Thank you Dechen Norbu, I really appreciate that.
I certainly didn't want to offend or propose anyone or anything. I don't disagree with you, or agree with George Boeree.
If I may say, you did it the right way. You presented your opinion instead of shoving it down our throats as if it was the truth about Buddhism.
More than being entitled to having one, everyone is encouraged to present them so that they can be explored.
Then again, I'm not a Buddhist. I DID want to see the flaws in his definition because I find it is easy to identify with something like this, as from my standpoint very early on in my discovery of Buddhism, I find it hard to accept these things such as devas as literal interpretations (though I agree that the Buddha did teach such things).
It would be really strange if you were immediately inclined to believe claims that are alien to your culture and experience. It's very natural that you identify with the way these guys present Buddhism, by many reasons. Some people are more permeable to these ideas, sometimes for the wrong reasons, some for the right ones. But it's natural that you doubt them. However, more than doctrine, it will be practice that will make you question your current perspective. What now you naturally assume as being real, nearly unquestionable, will be seen at a very different light in the future.
Maybe that will come with more study and practice, maybe it won't. Then again, it doesn't' need to, because ultimately I will practice whatever I believe in my own way. For now, I'm a nothing.
You are starting and being honest. That's a good way to start. Just keep in mind that Dharma is very profound. What those guys present is appealing, conforming with our experience (before practice), but is no more than a cheap psychotherapy with little value. There's no depth there at all. If that was Buddhadharma I can assure you I wouldn't be a Buddhist. We've devised much better in Psychology already.