|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2007 : 03:58:43 [Permalink]
|
GK Paul wrote: 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.
Maybe you should take a course on logic then. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 08:47:04 [Permalink]
|
1. The issue is "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." What do you mean by soft?
2. The evidence to employ is documentary evidence. In part.
Please move on this could be an interesting discussion if you would move along.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 15:43:03 [Permalink]
|
I am trying to achieve a joining of the issue, I am not trying to make people agree with me on the sentence in its thought that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.
If you do not think that the sentence can be used as the statement for us to join the issue on, then offer your formulation of a statement for us to join on the issue.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 16:00:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
I am trying to achieve a joining of the issue, I am not trying to make people agree with me on the sentence in its thought that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.
If you do not think that the sentence can be used as the statement for us to join the issue on, then offer your formulation of a statement for us to join on the issue.
You are clearly not willing to actually discuss any of the issues which you've brought up in this thread, Gerardo. You're a troll, and engaging in an actual conversation is obviously the last thing you want to do.
|
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 16:06:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All Forums
.Our Skeptic Forums
..Religion
...Are skepticism and Buddhism compatible?
New Reply Posted!
Thank you for your contribution!
And thank you, for your appreciation of my contribution, whoever you are who do appreciate my contribution every time I send a message -- so far so good, because I might one morning as I click on the SNF forum link see on the screen the message, You are not allowed to access this site....
Paging McQ and others who are like McQ, please tell people here that I am trying to achieve a joining of the issue, and if they don't like the formulation of the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," for any reasons whatsoever, then they can state that they disagree, or better draft their formulation of a statement for us to join the issue on.
May I try also just to invite us all to lighten up? Just an invitation, please don't read into it all kinds of whatever you are inclined to imagine I am up to.
And I really am glad that there are people who read this thread, specially those of you who do reply to my thread topic, no matter whatever your personal sentiments toward me.
Just being humorous: yes, more dodging... [smile]. Oh no, someone will now say that I have admitted to dodging... and on and on and on.
Okay, if you will not declare you agree or disagree with my formulation of the statement. "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," as I said already, yes honestly, then present your formulation of the statement on which we can achieve a joining of the issue.
Paging McQ and others similar to McQ.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 16:08:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I am trying to achieve a joining of the issue, I am not trying to make people agree with me on the sentence in its thought that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.
If you do not think that the sentence can be used as the statement for us to join the issue on, then offer your formulation of a statement for us to join on the issue.
Pachomius
What's wrong with you just explaining what you mean with 'skeptics are soft on buddhism' and giving us the evidence you have for this? This should be straightforward enough, right? At least when I write something, I have a fairly good idea of what I mean with what I write and why I write it. I would assume the same holds for you. I really don't see what is so very hard about explaining what you meant and giving the evidence for 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- |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 16:11:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
I am trying to achieve a joining of the issue, I am not trying to make people agree with me on the sentence in its thought that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.
If you do not think that the sentence can be used as the statement for us to join the issue on, then offer your formulation of a statement for us to join on the issue.
You are clearly not willing to actually discuss any of the issues which you've brought up in this thread, Gerardo. You're a troll, and engaging in an actual conversation is obviously the last thing you want to do.
Well, that is an interesting reaction.
We do really need the presence of McQ and others similar to him.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 16:48:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I am trying to achieve a joining of the issue, I am not trying to make people agree with me on the sentence in its thought that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.
If you do not think that the sentence can be used as the statement for us to join the issue on, then offer your formulation of a statement for us to join on the issue.
Pachomius
What's wrong with you just explaining what you mean with 'skeptics are soft on buddhism' and giving us the evidence you have for this? This should be straightforward enough, right? At least when I write something, I have a fairly good idea of what I mean with what I write and why I write it. I would assume the same holds for you. I really don't see what is so very hard about explaining what you meant and giving the evidence for it.
That is what I have been trying to do all this time (this will be reacted to I am afraid to no purpose on and on and on) to explain that I am just saying an opinion, and McQ understands it perfectly and also tries to tell some people here.
But some people here keep insisting that I am making a statement of fact and demanding that I produce evidence.
For this reason, since I am asked to prove with evidence that the statement in brief, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." is a statement of fact, I have thought that a joining of the issue is called for; because I have this idea that when people cannot be amenable to accept your words as a statement of opinion but keep on insisting that it is a statement of fact, then at least before anything else some joining of issue is required before we can proceed further, in order for me to try to produce evidence, granting but not conceding that what I am saying, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." is a statement of fact. or intended by me to be a statement of fact, or the way it stands is a statement of fact, and on and on and on.
Now, I read someone or two or three... (I can't say anything anymore here which everyone can understand elsewhere, but that some people will start asking for evidence and definitions, and on and on and on), asking I me what is meant by a skeptics and what is meant by soft.
McQ and someone else here yesterday if memory serves me correctly already agrees to the formulation of the first sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," but he says that for the second sentence about the formulation of documentary evidence being adequate, he says it depends.
I really appreciate his capacity to understand what I also consider to be simple words and sentences.
You see... I better stop here, because this will go on and on and on and on.
We seem to be having a communication impasse here... with some people here.
I dread bringing up what I mean and I assume and I am certain that anyone with an English skill as to pass a reading comprehension test to work in a store operated by English speaking people, a store selling books, can understand the sentence. "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
Wait, I just have a constructive idea (someone will shoot back right away with something in effect like, "Define constructive, and define idea, and what you say is neither constructive nor an idea." And as I said, on and on and on and on.
What's my constructive idea? Do we have English experts in this website who can come to my assistance to tell me how to write the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," so that the people who do use English as to be able to write it legibly in messages here, can understand what I am trying to convey with the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
And on and on and on and on, but at least there are some people who tell me every time I post a message, the following encouraging words:
quote:
New Reply Posted!
Thank you for your contribution!
Tomorrow again (someone will demand how I can be sure that I will be around tomorrow or he or anyone, as I said, on and on and on and on, and to produce evidence and define tomorrow and again...).
Pachomius |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 17:22:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
That is what I have been trying to do all this time (this will be reacted to I am afraid to no purpose on and on and on) to explain that I am just saying an opinion, and McQ understands it perfectly and also tries to tell some people here.
Even opinions are arrived at in some way. Or do you just pull your opinions out of your arse? If you haven't noticed, this is a discussion board. As I already stated, you have an extreme tendency not to engage people on the answers they give, especially if they apparantly are contradictory to what you state.
quote:
But some people here keep insisting that I am making a statement of fact and demanding that I produce evidence.
You are making statements of fact. For example, on page 3 we see you stating:
quote:
originally posted by you:
So, everyone, just judge for yourself as you read my observations on Buddhism whether it is compatible or incompatible with skepticism; then try to find out why many Westerners otherwise critical of religions treat Buddhism with kids' gloves.
So show it. Where are Westerners otherwise critical of religions treating Buddhism with kid gloves? I am rereading the thread now, but you keep alluding to it as a fact that skeptics give Buddhism a free pass all through the thread (amidst all the other disorganized claims and ramblings you make here). Page 3, page 4, page 5, page 6, etc. Almost every page you have made some claim worded as a fact-claim (not an opinion) that skeptics are "soft on Buddhism", "treating Buddhism with kid gloves", "partial to Buddhism" or some other similar claim. All claims, no opinions.
quote:
For this reason, since I am asked to prove with evidence that the statement in brief, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." is a statement of fact, I have thought that a joining of the issue is called for; because I have this idea that when people cannot be amenable to accept your words as a statement of opinion but keep on insisting that it is a statement of fact, then at least before anything else some joining of issue is required before we can proceed further, in order for me to try to produce evidence, granting but not conceding that what I am saying, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism." is a statement of fact. or intended by me to be a statement of fact, or the way it stands is a statement of fact, and on and on and on.
How is a joining of issue arrived at other then you stating what you actually mean (instead of turning around it every time at this point) and providing evidence for your assertion? How does having everyone state whether they agree or disagree with a statement that is at the very least unclear help any way of 'joining of issue'?
quote:
Now, I read someone or two or three... (I can't say anything anymore here which everyone can understand elsewhere, but that some people will start asking for evidence and definitions, and on and on and on), asking I me what is meant by a skeptics and what is meant by soft.
No, what you mean when you use it. If you have a sufficient command of english you should be able to understand that 'Soft on Buddhism' can mean many things. For example, it can mean that skeptics do not attack Buddhist claims when they are made. But it can also mean that skeptics rarely attack Buddhism while often attacking christianity. It can also mean that many skeptics reject christianity but accept Buddhism as valid. So what do you mean when you say it. Paraphrase what you mean in other words, expound on it if you will, to address what you actually mean. That shouldn't be too hard now, should it?
<snipped complete irrelevancy> |
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- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 01/08/2007 17:31:42 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
