Sagan is the polite Shakespeare calling all this "a flurry of activity signifying nothing". Hitchens would be considered the verbal only Malcolm X of atheists, but even he was very Jeffersonian, in that sure you had the right to make any bullshit claim you wanted, but he had the right to call it bullshit.

So why the attack on Buddhism? Because it is also part of one species, one planet and one evolution. It should not be blasphemy or ridicule free either. That religion was born from Hinduism and the Vedas. The legend of the first Buddha was also a magical story where the divine told his mother Queen Maya that she would give birth to a baby who would bring wisdom to the world, he too had a birth that avoided the birth canal. And it is a religion to call it anything less is bullshit to me. It too has moral codes and holy people and competing sects and different interpretations. While some are atheists and call it a philosophy, others hold the superstitions of "nats"(spirits) and Karma and reincarnation.

Buddhism is as much a superstition as any other religion stemming from mythology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(moth...he_Buddha)


Does Buddhism automatically make you good? Lets see what this former Muslim who grew up in a Buddhist majority has to say.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-29/bu...rt-simpson

And just like every other religion, the cop outs are used "Well they arn't true Buddhists" "Those Buddhists didn't have the right teachers".

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4021...f-buddhism

This is just the tip of the ice burg. Point being it is not bigoted to say ALL religions are man made artificial constructs having NOTHING to do with our common existence and our modern scientific understanding of nature, evolution, human behavior, or the universe. 

I really get fucking sick of the false accusation of bigotry or being falsely accused of being "militant" for simply pointing out willful ignorance. YES I get that people like what they believe, and from a human rights standpoint I will defend it, but at the same time I will put a blunt mirror to your logic in hopes that you will consider that ALL religions are superfluous placebos at best, and unfortunately still divisive and this post is yet another example.

Again, human rights are a given, but no religion on the face of the planet deserves a taboo.

Agreed. Buddhism is a mixture of sensible practices and baseless superstition. No free pass from being criticised or ridiculed from me. As usual, I criticise the belief and not the adherents of that belief. If anyone holds their belief in such high esteem that they take insults against it personally, then I reckon they need to sort themselves out.

(December 30, 2015 at 10:10 am)robvalue Wrote: Agreed. Buddhism is a mixture of sensible practices and baseless superstition. No free pass from being criticised or ridiculed from me. As usual, I criticize the belief and not the adherents of that belief. If anyone holds their belief in such high esteem that they take insults against it personally, then I reckon they need to sort themselves out.

No, sorry even Harris is stuck on it. I love his blasphemy of Christianity and Islam, but even Victor Stenger took issue with Harris on his Buddhism fetish.

The "meditation" and control over one's body seems pragmatic, sounds nice, but again that ability of mental training can also be found in say, the Navel Seals. They too have to train themselves to be so focused that they can endure what most people cannot. It is the gatekeeper fallacy. And like most gatekeepers, they don't like you pointing out that the label isn't doing it, humans are. Bruce Lee got lots of backlash for wanting to teach his talent to non Asians.

The fallacy that they invented endurance is no different than when Muslims claim their religion is the one true religion because Arabs invented Algebra. No group in the world past or present owns a patent on morality. Humans as individuals will do good or bad regardless of the clubs they belong to. All nations in the world, friend and foe alike all have hospitals and prisons.

Sure, I'm agreeing with you. If Harris gets defensive about Buddhism, he's stupid (in that regard).

I wasn't implying that the sensible practices are in any way superior to just doing similar non-religious practices, they're not. It's just the same thing with a load of spirituality nonsense bolted on.

(December 30, 2015 at 10:27 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, I'm agreeing with you. If Harris gets defensive about Buddhism, he's stupid (in that regard).

I wasn't implying that the sensible practices are in any way superior to just doing similar non-religious practices, they're not. It's just the same thing with a load of spirituality nonsense bolted on.

Ok, sorry.

Some in the west will be scathing about every other religion, but pick on Buddhism, they too don't see the mistake they make. It isn't just enough to go after the biggest trouble makers. And the bullshit of "Most dont" while true, that is not the argument atheists should fall for. It only takes enough, in any religion, even a minority, to divide humans or hold a population hostage. The left gets the empathy right, the left of all religions, where they fail is that they do not understand that the right of all religions are still the same label using the same writings.

Religion does not make people kind all the time, if it did, there would be no fear of minorities. But xenophobia exists. My X is Japanese, but even the Japanese, while they love being hosts and having guests they too frown upon outsiders mixing with their families. Not because they are Japanese, but because evolution has produced group survival. It is the same reason this former Muslim was bullied by Buddhists. Same reason Muslims bully non Muslims in the east. Same reason right wing Christians bully non Christians in the west. Religion does not cure this behavior. Only our awareness of our nature will do that.

Hello Sir, I am a Buddhist and i don't believe the fantasy written in the books. Things like the divine speaking to the queen, flowers appeared from nowhere when the Buddha was born. Those are exaggerated claims. I don't think most sensible people who follow it believe in that. The Buddha has thought us first to observe what he has thought and only if it agrees with us, then practise it. Nowhere does he say "follow me because i am the truth" . What it teaches in a nutshell is to live a righteous life and to finally be free from all suffering. Doesn't imply that one finds eternal paradise. One just seizes to exist. I am fine with anyone calling it "nonsense" or "bullxxxx" :-)

(December 30, 2015 at 1:05 pm)miaharun Wrote: Hello Sir, I am a Buddhist and i don't believe the fantasy written in the books. Things like the divine speaking to the queen, flowers appeared from nowhere when the Buddha was born. Those are exaggerated claims. I don't think most sensible people who follow it believe in that. The Buddha has thought us first to observe what he has thought and only if it agrees with us, then practise it. Nowhere does he say "follow me because i am the truth"  . What it teaches in a nutshell is to live a righteous life and to finally be free from all suffering. Doesn't imply that one finds eternal paradise. One just seizes to exist. I am fine with anyone calling it "nonsense" or "bullxxxx" :-)

No you are not fine with anyone calling it nonsense otherwise why make the attempt to "correct" me.

He was just a man who started a religion, thats it. Other humans have started other religions.

"righteous life" yea ok, if Buddhism is a cure, then why do even Buddhist countries also have prisons? If Buddha were unifying to all Buddhists there would only be one sect. If the 4 Nobel Truths were also unifying that to would dictate there would be only one sect. You'd have me believe that Zen Buddhists, Chinese Buddhists and Tibet Buddhists all agree with how to implement those "4 Noble Truths"? 

 Buddha is no more unifying to Buddhists than Jesus is to Christians or Allah or Mo is to Muslims. All have within them their own competing sects of what constitutes a "righteous life".

"They aren't true Buddhists" "They weren't practicing it right" same excuses I get from every other religion.

No, those myths are why Buddhism took off. Watering it down is what all religions do to stay relevant. Christians pull that shit too. When for example, you point out the bullshit of talking snakes and talking donkeys they cop out to metaphor too. Sorry, but back when Buddha started selling his story the motif of purity birth was LITERALLY believed. 

Quote:The Buddha has thought us first to observe what he has thought and only if it agrees with us, then practise it

Yea and? Plenty of other liberals in other religions who say "Do good, believe what you want". Oh and with all religions I really hate the word "practice", it is not practicing it is following. Again, there is not one religion that does not have the motif of "do good and be kind. I'd only say that Asia and the Oriental religions are less dogmatic. But they are still not the gatekeepers of morality.

(December 30, 2015 at 1:05 pm)miaharun Wrote: Hello Sir, I am a Buddhist and i don't believe the fantasy written in the books.

LOL...ofc you do....you just don't believe the fantasy written in -their- books. If their shit stinks,  your shit stinks. It's the same shit, the same stink. Magical flowers are ridiculous but rape magic isn't? What would you know about sensible people?

(December 30, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 30, 2015 at 1:05 pm)miaharun Wrote: Hello Sir, I am a Buddhist and i don't believe the fantasy written in the books. Things like the divine speaking to the queen, flowers appeared from nowhere when the Buddha was born. Those are exaggerated claims. I don't think most sensible people who follow it believe in that. The Buddha has thought us first to observe what he has thought and only if it agrees with us, then practise it. Nowhere does he say "follow me because i am the truth"  . What it teaches in a nutshell is to live a righteous life and to finally be free from all suffering. Doesn't imply that one finds eternal paradise. One just seizes to exist. I am fine with anyone calling it "nonsense" or "bullxxxx" :-)

No you are not fine with anyone calling it nonsense otherwise why make the attempt to "correct" me.

Maybe he was just holding a mirror up to what he perceived as your ignorance on the issue?  Isn't that what this thread is about?  The ability to correct people without being called angry militants?  Yet he politely corrects what he thought were misrepresentations, and then you respond weirdly aggressively.