|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2007 : 19:33:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
For the people here who want evidence from me on my words that briefly: "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." please reproduce the text below
quote:
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence.
in your next message here and state whether you agree to the proposals as stated, and just put your name after your statement of agreement.
So that's your game now, Gerardo. You want us to jump through some arbitrary hoops before you're willing to participate in a dialogue. Yep, more dodging. You have yet to directly address any issue which has been raised by others in this thread, and it's becoming increasingly obvious that you're not willing to bring in evidence to support your contention, even after indicating you would. You're no skeptic. It looks like you've lied again, and you're still acting like a troll.
quote:
Special thinks to McQ, he is one really different and most appreciated by yours truly of a skeptic; there are all kinds of skeptics, but McQ and yours truly, we make up a distinctively different kind.
Out of curiosity, what do you think now, McQ? How do you feel about Gerardo claiming you as an ally, using you, bringing your name back into the conversation as an obvious ploy to sidestep actual discussion and elicit sympathy for his delusion of persecution? Given his refusal to actively participate in a dialogue, an exchange of ideas, and his continuing display of apparent lying and trolling, would you still suggest Gerardo is an innocent, misunderstood victim of a mob action while trying to engage in an honest discussion?
Okay, let's try these two issues again, Gerardo, as simple as possible...
- One, is English your second language or do you otherwise have some known deficiency in your communication skills?
- And two, you've made the claim, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," and you've indicated you'll offer evidence to support contention, so go ahead and do it.
|
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 22:52:07 [Permalink]
|
Guys, guys give him time here. He has only posted the same thing six times in a row, and something kind of the same 6 times before that. This is just how Pachomius works. Its a literary device, you know.
Guess it doesn't take long for trollish behaviour to follow a troll. You only have a few more pages Pachomius. You may want to post something relevant. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 05:38:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
I don't think it is treating Buddhism with kid's gloves at all. Buddhism just happens to not have any threatening doctrines. Sure reincarnation and the soul ect. is irrational but not threatening by any means. You may as well question why there is not a ton of articles debunking the time cube theory, http://www.timecube.com/. It simply is not a threat to anything and all of the irrational tenets are covered in the threatening religion's criticisms.
It seems logical to me that any false doctrine that millions of people believe is not only a threat to society as a whole but to the long term well being of those who believe the false doctines. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 07:49:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
It seems logical to me that any false doctrine that millions of people believe is not only a threat to society as a whole but to the long term well being of those who believe the false doctines.
It seems logical to me that this would depend on the doctrine. A doctrine that does not encourage violence against others and promotes tolerance and enquiry, even if false, can as far as I see only benefit society. How would such a doctrine be a threat to society? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 07:52:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems logical to me that any false doctrine that millions of people believe is not only a threat to society as a whole but to the long term well being of those who believe the false doctines.
So are you saying that all religions hurt society as a whole, as well as the individual?
I think (unevidenced) most people who say they believe in god are not really that religious. If that conjecture is true, then most people don't have religion run there life, they just use it as a crutch to delude themselves into a vague sense of well being during times of stress.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 07:52:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
I don't think it is treating Buddhism with kid's gloves at all. Buddhism just happens to not have any threatening doctrines. Sure reincarnation and the soul ect. is irrational but not threatening by any means. You may as well question why there is not a ton of articles debunking the time cube theory, http://www.timecube.com/. It simply is not a threat to anything and all of the irrational tenets are covered in the threatening religion's criticisms.
It seems logical to me that any false doctrine that millions of people believe is not only a threat to society as a whole but to the long term well being of those who believe the false doctines.
Did I just here you say that GK? Are you starting to see things from our side just a lil'? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 07:55:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
It seems logical to me that any false doctrine that millions of people believe is not only a threat to society as a whole but to the long term well being of those who believe the false doctines.
So are you saying that all religions hurt society as a whole, as well as the individual?
I think (unevidenced) most people who say they believe in god are not really that religious. If that conjecture is true, then most people don't have religion run there life, they just use it as a crutch to delude themselves into a vague sense of well being during times of stress.
As well as, social adhesion. Most people believe most of what they believe for no other reason than it helps them somehow emotionally. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 10:29:40 [Permalink]
|
Oh no, GK Paul, now you'll have to put furshur and Neurosis on your list and increase your ignorance. What are we up to now? At last count I think it was me (of course), furshur, Neurosis, Fripp, Dave W., HalfMooner, Starman, McQ, moakley, and Kil. Did I miss anyone?
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 11:03:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
It seems logical to me that any false doctrine that millions of people believe is not only a threat to society as a whole but to the long term well being of those who believe the false doctines.
Did I just here you say that GK? Are you starting to see things from our side just a lil'?
Unfortunately the word "false" is subjective, so the answer is no.
However, other societies have believed doctrines which I hazard to guess that GK believes are false, and have functioned quite well for centuries.
And christianity may have been partly responsible for the downfall of at least one major society, and is working on another one as we speak. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 01/05/2007 11:06:17 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 20:47:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul:
It seems logical to me that any false doctrine that millions of people believe is not only a threat to society as a whole but to the long term well being of those who believe the false doctines.
Damn! My irony meter just went up in a mushroom cloud!
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Mojo
New Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 09:31:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Ultimately I found out one morning that I could not enter the forum anymore, but the message faced me on the screen that I had been either banned or what I can't recall anymore now.
That's odd. During your suspension you should still have been able to read the forum as usual, and to read your PMs. You will just not have been able to post or to send PMs to anyone apart from members of the moderation team.
Have you tried going back to the JREF forum since this? |
"You got to use your brain" - McKinley Morganfield |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2007 : 17:32:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." -->disagree
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence. --> depends
Just state as to the second item whether you agree or disagree; then later we will gather all those who disagree to the first or to the second or to both, and ask them to propose their formulations acceptable to themselves, and I will also see whether I can agree to or suggest some alterations acceptable to them.
This is a tedious procedure but unless we first come to an acceptable formulations of the two sentences, acceptable to everyone who wants to get to a definitive settlement of the issue, we would be going on and on and not arrive anywhere except more mutual exacerbations.
Please everyone else, just answer agree or disagree, before you go to any other matters you want to bring up incidentally to the topic of this thread.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2007 : 18:18:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." -->disagree
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence. --> depends
Just state as to the second item whether you agree or disagree; then later we will gather all those who disagree to the first or to the second or to both, and ask them to propose their formulations acceptable to themselves, and I will also see whether I can agree to or suggest some alterations acceptable to them.
This is a tedious procedure but unless we first come to an acceptable formulations of the two sentences, acceptable to everyone who wants to get to a definitive settlement of the issue, we would be going on and on and not arrive anywhere except more mutual exacerbations.
Please everyone else, just answer agree or disagree, before you go to any other matters you want to bring up incidentally to the topic of this thread.
Pachomius
I've already said everything needed to be said in the part of the post I snipped. You say you are a skeptic. If this is so, you should understand that noone can give a conclusive 'yes/no' answer to your question since they haven't seen what evidence you have.
So cough up. There is no point in these silly games you are trying to play. Just cough up the evidence you have. If you need to resort to these silly games, that can only mean that you have no evidence and you know it. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2007 : 20:09:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
This is a tedious procedure but unless we first come to an acceptable formulations of the two sentences, acceptable to everyone who wants to get to a definitive settlement of the issue, we would be going on and on and not arrive anywhere except more mutual exacerbations.
Too late. By refusing to simply state your case in favor of your "opinion," you are ensuring that more and more people will become fed up with you.
The "items" are yours to agree or disagree with, Pachomius, because you formulated them. The fact that you refuse to move on, and instead insist on getting other people to agree or disagree with them prior to your showing a speck of evidence, is just a sign that you prefer "mutual exacerbations" over an open and honest discussion.
Not that I think you'll find any agreement here on the first "item," anyway. Not least because you've failed to define "soft on" in any substantive way. And if history is any guide, you will incorrectly conflate "Buddhism" with "particular claims made by particular Buddhists," as you did before in this thread.
Until you get those problems ironed out, there's no need for agreement on what sort of "evidence" you've got, "documentary" or otherwise. Demanding explicit agreement or disagreement on the second item puts the cart before the horse. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 03:13:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." -->disagree
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence. --> depends
Just state as to the second item whether you agree or disagree; then later we will gather all those who disagree to the first or to the second or to both, and ask them to propose their formulations acceptable to themselves, and I will also see whether I can agree to or suggest some alterations acceptable to them.
You are setting up false dichotomies here. The answer may fall in between the two absolutes you want people to respond with. By doing so you are forcing people to not respond because you won't allow them to give you the answer they want to give, the answer that they think represents their view.
quote:
Please everyone else, just answer agree or disagree, before you go to any other matters you want to bring up incidentally to the topic of this thread.
My way or the highway, is it? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
