• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buddhism

vitorriq

New Blood
V
Joined
Jul 18, 2017
Messages
11
Hi everyone, my second post here.

I would like to open a new discussion, this time, as there are not many skeptical discussions debunking Buddhism, I would like to talk about it:


1- Buddhism has an idealistic psychology too. In which you blame the suffering of the person in the present for errors of the past (Karma)

2- Buddhism has irrational and banal ideas: If the "I" is an illusion, what reincarnates? The Karma.

3- Buddhism has very dualistic concepts: All pleasure and attachment is the source of suffering, so is suffering

4- Buddhism may even be right about some types of suffering, but it generalizes ALL forms of suffering caused by attachment and pleasure. Yet it says that life is suffering and death is suffering.

5- Buddhism uses very vague and groundless concepts in reality:
One test would be the five aggregates and their erroneous statements

6- Buddhism says that we only suffer because we have attachment to the world and the body, we should not hold on.

7-And yet the complete distrust and hatred before the human mind, even if it is not completely reliable, it has always been useful to us

8- And to conclude, the statement that our world is an illusion, the fruit of our ignorance

I have a little difficulty debunking some of these concepts, can you help me?
 
Not sure what you think there is to "debunk".
It's a philosophy, not a scientific theory.

The easiest approach to show how dangerous Buddhism is would be to look at it the way a Kantian would.
If everyone came to accept the teachings of Buddhism, innovation would cease, political systems would no longer change, people would no longer plan for the future and sooner rather than later catastrophes would destroy most civilizations.
But at least no one would get upset about it.
 
If you start a thread, then don't revisit it to join in the conversation, can you imagine why people may not be over-enthusiastic about contributing to another new thread you start?

I can't think of a reason to take any religion more seriously than any other. Buddhism is just another evidence-free ritual-based religious or quasi-religious lifestyle choice, and the onus, as always, is with them to prove the substance of their claims, and not on us to debunk them. Therefore the entire premise of the OP and its questions is fundamentally flawed, and not worth answering.
 
Welcome to the forum.

"Buddhism" covers an awful lot of ground. Some of what you debunk about Buddhism only applies to some sects of Buddhism, while others apply to common folk beliefs of Buddhists in southeast Asia, but are not actually teachings of the Buddha.

For example, I fully agree that the denial of the self invalidates the concept of reincarnation. In fact, I think the Buddha said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Tibetans are very much into reincarnation. Other Buddhist sects, not as much, but individual Buddhists may be firmly convinced of the reality of reincarnation, as popularly perecieved and as taught by Hindus.

At its core, Buddhism can be quite rational and completely compatible with atheism and with a scientific worldview. The beliefs of individual Buddhists, and some sects of Buddhists, are not nearly so rational.
 
MikeG said:
If you start a thread, then don't revisit it to join in the conversation, can you imagine why people may not be over-enthusiastic about contributing to another new thread you start?

I can't think of a reason to take any religion more seriously than any other. Buddhism is just another evidence-free ritual-based religious or quasi-religious lifestyle choice, and the onus, as always, is with them to prove the substance of their claims, and not on us to debunk them. Therefore the entire premise of the OP and its questions is fundamentally flawed, and not worth answering.
Click to expand...

Hello, I can try to follow the discussion but it's not always that I can be present, after all, I'm always busy
 
Meadmaker said:
Welcome to the forum.

"Buddhism" covers an awful lot of ground. Some of what you debunk about Buddhism only applies to some sects of Buddhism, while others apply to common folk beliefs of Buddhists in southeast Asia, but are not actually teachings of the Buddha.

For example, I fully agree that the denial of the self invalidates the concept of reincarnation. In fact, I think the Buddha said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Tibetans are very much into reincarnation. Other Buddhist sects, not as much, but individual Buddhists may be firmly convinced of the reality of reincarnation, as popularly perecieved and as taught by Hindus.

At its core, Buddhism can be quite rational and completely compatible with atheism and with a scientific worldview. The beliefs of individual Buddhists, and some sects of Buddhists, are not nearly so rational.
Click to expand...

Yes, there may even be a wide variety of branches of Buddhism but all share a basis.

In fact, Buddhism in its essence can even be atheistic but not scientific at all. The ideas are purely philosophical and idealistic, practically meaningless and developed in an era that obviously lived was suffering
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Not sure what you think there is to "debunk".
It's a philosophy, not a scientific theory.

The easiest approach to show how dangerous Buddhism is would be to look at it the way a Kantian would.
If everyone came to accept the teachings of Buddhism, innovation would cease, political systems would no longer change, people would no longer plan for the future and sooner rather than later catastrophes would destroy most civilizations.
But at least no one would get upset about it.
Click to expand...

I disagree, we can debunk, demystify, and refute not just scientific theories, but hypotheses anyway, including philosophical ideas. Just as we did with idealism over the years.

Even if philosophy is impossible to refute, we can still point out its faults.
 
Meadmaker said:
Welcome to the forum.

"Buddhism" covers an awful lot of ground. Some of what you debunk about Buddhism only applies to some sects of Buddhism, while others apply to common folk beliefs of Buddhists in southeast Asia, but are not actually teachings of the Buddha.

For example, I fully agree that the denial of the self invalidates the concept of reincarnation. In fact, I think the Buddha said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Tibetans are very much into reincarnation. Other Buddhist sects, not as much, but individual Buddhists may be firmly convinced of the reality of reincarnation, as popularly perecieved and as taught by Hindus.

At its core, Buddhism can be quite rational and completely compatible with atheism and with a scientific worldview. The beliefs of individual Buddhists, and some sects of Buddhists, are not nearly so rational.
Click to expand...

On Buddhism have scientific correspondence. I disagree, believing that our cosmology is divided into 31 worlds, that the world is flat and has a tree in the center and that reality is an illusio BUT In its statement, in general, is correct
 
every one of your claims re Buddhism are not true claims of Buddhism
 
vitorriq said:
On Buddhism have scientific correspondence. I disagree, believing that our cosmology is divided into 31 worlds, that the world is flat and has a tree in the center and that reality is an illusio BUT In its statement, in general, is correct
Click to expand...

I must admit I am not an expert in Buddhism, but I did call myself a Buddhist for a few years, have spent several hours meditating at Zen and Theravadan temples, and listening to Dhamma talks (at the Zen center they were Dharma talks) and have read several books on the subject.

The things you are saying about Buddhism are not things that I have encountered before.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must admit I am not an expert in Buddhism, but I did call myself a Buddhist for a few years, have spent several hours meditating at Zen and Theravadan temples, and listening to Dhamma talks (at the Zen center they were Dharma talks) and have read several books on the subject.

The things you are saying about Buddhism are not things that I have encountered before.
Click to expand...

It may even be difficult to find, because it is Buddhist matters that I modeled in my words. It may even be wrong and even incomplete but by the vague ideas of Buddhism this is how it seems
 
Hokulele said:
That apparently had nothing to do with your point 7. What exactly do you mean by it? The claims made about meditation do not really seem to be based on a "distrust and hatred of the human mind". Where do you get that idea from?
Click to expand...

Even if meditation is useful in our daily lives. Many philosophies or religions say that we should use meditation to overcome the limits of the mind, for it is an illusion.
 
How is that a "distrust and hatred of the human mind"? Although Zen Buddhism has an interest in the state of no-mind, that really isn't a general Buddhist belief.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the Pali Canon? That explains the core concepts of Buddhism fairly well.
 
vitorriq said:
I disagree, we can debunk, demystify, and refute not just scientific theories, but hypotheses anyway, including philosophical ideas. Just as we did with idealism over the years.

Even if philosophy is impossible to refute, we can still point out its faults.
Click to expand...

Buddhism doesn't make falsifiable statements, and if you include Taoism, internal self-contradiction isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I think it's spiritual masturbation, but like th physical version harmless if done in private and moderation.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Buddhism doesn't make falsifiable statements, and if you include Taoism, internal self-contradiction isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I think it's spiritual masturbation, but like th physical version harmless if done in private and moderation.
Click to expand...


Well, you can't really include Taoism in Buddhism. They are completely separate religions with separate origins. It would be like including the Mac OS in a discussion of the faults of Linux. ;)
 
Hokulele said:
Well, you can't really include Taoism in Buddhism. They are completely separate religions with separate origins. It would be like including the Mac OS in a discussion of the faults of Linux. ;)
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
But all problems with Linux are caused by MacOS, as everyone knows. Penguins and leopards, you know...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom