Originally Posted by
UKShootist
That, and the rest of it, is a somewhat biased opinion to say the least.
However...
I give neither Buddhism nor Christianity any benefit whatsoever. You rightly say that tales of Buddha are questionable, but no more or less than tales of Christianity or any other religion. There is no evidence of rebirth etc it's true. While there is evidence that Jesus and Mohammed existed there is no evidence whatever of any miracles or divinity attributable to them. Indeed in their case any evidence would point towards paranoid schizophrenia. What Zen Buddhism has is a logic that cannot be denied, even if it turns out to be wrong. I see no logic whatever in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. To me that gives Zen a head start. The fact that some humans have converted Buddhism to a religion and even worship him using prayer wheels that I Consider little short of insane is a failing of those humans and not of the Zen logic.
I'm not sure about the hard core scientific atheist. More a hard core scientific agnostic. Not a stoic because I do not feel I owe the world any duty? Perhaps 42 years of serving my country and it's people as a serviceman, a police officers, and a Trading Standards enforcement officer might indicate otherwise. And I certainly didn't say I was a very good stoic.
Moi, bellicose? Hark who's talking. You accuse me of an aggressive attitude when all I offer are the reasons I object to statements made. For a start, if I assume that the 'Christ' in Christianity refers to Jesus then he seems like quite a decent bloke. I do object to many/most of the religious observances that some so called Christians seem to delight in, and why not? If they preach am I not entitled to answer? Why use the word 'attack' when I point out that it is impossible for an outsider to choose which Christian advice to follow? I certainly don't feel I attack anyone following their own personal interpretation, it's what I do with Buddhism after all, I merely point out that anyone's interpretation is likely to be different from anyone else and therefore lacks validity in equal measure.
Then at least you prove that you can be just as wrong as anyone else. Also, it takes two to fight, again, as you seem to want to prove for me.