent three years in the Army Medical Corps. Killing was not any part of our mission. You seem to have imbibed the kind of hatefulness that that bitch JTT likes to spread. I suspect that is a product of the irrational, uncontrollable rage with which you react to me.

As you've done recently... you'll be telling me next that Buddhist kills Buddhist in Sri Lanka in order to spread more disinformation... and quickly followed by calling the Dalai Lama a pig... so you have no excuse for this vitriol... that's worse!

Also, I'd of had to say you killed someone to be a liar... read my post I said 'TRUE OR NOT TRUE'.

I have to admit that I haven't been following this thread, but I can confirm that dualism isn't a particularly Buddhist concept. Nor is monism. That sort of metaphysical speculation was largely avoided in the Pali suttas.

Why is it worse, as you claim? Because you revere the Dalai Lama as a saint? Upon what basis do you deny that Buddhists killed Buddhists in Sri Lanka? Was it OK when Buddhists killed Hindus in Sri Lanka?

What excuse do you have for your vitriol? Liar . . .

It's more disinformation from Set; either that or I have no idea what he is talking about... his agenda is to rubbish Buddhists in any way he can. He by the way 'hates' me and has inferred so many time... I am after all a Buddhist that stands up to his lies about Buddhism.

How ironic that Buddha’s teachings have remained intact for so long, to which we can thank this certain non-respectable vehicle known as religion, don't you think?

IGM got all worked up over it recently, and even started a thread about it. Almost 40 years ago now, when i briefly took Buddhist instruction from Kagyu monks (and quickly became disgusted with them), they were on about dualism all the time. Other American Buddhists told me that a fixation on dualism is not necessarily central to Buddhism, but i don't have a dog in that fight. Specifically, my reference to Buddhism has to do with IGM's rants.

Quote the article that says this... that Buddhists kill Buddhists in Sri Lanka... you won't be able to unless it normal 'one on one' crime.

Quote that there is any evidence that the Dalai Lama warrants beig called a 'pig' by you.

Buddhism has nothing to do with dualism... what are you on... about???

So it would be OK with you if Buddhists killed Buddhists as long as it were a "one-on-one" crime? You seem to have a very warped morality.

Ah. OK. Tibetan Buddhism is heavily infused with local beliefs that have little or nothing to do with what the Buddha taught as depicted in the Pali Canon. Tibetan and Zen are both heavily dependent on tradition, master worship and the esoteric, all of which the Buddha rejected.

The teachings of the Buddha in the Pali suttas do not support a dualistic worldview. Instead, it proposed the logical quadrilemma. "Yes, No, Neither Yes nor No, Both Yes and No."

LoL...No one has to substantiate anything for anyone...that is the point...I do not understand that...If one wants evidence about any claim they hear...then it is up to that person to look or find this evidence to chose to believe it or not...Or chose not to read or talk to people who make these kinds of claims....Just because you, and others would like something substantiated for your personal subjective approval, which it actually is...you realize that, right? No one can validate anything for anyone's approval unless someone was willing to see it as a "fact"...because some would...and some would not....It is always a belief, even "evidence" or "facts" etc...because at some point "facts" were not known as "facts"

It does not mean that one has to do it....and try to gratify some peoples egos...Just like you do not have to "believe" what I say and substantiate my beliefs...it is absurd...then there is no such unwritten, proper etiquette that I have to sit there and substantiate anything for you or anyone else....If your view point is for everything to be substantiated with what you personally view "evidence" as...then go do it about everything you hear, see, feel...etc......and stop believing what you want too...and rejecting what you do not want too...and go live by the ways you say you do...

You have an option, if you think anyone can believe anything and post bullshit about anything...and can't substantiate it...and look for evidence, while many others focus on faith...

Just simply ignore them, and stop bating them if you think or know it is not going to go anywhere then just to keep digging at them...because they do not view things the ways you do....and they are in no way obligated to comply with your substantiation of evidence or any other person who thinks that the universe operates around these laws...


Whatever you, or others believe, or think you believe...Does not mean that this is now some new universal law...It is just your own beliefs like faith is mine...

I do not have the audacity to try to ask you to substantiate "my faith"...because I understand it could not be done...So I am not going to sit there and try to substantiate what I think you think "evidence" is....because I have no idea what you think or believe "constitutions of evidence are" and I refuse to try to pretend to know...Or meet your personal approval, if you're not interested in mine...especially if one is not even interested in admitting that this...So I am not going to sit there and try to substantiate what I think you think "evidence" is"...Or whatever way they would personally explain that, and have no interest in being honest and admitting that that is just a variation of a belief....

Why should one take the time to see your views or meet your approval? If you can then just turn around and just proclaim how much bullshit mine is? and walk away? Without trying to substantiate mine just because I do not ask? Naahh Uhhh...it doesn't work like that at all...Again practice what you preach...Show some genuine interest in getting to know me, and my views...and I will take the time to get to know yours...

This is what I'm talking about:



Tamils are Hindus