A response to the responses to my buddhism is bullshit series

08/12/2011

Some time ago I wrote a series of articles titled “Buddhism is Bullshit”. The responses I got can be put into three categories.

1. I’m an idiotic asshole who doesn’t know shit about Buddhism ergo I must shut up and suck Buddha’s cock.

2. Buddhism is not a religion, but something else. It could be a lifestyle, a path, or a philosophy. But definitely not a religion.

3. Rajiva Wijesinghe’s crazy thoughts that doesn’t make any sense at all.

Those who claim I am an idiotic asshole without proving that I am an idiotic asshole are idiotic assholes. May donkeys rape their sisters.

Those who think that I am an idiotic asshole because you think I don’t know shit about Buddhism are just painfully innocent believers who would forever vote for some demagogue like Mahinda Rajapakse who knows how to exploit it (as well as monks who own Benz cars and Toyota Prados). I assure you, I know more about Buddhism than most of you.

Those who think Buddhism is not a religion but something else, like a philosophy or a lifestyle, are either intentionally or unintentionally misleading people, and deceiving themselves. Even if Buddhism is a philosophy (which it isn’t), that doesn’t make a difference. Buddhism is entirely incompatible with the scientific idea that the universe is only about 15 billion years old, that earth is only 4.5 billion years old, evolution (all of it. Not just Darwinism), and pretty much everything else that is scientific, like you know, if you remove a guy’s hippocampus (is it what it’s called?), he loses the ability to form new memories. Buddhism is completely unscientific, ergo it’s bullshit.

Rajiva Wijesinghe, the professional liar, thought he could save buddhism and redeem himself. He said “…operations the Buddha describes do not necessarily occur in linear time”. There’s nothing wrong with this, except that it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, even to himself. Tell me exactly what does non-linear time mean, and what makes you think that Buddha has indicated that time is non-linear? Rajiva just pulled some bullshit out of his anus.

The bottom line is, buddhism is completely unscientific, and therefore it’s bullshit. But that’s not the only reason to say so. How many enlightened people have you actually seen? Have you actually seen someone who has attained this so-called Nirvana? No. Why do you think that is? Because the times are wrong? Yep, that’s pretty much what all other religions say when they can’t make any miracles happen. Religion is a thing of the past. It was believed by idiots and geniuses alike two hundred years ago, and only by idiots nowadays, or by those who are afraid of the truth that the universe doesn’t give a shit about us.

Advertisements

41 Responses to “A response to the responses to my buddhism is bullshit series”

  1. Athula Says:

    As a Buddhist I fweel sorry for you. You enjoy the wild-ass freedom of critisizing the most venered personality in the world and your very life is spared thanks to the Buddhist ideals of buddhist all overt the world. If you have done this to another religion, viz, Islaam, you run the risk of being beheaded !!!!. So be thankful to buddhists and enjoy the freedom of expression.

    • lefroy Says:

      Athula,
      What do you mean? Do you think that because buddhism is more peaceful than Islam (the most eminently fucked up religion that still exists), that buddhism deserves to not be criticised by anyone? That is exactly what you’re saying. You’re saying “we’re not murdering you. So shut up.”

      Great argument. Characteristically buddhist.

  2. Replier Says:

    …and the trolling continues.

    Oh, and it’s not just the universe darling – nobody gives a shit about you.

  3. Mala Yaka Says:

    Yo Lefroy,

    You don’t sound like dismissing Buddhism with wisdom, but somehow extremely pissed off at it as if you were betrayed by it or something like that. You sound like you have something personal against it. Well if I were you I might be pissed off at everything too…

    Do you consider the possibility that people need religion not because it is right or correct but because it’s easy to explain all the shit happening to them using religious idealogies/stories/fictions/myths and keep mental pain/anguish/worry at a safe level in the mind without going crazy (like you have)? In other words it’s just easy to attribute things to religion.

    For example take yourself, your nose looks like a scrotum – you didn’t choose it, you were born that way. Wouldn’t it be easier to blame it on Karma? Otherwise how do you not be pissed off at how all the girls shunned you but flocked to the good looking fellows, most of them morons (meaning less intelligent than you) at university? Beauty and the Beast is just a story isn’t it?

    • lefroy Says:

      Mala yaka,
      Thanks for sharing your life story with us. Now please go back to sucking my dick.

      • Mala Yaka Says:

        You have a dick???? Oh you mean the one in the middle of your face … aka nose!

        • lefroy Says:

          Obviously, you need some education.
          Your Brain = Your Ass
          dick != nose
          Got it? Now suck it again.

          • Mala Yaka Says:

            Nope – your nose does look like a dick. Have a look in a mirror.

            Sometime ago someone posted a picture of you online wasn’t it? Your nose definitely has a close resemblance to male genitalia. Let me see if I can find that image archived somewhere…

  4. lefroy Says:

    Mala Yaka raised an interesting point though. I have of course heard it dozens of times before. The idea is, religion provides consolation, therefore it is not bullshit. How so? Of course religion provides consolation. But how’s it not bullshit? I tell Mala Yaka that he is likable. It would make him feel better. But still it’s bullshit because we all know that he’s butt ugly.

    Replier says that nobody gives a shit about me. Nobody gives a shit about him either. If there ever was a selfish religion, that’s buddhism. Buddhism is all about personal salvation. It’s so selfish. That is one of the criticisms made by the Bikkhus who later created Mahayana buddhism.

    Again, as always
    buddhists = ad hominem + non sequitur
    No attempts prove that buddhism is compatible with modern science

  5. Heshan Says:

    Sinhala-Buddhism is definitely a joke. If you need China to build a road after 2500 years, then there is nothing spectacular about your culture. My suspicion is that a lot of the archeological crap from the past wasn’t even designed by the Sinhala-Buddhists, but by outsiders. The designers were probably South Indians while the laborers were Sinhala-Buddhists. Think about it this way – if your ancestors were so innovative, then a good proportion of their descendants should also be. The Vikings were damn good at building ships; some of their descendants, the Dutch, are still good at that. Some of their other descendants, the British, have always had an excellent navy. Or look at the Germans; these guys have been building awesome stuff for at least 500 years, which is why, despite getting fucked royally during WWII, Germany is STILL number 1 in Europe.

    What the hell have the Sinhala-Buddhists produced after 2500 years? Kandyan dancing? Rest assured, if not for Western technology/weapons, Prabhakaran would have conquered the whole island about 25 years ago.

    • lefroy Says:

      True, except that South Indians are no better than us. A civilisation 3000 years old and they still don’t have toilets. They also believe it when Jayalalitha pledges that she’d give 1kg of gold to every bride in Tamilnadu.

      • Heshan Says:

        South Indians look ugly as hell, and a good percentage smell like cow shit, but I give them credit for being brainy. That’s my philosophy: a man may look like shit, smell like shit, drink shit as part of his religious rites, but if he has intellect, then I respect him for that. Check out this guy, Ramanjuan, for example: http://www.durangobill.com/Ramanujan.html. Or this dude, who won a Nobel for chemistry: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/children-quiz-nobel-prize-winner-ramakrishnan/140211-11.html. Or this dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand, the world chess champion.

        So it’s concievable they had a fairly advanced civilization, back in the day, and spread the knowledge to pussy Lanka. I’m not saying that this is what occurred with absolute certainty, but what is the alternative, except to believe the shit put out by Boruvamsa. No one can say with certainty what the exact history of the island is, because every other asshole has a specific agenda, from the archeological dept to the education dept. The tools exist to undertake an objective analysis – e.g. examine DNA/linguistic/archeological evidence – but no one capable is going to risk his reputation to do so.

  6. lefroy Says:

    @heshan
    True that. But I can’t see why. I mean, is it genetics? It is unthinkable that sinhalese people were here since pre-historic times (like since 15000 years ago) for obvious reasons. So then they must have got their genes from some North Indian ethnic group. But sinhalese people don’t look all that different from South Indians. And south indians, even though they produced Ramanujan (of course I’ve read about him. Hell of a genius), aren’t European Jews.

    So what is it? Is it genetics, their larger population, or their work ethics?

  7. The Polite Punk Says:

    Of course Buddhism is bullshit, that’s why it’s true. Everything is bullshit. Christianity is bullshit. Love is bullshit. Science is bullshit.

    Empty is the word Buddhists would normally use but bullshit works too. So when everything is bullshit understanding and accepting that and finding a joyful way to live not despite this fact but because of it is a wonderful thing some call Buddhism.

    If you think it is a good use of your limited time and consciousness to search for ways to shit on every belief system not native to your own head I hope it serves you well. But I ask, does it really?

    • lefroy Says:

      Your comment is bullshit. But science and technology are not. It makes aeroplanes fly. It puts men on moon. It makes it possible for you to comment on this blog.

      • The Polite Punk Says:

        Science is a train of thought whose two most advanced and respected theories, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, are at odds with each other. My point is there are quirks and imperfections to all belief systems. So the only wise thing to do is listen with an open but questioning mind and make your own conclusions. You seem certain in the belief that you’re right and I’m wrong. And I’ll give you this much, you’ve got the second part right.

    • Athula Says:

      I have commented on this topic before. You are like a sick person who cries in pain. People in the vicinity of a sick person are not worried about what a sick (mentally sick) whines about. No one accepts your crazy comments and hence all negativity belongs to you. It is part and parcel of your retardation. Albert Einstein, renowned scientist said if he were to embrace a religion, his choice would be Buddhism, as it has all the scientific prerequisites for a quality life. Try to find these valuable admiration by this renowned scientist and cure your sickness of sadism. Stop whining!!!!!! Only you will get tired.

      • Heshan Says:

        Contrary to popular belief, Einstein was actually a plagiarist who was terrible at math.

      • lefroy Says:

        Athula,
        You are a typical buddhist in that you have no sense of logic. How on earth does Einstein saying something to the effect that buddhism is better than other religions make it true? For one, Einstein didn’t say that it is true. For two, even if Einstein did say that, unless he proved it, why on earth you think it is evidence for the truth of buddhism?

        Newton believed in Christianity, and took alchemy pretty seriously (contrary to what Heshan once said. He said Newton didn’t take it seriously). Does that mean Christianity and alchemy are true?

        There’s a logical error people make when they argue. It’s called argument from authority, or something like that. Do a wiki search.

        • Heshan Says:

          That was an incorrect statement on my part. On the other hand, keep in mind that Newton, although being a serious alchemist, never published anything in that regard (I don’t know the reasons why). Keep in mind though, that while alchemy was mostly BS, it had some positives.

          ““I would go so far as to say that alchemy was crucial to Newton’s breakthroughs in optics,” said Dr. Newman. “He’s not just passing light through a prism — he’s resynthesizing it.” Consider this a case of “technology transfer,” said Dr. Newman, “from chemistry to physics.”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/12newton.html?pagewanted=all

          The important point is that Newton didn’t blindy believe in alchemy. He did actual experiments; the difference, of course, is that they didn’t lead to the kind of reproducible results which his experiments in physics did. And of course, there was no established field called “chemistry” back then. There was no Periodic Table to give guidance. So I don’t think we can compare alchemy to religion, even though both are fundamentally fucked, the deeper you dig into them. Alchemy was a product of its time; religion has always been the opium of the fundamentalists.

  8. John Aplessef Says:

    Now I’m not a Buddhist, although I share their beliefs, and I also share the beleifs of Taoism. But I have to say you’re opinion on the world, life, etc us just harsh and pessimistic. You mentioned “What enlightened people have you seen? That’s right, none.” But that’s where you live, which I’m going to assume is the USA. But if you go to tibet, people are enlightened. If you go to the Vatican, people have witnessed miracales. Religion and culture often clash in developed countries, but when they connect like a strong chain, people believe. Science wouldnt work if we didn’t believe. Nor would history, and maths wouldn’t either. If enough people disbelieve, it ceases to exist. But then your seemingly annoying logic may think “But people believe in god, and there’s no man in the clouds. Just nebulas and stars.” True, god(s) don’t exist in physical form. But you must be a blind fool to not see the physiological existence of deities, or at least beliefs. That’s how our brains work, and “science” will back me up on this one.

    Feel free to reply with one of your paradoxical insults, although you seem wise enough to realise bad language makes you look illiterate and sad.

    • Heshan Says:

      “Science wouldnt work if we didn’t believe.”

      Incorrect. Science works because the results are reproducible, not because anyone believes or disbelieves. The Universe is not someone’s imagination or the plaything of an invisible God; it is REAL, and science provides the empirical tools to confirm that.

      • John Aplessed Says:

        In a sense, I agree with you. But think of it like the “tree-falling-in-a-forest” theory. If no-one believed in science, it wouldn’t be researched and the facts and tools wouldn’t be there to back you up.

        • Heshan Says:

          Actually, science grew out of philosophy and philosophy is as old as time. People would still be wondering why objects move, why the stars shine, why the sky is blue, etc.

  9. lefroy Says:

    Punk,
    Maybe there are imperfections in all beliefs. But only science is capable of correcting itself. When I say I believe science, I do not mean that I believe in a particular scientific theory, like relativity theory or QM (based on current evidence I believe them to. That’s based on evidence. Evidence to the contrary may one day disprove them). What I mean is that I believe in the scientific method, methods of rationality, and the traditions of science. If relativity theory cannot explain some phenomena, then we’ll kick it out. Science is a belief that controls anticipation. For example, those of us who believe relativity theory, expect that nothing travels faster than light. If we find particles that do just that, we’ll make a new theory that fits these new evidence and make accurate predictions. This is why science is not bullshit.

    Buddhism, and all other religions, do not really correct themselves. Only kind of correcting they do is things like saying sorry to Galileo and that too is only because of political reasons. Even if they truly try to correct themselves, they still won’t become any more true than before because of their nature. Science is common sense rigorously applied (again, I’m referring only to the way science creates knowledge. Not the knowledge it creates, like QM and GR). Religion is just a false some guy sitting under a tree, wondering why everything sucks, and comes up with something that sounds right.

    Science is different from everything else in essence. Science can change, based on new evidence, and make accurate predictions. Religions don’t do that. When they make predictions, they are utterly useless crap that can never be verified.

  10. lefroy Says:

    John,
    Actually, I live in Sri Lanka, which is said to be, along with Thailand, the place where the original form of buddhism exists. I can assure you that there aren’t any enlightened people here. There a child molesters instead. In fact here, if you claim you have attained the ‘sovan’ level of consciousness, you’re likely to get house arrested by angry buddhist mobs, who think you’re a liar (yeah. Few monks tried it). See, people think they believe certain beliefs. But sometimes, common sense kicks in.

    Vatican, miracles, child rapists, and a pope who protects them and tells Africans to not use condoms. Vatican isn’t even worth criticising. What’s easier to believe, that the priest sees god when he molests an altar boy and do that to see god, or that he just does it because he loves it? Miracles, of course, like burning women alive. Such a great god, who makes his minions do that kind of things.

    About Tibet. I have been to Tibet. I Haven’t met anyone important. But I can tell you, Dalai Lama is not enlightened. Why else would he even bother to fight against China and win his country independence. You’re supposed to let go of everything. Tibet is an angry country.

    “science wouldn’t work if we didn’t believe.” I hope you are joking. You might as well say the world is flat if we believe it’s flat. If no one believed it, then that only means that there is no one exists to create the knowledge that world is round, so that that knowledge doesn’t exist. But still the world would to look and behave exactly as it would look and behave if the world was round. Dude, you can’t wish away science, unfortunately. In other words, even if you don’t believe your wife, that doesn’t mean she’s unfaithful to you.

    As for physiological existence of deities, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I absolutely do not understand what it means. Would you care to clarify?

    Paradoxical insults? You seem to be on the receiving end of a lot of them. Let me guess, from scientists, who are usually atheists?

  11. lefroy Says:

    Heshan,
    Actually, there my point was not to prove Newton believed alchemy blindly, but that the fact that Newton believed alchemy doesn’t make it any more respectable.

    However, I do think he was blind to believe it anyway. This was after Francis Bacon, so the mistake was non-trivial. The most important moral that scientists should keep in mind is that answers can’t be mysterious. Questions can be. But not answers. Science is supposed to explain the natural world. Giving mysterious answers doesn’t do that. Believing that phlogiston existed was one thing. This was something else. This was like believing trying to experimentally prove that a certain natural process is carried out by magic. Even if it is carried out by magic, it still doesn’t explain anything.

    Of course alchemy, more or less fathered chemistry. So it wasn’t at all useless. People who believed it weren’t idiots either. Some of them were absolutely brilliant. But Newton, being Newton, should’ve seen the obvious flaw. He probably did though. That’s probably why he didn’t publish anything regarding alchemy. I bet he was smart enough to see that alchemy didn’t give him any answers.

  12. Heshan Says:

    “But Newton, being Newton, should’ve seen the obvious flaw. He probably did though. ”

    He probably did, but with science even wrong results can lead to new lines of research. Like you said, alchemy was basically the predecessor to chemistry. Every major field of science builds upon flawed concepts, aka ideas that are “wrong.” In physics the ether preceded the vacuum, in biology the corpuscles came before germ theory, in astronomy you had people believing the sun goes around the earth, for quite a while. So in one sense, you actually need to be wrong (initially) to be right in the future. Or at least it helps to be wrong. Yes, Newton should have seen the obvious. Except that it wasn’t that obvious. If Newton lived today, a 10-minute introduction to the Periodic Table would have spared him 30 years of mostly pointless dabbling in alchemy. The problem is that the PT developed over a couple hundred years; some of the elements had to await the coming of nuclear reactors, which is pretty close to today’s modern science. Unlike physics, most of which can be justified without any experiment, chemistry requires a lab and a lot of other tools. People didn’t even know what light really was until Newton discovered optics, so a “chemistry lab” during Newton’s day would be equivalent to comparing yesterday’s Nintendo with today’s Playstation. So it should be pretty clear why Newton spent so long working in alchemy; the man probably spent a decade and a half just getting the right tools together.

    You mentioned Francis Bacon. Wasn’t that the guy who invented the scientific method? The SM is helpful, but it’s just a general outline. To really reject a theory, it’s necessary to do a lot of dirty work. I would compare the SM to something like Microsoft Word. You yourself come up with the idea; SM/Word helps you to make it more compact, sort of a format thingie.

  13. lefroy Says:

    Heshan,
    Ether in physics and corpuscles in biology, and as I mentioned earlier, Phlogiston, all tried to explain something, unlike Alchemy. We can be pretty sure that we believe in things like ether even now, things that will be proven wrong in the future. Difference between these and alchemy is that these things explain things (albeit incorrectly), and alchemy explains nothing. You can say do this and that, and iron will magically turn to gold. This explains nothing.

    Lord Kelvin and others believed in Elan Vital, a mysterious substance that made matter bend to our will. The difference between ether and elan vital was that elan vital was described as something other worldly, something made by god with the intention of forever being a mystery to men. That is an unscientific answer to a scientific question. Ether was a scientific answer. Ether predicted the universe to be of a certain way. When it turned out the universe wasn’t what ether theory predicted, it was discarded. Elan vital, being a mystery, was only discarded after the mystery was unveiled by other theories and evidence.

    I mentioned SM because it requires scientists to form hypotheses that explain things, not label them as mysteries.

  14. Heshan Says:

    alchemy explains nothing

    Nevertheless, alchemy provided useful techniques (which could be reproduced), which is probably why people kept pursuing it, even though its theoretical foundations were shrouded in “mystery.”

    “Alchemists developed a framework of theory, terminology, experimental process and basic laboratory techniques that is still recognizable today.”

    Of course, there is no reason for anyone alive today to take alchemy seriously. I would say, alchemy has historical value, and not much else.

  15. Heshan Says:

    As to the question of whether alchemy is “real” science, that’s a complex question. I wouldn’t dismiss all of alchemy as pseudo-science and leave it at that. It would be more accurate to say that there is an overlap (intersection) between alchemy and real science, where certain methods/techniques are concerned, and the rest of alchemy is essentially nonsense. But even this limited overlap with science puts alchemy above religion.

  16. Brendan Says:

    Thank you, sir! You have no idea how grateful I am to see someone leveling criticism against Buddhism. I feel like everyone has either “accepted” the religion and is just as zealous and vehement in their beliefs as a Christian, and therefore just as closed minded. Or, they’ve got the notion in their head that Buddhism somehow meshes with scientific world views due to the absence of a traditional “soul” or god (and because Sam Harris practices Buddhist meditation, and Dawkins is strangely passive and accepting of Buddhism’s existence) and is therefore exempt from the same secular scientific critique of western religion.

    Buddha himself told his early followers not to believe anything, even words from his own mouth, without evidence. But the moment one of us non-Buddhist apologists speak up, they act offended and affronted. As you said, if Buddhists are supposed to let everything go, then why take criticism so harshly?

    I dig the concept of inter-connectedness and think it’s true, but it doesn’t go any deeper than the physical. We’re made of stardust, which is fascinating. We’re made of of things that were once not us, and will one day be something else, and Buddhists agree on this. However they also believe the mind is something to be tamed and overcome. Our minds are the way they are on purpose, we made it this far because of our minds. Sure, it’s in a way separate: Our consciousness is the emergent phenomenon of our body and brain functions, which came from our evolutionary path. But there’s no magical karma, and reincarnation is idiotic (And I don’t care that the dalai lama is skeptical of the idea as well, the religion is founded on the basis of karma and reincarnation)

    And let’s not even get into the mixed data on meditation and it’s effects on our minds (but just a taste: for every person who gains focus and compassion, other develop fear, anxiety attacks, depersonalization, dulled senses and emotion, depression — the list goes on).

    My biggest issue though, is that like all other religions, Buddhism requires us to somehow “overcome” our human nature; to “wake up.” Well I’m sorry, but no ones ever woken up. And we can’t overcome our instincts and human nature — that’s what we are. Oh and another thing? there is no such thing as “now.,” at least in the Buddhist sense. “Now” is always in the past, or the future, because no matter what, our experiences don’t exist without memory. What do you think anesthesia does? We’re humans, don’t fight it, embrace it. Grow and and learn for the benefit of our species and its future. There is no enlightenment people; we’re all just stardust. Live, dream, and learn people. It’s what we’re supposed to do.

    (sorry for the long comment, just been dying to get some of this off my chest.)


  17. […] Buddhism is Bullshit – Part I Buddhism is Bullshit – Part II Buddhism is Bullshit – Part III Buddhism is Bullshit – Part IV A response to the responses to my buddhism is bullshit series […]

  18. Anne Says:

    I would like to point out that the Buddha himself said you take what you can use from Buddhism. I am what I guess would be called a ‘western Buddhist’ but I also consider myself an atheist. I only use what is logical to me. It’s about finding inner peace. A buddhist will never go up to you and ask why don’t you believe in god or follow Buddha. You wrote in your article you’ve been dying to tear Buddhism apart but I bet you’ve never had grief from a Buddhist until you wrote this article. Plus until you’ve actually immersed yourself in Buddhism you actually don’t understand it because you have to put the theory into practice daily to see how it works. So no you don’t understand but hope you find your peace

  19. Desmond Peck Says:

    Buddhism is scientific, and science is getting closer and closer to what it teaches.

  20. Myles Lawless Says:

    Could you enlighten us by giving us yopur definition of science. ? In what way is science getting closer to the the teaching of rebirth ?

Leave a reply and get lefroyed

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s