|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
 Posted - 12/07/2006 : 16:19:00 [Permalink]
|
Let's then have this discussion -- although I have been discussing my thoughts with the people participating in this thread all this time.
Tell me what is the quintessential contribution of the legendary Gautama which Buddhist masters tell us he did pioneer in, which contribution is not borrowed from Gautama's traditional and contemporary to him philosophical and religious ideas and practices of his time and clime?
We will then discuss about the original contribution(s) of Gautama or of Buddhism, that is not propounded and defended and enshrined in philosophical and religious speculations current with him, Gautama.
And see whether on that basis of his original contribution(s) Buddhism is compatible or not with rational skepticism.
Pachomius
|
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 16:24:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
What is the sound of one hand dripping?
What is the color of boredom?
Gray, of course. 
Nah, beige. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 16:30:16 [Permalink]
|
Actually, If you would be so kind (as this is your thread and your are the claimant) to give us an example of any dangerous idea within the central tenents of Buddhism. We have all already agreed that any irrational belief is not compatible with Skepticism. Where we differ is in whether or not philisophical ideas about happiness and inner peace are dangerous or even testable. Certainly, no one rational can believe in the soul or esoteric ideas as such without evidence (which there is none).
Also, I have already pointed out that people make up there own religion and thus a Buddhist (common term) can be anyone who believes anything. So you must clarify what beliefs you specfically are targeting. |
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.] |
|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 21:41:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Let's then have this discussion -- although I have been discussing my thoughts with the people participating in this thread all this time.
Only if you mean "expounding upon" when you say "discussing".
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Tell me what is the quintessential contribution of the legendary Gautama which Buddhist masters tell us he did pioneer in, which contribution is not borrowed from Gautama's traditional and contemporary to him philosophical and religious ideas and practices of his time and clime?
Skepticism (the Kalama Sutra).
The non-existence of the eternal soul (anatta).
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
We will then discuss about the original contribution(s) of Gautama or of Buddhism, that is not propounded and defended and enshrined in philosophical and religious speculations current with him, Gautama.
As opposed to you expounding on your beliefs and supporting your arguments via Google search and quoting the stories of Aesop Jr, Susuma, and Pes Oir Amsus as if they were someone besides yourself? That would be a first.
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
And see whether on that basis of his original contribution(s) Buddhism is compatible or not with rational skepticism.
No, if your past behaviour is any clue you are here to convince the skeptics that not only is Buddhism (per your definitions) not compatible with skepticism, but that Christianity is. |
Insert witty saying here. |
| Edited by - nescafe on 12/07/2006 21:44:41 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 22:01:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
No, if your past behaviour is any clue you are here to convince the skeptics that not only is Buddhism (per your definitions) not compatible with skepticism, but that Christianity is.
Oh, is that his game? Some bizzaro attempt to make christianity look better by comparison? 
And some would say that any religious faith which restricts itself from making claims about the material realm is compatible with skepticism. (I am not one of those people, though I do not deny that people can be both religious and practice skepticism.)
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 04:51:07 [Permalink]
|
  I find all this fine. I find that anything good in a religion one can find elsewhere and that at best religion is a placebo .Fine, Pachomius. |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 08:05:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
And see whether on that basis of his original contribution(s) Buddhism is compatible or not with rational skepticism.
What's the point of doing that? There's no reason to look at how Buddhism originated more than 2,000 years ago to see if it's "compatible" with skepticism, just like there's no need to look at the origins of Christianity to see that its dogma is incompatible with skepticism.
Since you're refusing to actually discuss what you claimed to be your contention earlier in this thread, I will: no, there's no need for the mysticism of any religion in order to come by the "good things" that any religion might provide. One can start from some rather basic first principles and derive "do unto others" without need of Jesus or God. To expect everyone to do such work (or even just every skeptic) is unreasonable. I would hope that by the time someone who begins with religion finds skepticism, they'll jettison the dogma over time and understand the rational reasons for ethical behaviour, but time is necessary in such situations.
This isn't, of course, why you have the mistaken impression that skeptics treat Buddhism with kid gloves, but you've been given several of (mostly) the same answers to that question already, and haven't had the common courtesy to even acknowledge them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 11:22:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
No, if your past behaviour is any clue you are here to convince the skeptics that not only is Buddhism (per your definitions) not compatible with skepticism, but that Christianity is.
Oh, is that his game? Some bizzaro attempt to make christianity look better by comparison?
And some would say that any religious faith which restricts itself from making claims about the material realm is compatible with skepticism. (I am not one of those people, though I do not deny that people can be both religious and practice skepticism.)
Really, HH? I have always thought that be skeptical is to be skeptical always. As in, toward everything. Or do you mean that the philisophical positions can be held, as well as, skepticism. That all of the untestables can be held as possibilities without being the basis of any action or conclusions, which would have to be gained through science and skepticism. |
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.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 11:39:44 [Permalink]
|
As a skeptic, I can state with categorically that christianity is stupid and all forms of Buddhism is completely compatable with skepticism.
Your thoughts?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 12:03:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
As a skeptic, I can state with categorically that christianity is stupid and all forms of Buddhism is completely compatable with skepticism.
Your thoughts?
The Hindu principles that are in Buddist philosophy are not compatible. The philisophical ideas and untestables are completely compatible. Also, the New Age influence Buddhism is not compatible.
|
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.] |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 18:16:18 [Permalink]
|
What I want to find out from you guys here who might be Buddhists or Buddhist sympathizers is some contribution to philosophy and religion or even sciences that is peculiarly of Buddhism, a specific teaching or practice.
For example, take Scientology which is the scope of many a skeptic's attention in the way of debunking, the peculiarly proprietary contribution is what? Let me look it up and report here...
What is proprietarily peculiar with Scientology? Here, it's the concept and practice of auditing:
quote:
The church believes that a person's spirit can be cleared of past painful experiences through a process called "auditing," freeing the person of the burdens that interfere with happiness and self-realization.
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Scientology
I am trying to find out for myself what in Buddhism corresponds to auditing in Scientology, what about you guys?
Of course we can always say that any system that does not agree with the fundamental premises of rational or scientific skepticism is not compatible with it; but in which case why bother at all even with this website of Skeptic Friends Network?
Pachomius
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 20:28:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
What is proprietarily peculiar with Scientology? Here, it's the concept and practice of auditing
You're far too narrow-minded if you think that is the answer to your question.quote:
I am trying to find out for myself what in Buddhism corresponds to auditing in Scientology, what about you guys?
But that's not what you said you wanted to do before. Why do you refuse to address your own contention?quote:
...in which case why bother at all even with this website of Skeptic Friends Network?
Apparently, you speak out of ignorance of our mission, which is on every Web page here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2006 : 23:10:01 [Permalink]
|
Having not reads any of this thread, or forgotten if I have or if I've commented, here's today's thought on the thread title:
Regardless of whatever is being defined here as Buddhism, because I assume there is some claim Buddhism has some rationale basis to it or the thread title would make no sense, I have been to many Buddhist temples and I did not see anything compatible with science there.
People go to the temples, light incense and thank the Buddha for whatever they feel they should thank him for. Sorry, that is just not compatible with science, period!
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
