|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2006 : 06:35:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
My thoughts are that your grammar with needs some help.
 I was thinking the same thing. |
-Chaloobi
|
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2006 : 06:48:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
What about this thought:
What is peculiarly of Buddhism is its disdain for life;
Disdain? I was under the impression the central tennet was that it's part of the human condition that you can't find lasting happiness/contentment by any shaping of the world around you. But you can by shaping your mind, your wants and your expectations. It's a more fundamental expression of the phenomenon that money can't buy happiness. That is, access to all the world's pleasures (via wealth, in this case) still will not lead you to a happy life. Happiness comes from within.
Drop all the associated supernatural mythology and is this incompatible with skepticism? I don't think so. Heck, it's true. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2006 : 06:50:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
<snip>
I do think I hit the jackpot being born human. <snip>
What an odd thought. Do you think there was a chance you could have been born something else??? What does it mean to be you, anyway? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 12/14/2006 06:53:00 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2006 : 10:03:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
<snip>
I do think I hit the jackpot being born human. <snip>
What an odd thought. Do you think there was a chance you could have been born something else??? What does it mean to be you, anyway?
Well, since I was born human, then the odds of my being born human are 100%.
But there are a lot of other animals on this planet. Nematodes outnumber humans by a shit load. (Technical language.) Most animals are prey to something and are often more likely to be eaten alive than to reach a ripe old age (or even adulthood) with the time to read and whatnot. (Of course, there are a lot of pitfalls along the way that could sabotage that result. And not everyone lives in a place where just surviving is not all we have the time to do. But just being born human gives many of us the potential to break away from a bad circumstance. At the risk of anthropomorphizing, tell that to a male black widow.)
That I even have the time to contemplate my existence sets me apart from at least most of the other life forms on this planet. That's a good thing in my view. Not having to spend all of my time just trying to survive and not be eaten is definitely on the plus side.
So, yeah. As life on earth goes, I do think that being born human is the jackpot, when I consider all the other things I could have been born as. (I know, in reality, that is a bogus concept. But what the hell. It works for me...)
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 20:48:40 [Permalink]
|
This thread is on the question whether rational or scientific skepticism is compatible with Buddhism, or more correctly whether Buddhism can be compatible with rational or scientific skepticism.
Rational or scientific skepticism is founded on facts, evidence, science, and above all logic.
What is Buddhism essentially about in terms of epistemology, specifically logic?
According to one student who did a study of Buddhist logic or illogic, and published a book about it, it is essentially about illogic as the underpinning of Buddhist thinking and knowing and acting; here is his abstract of the book, BUDDHIST ILLOGIC: A Critical Analysis of Nagarjuna's Arguments (TheLogician.net, Copyright Avi Sion, 2002, All rights reserved) -- http://www.thelogician.net/3b_buddhist_illogic/3b_bl_abstract.htm.
Here are excerpts from his own abstract of the book:
-----------------------------
The most eminent philosopher of Buddhism exempts Buddhism from logic.
quote:
The 2nd Century CE Indian philosopher Nagarjuna founded the MadhyBuddhismfromamika (Middle Way) school of Mahayana Buddhism, which strongly influenced Chinese, Korean and Japanese (Ch'an or Zen) Buddhism, as well as Tibetan Buddhism. Nagarjuna is regarded by many Buddhist writers to this day as a very important philosopher, who they claim definitively proved the futility of ordinary human cognitive means.
-------------------------------
Waxing eloquent on Buddhism's foundation in illogic.
quote:
His writings include a series of arguments purporting to show the illogic of logic, the absurdity of reason. He considers this the way to verbalize and justify the Buddhist doctrine of “emptiness” (Shunyata). These arguments attack some of the basic tenets and techniques of reasoning, such as the laws of thought (identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle), conceptualization and predication, our common assumptions of self, entities and essences, as well as our beliefs in motion and causation.
---------------------
Book author lists the sophistries and fallacies employed.
quote:
The present essay demonstrates the many sophistries involved in Nagarjuna's arguments. He uses double standards, applying or ignoring the laws of thought and other norms as convenient to his goals; he manipulates his readers, by giving seemingly logical form (like the dilemma) to his discourse, while in fact engaged in non-sequiturs or appealing to doubtful premises; he plays with words, relying on unclear terminology, misleading equivocations and unfair fixations of meaning; and he ‘steals concepts', using them to deny the very percepts on which they are based.
-----------------------------
Book author just the same grants privilege to people to take up Buddhism notwithstanding its illogic.
quote:
Although a critique of the Madhyamika philosophical interpretation and defense of “emptiness”, Buddhist Illogic is not intended to dissuade readers from Buddhism. On the contrary, its aim to enhance personal awareness of actual cognitive processes, and so improve meditation. It is also an excellent primer on phenomenological epistemology.
-----------------------------
So, to skeptics here wh |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 21:23:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
This thread is on the question whether rational or scientific skepticism is compatible with Buddhism, or more correctly whether Buddhism can be compatible with rational or scientific skepticism.
And still, you refuse to address the very issue you claim is the subject of this thread. To whit:quote:
The 2nd Century CE Indian philosopher Nagarjuna founded the MadhyBuddhismfromamika (Middle Way) school of Mahayana Buddhism, which strongly influenced Chinese, Korean and Japanese (Ch'an or Zen) Buddhism, as well as Tibetan Buddhism.
But it's still just one Buddhist's thoughts out of many. When are you going to criticize Buddhism, Pachomius, and quit pussyfooting around?quote:
So, to skeptics here who are into Buddhism or feel that they should explain Buddhism in a favorable light vis-a-vis the rationality, science, facts, evidence, and logic of skepticism, I guess the book author would also grant you the privilege to engage in illogic.
Apparently, not only are you immune to questions, you're also deaf to anything that members here actually say. That's extremely logical of you, Pachomius, since that way you won't actually need to be skeptical of anything, yourself.
Once again, you're just showing that you've got some bizarre fixation on Buddhism, and are not the rational scientific skeptic you would have people believe you are. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 22:22:12 [Permalink]
|
What specific item in Buddhism would you want me to criticize in order for me to show that Buddhism is not compatible with rational, scientific skepticism?
Are you a Buddhist or Buddhist sympathizer or you have attended and are still attending Buddhist meditation sessions, or you have some partisanship for the Dalai Lama as against his sundry rivals for hierocratic and political suzerainty; or you are a fan of who is that Thai monk teaching Americans, Thich Nhat Hanh(?) -- how to live as to reduce stress and tension and fear and whatever one can't or won't exercise his mind to find out what's wrong with himself and work out his own remedies?
No, I don't have any fixation with Buddhism but just a hobby of critical consideration, just like the Japanese emperor Hirohito had with butterflies, but less so, and for more convenience and economy of resources.
You see, there is nothing more delightfully engaging as occupying one's brain cells with the examination of the as Avi Sion says, sophistries and fallacies in any life and world view founded on nothing but pure guess work without any feet planted on the earth.
I can drop Buddhism anytime I choose, not like the screeching in the car which I have to think about and come to a solution for (most likely the supporting bearing of the fan belt),
I have a new topic in the anything forum coming up and I hope you don't look askance at it. What is that topic? What about anal wipe, the practice and history of anal wipe in humans?
This is a most worthy subject for there are millions and millions of humans who don't go for wiping but instead for washing -- a certainly more sanitary and hygienic practice. Try it.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 04:18:52 [Permalink]
|
As an atheist, why should I care about what the Buddhists do? They don't hand out Watchtowers door to door and never try to 'witness' anyone; at least as far as I know.
In short, their religion is no sillier than any other and a lot less obnoxious than a couple I can think of. As long as they leave me alone, I won't bother them. Does that make me a "Buddhist sympathizer?" And if so, how?
As has been stated; no religion is compatable with skeptisim simply because all of them are based upon the supernatural. Until someone 'proves' the supernatural, any supernatural at all, really, religion must remain in the Quaint Mass Delusion catagory.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 07:57:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
What specific item in Buddhism would you want me to criticize in order for me to show that Buddhism is not compatible with rational, scientific skepticism?
I've already made such a suggestion: the central tenets of Buddhism.quote:
Are you a Buddhist or Buddhist sympathizer or you have attended and are still attending Buddhist meditation sessions, or you have some partisanship for the Dalai Lama as against his sundry rivals for hierocratic and political suzerainty; or you are a fan of who is that Thai monk teaching Americans, Thich Nhat Hanh(?) -- how to live as to reduce stress and tension and fear and whatever one can't or won't exercise his mind to find out what's wrong with himself and work out his own remedies?
No, but how is that relevant to your seeming inability to criticize that which you claim to want to criticize?quote:
No, I don't have any fixation with Buddhism but just a hobby of critical consideration, just like the Japanese emperor Hirohito had with butterflies, but less so, and for more convenience and economy of resources.
You seem to be defining "critical consideration" in a way I've never seen before, please elaborate.quote:
You see, there is nothing more delightfully engaging as occupying one's brain cells with the examination of the as Avi Sion says, sophistries and fallacies in any life and world view founded on nothing but pure guess work without any feet planted on the earth.
Oh, like how "life" is the "supreme value" and that you, Pachomius, can somehow sense that your pets agree with such an assertion?quote:
I can drop Buddhism anytime I choose...
Stated like an alcoholic in denial. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 09:29:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
This thread is on the question whether rational or scientific skepticism is compatible with Buddhism, or more correctly whether Buddhism can be compatible with rational or scientific skepticism.
Hey, Pachomius, maybe over there in Marikina you don't get a very good education in the English language and you're having difficulty understanding, so let me try making this clear and simple:
1. For the most part, everyone here at SFN is equally skeptical of any claims made by Buddhists or about Buddhism as they are of claims made by or about any other religion.
2. You claimed that skeptics tend to treat Buddhism with kid gloves, take up with, or sympathize with Buddhism. You've been asked to support that claim with evidence, and so far you have been unable to do that. To reiterate: Considering the replies to this thread, is seems apparent that we do indeed hold claims about Buddhism to the same standards of doubt and evidence as we do claims about any other issue. One thing we do doubt is your claim that skeptics give Buddhism some kind of leeway which isn't generally allowed for other religions. Are you willing to support that assertion with evidence (or explain why you're unwilling to support it)? Or will you continue to babble nonsense like the common troll you appear to be?
|
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 15:59:13 [Permalink]
|
Try this simple experiment: enter Buddhism in Google, then enter Islam or any other worldwide religions of millennial history; then report to me what you notice, if you are in the habit of noticing things which usually escape people who don't have the habit.
You don't get the idea? In which case I give up.
--------------------
I do have evidence that I am not fixated with Buddhism, just like I am not fixated with smoking or drinking, but I do read research works on all three matters, for my stock knowledge -- about drinks I welcome some good whiskey or brandy in strict moderation, provided someone doesn't expect the same favor of offering him a drink in return if he be visiting with me -- for I keep no alcoholic drinks at home and in no other places either.
You want to see the evidence of my non-fixation with Buddhism, even though I am curious about it? -- being curious and critical of something is not fixation, specially when I do have evidence that I need not have to be curious about it -- yet curiosity is the mother of invention and I keep curious all the time about everything specially things like Buddhism.
Better: I am fixated with curiosity all around, but for economy and ease of satisfaction Buddhism is just one of those things my curiosity can be 'delightfully' gratified without any outlay of too much time and not at all on any cash outlay.
I am also curious about anal wipe, what people used for that end before the invention of things to wipe with like cloth and paper. Leaves of plants come to mind. What else? Anything at all, if you find yourself in circumstances where you have to wipe but you have nothing traditional to wipe with like cloth or paper; look around and you will find useful materials or objects to wipe with.
----------------------
Don't forget the experiment I suggested at the start of this message, and report to me.
Pachomius
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 16:21:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
Try this simple experiment: enter Buddhism in Google, then enter Islam or any other worldwide religions of millennial history; then report to me what you notice, if you are in the habit of noticing things which usually escape people who don't have the habit.
The number and/or type of Google hits returned is not evidence to support your notion that skeptics consider claims made about Buddhism any differently than claims made about any other religion.
quote:
You don't get the idea? In which case I give up.
It's good to know you're giving up, Pachomius, since you haven't been willing to substantiate your claim, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 20:17:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Try this simple experiment: enter Buddhism in Google, then enter Islam or any other worldwide religions of millennial history; then report to me what you notice, if you are in the habit of noticing things which usually escape people who don't have the habit.
Okay, I see that "Buddhism" returns only two sponsored links, whereas "christianity," "hebrew" and "islam" all returned at least four. Take-away lesson: Buddhists tends to be less concerned about advertising than the "big three," but not less than the Hindus (only one sponsored link).quote:
You don't get the idea?
Why don't you just tell us your idea, since it's obviously not to criticize Buddhism in general (despite what you claim)? All you've done so far is to point out a few of the nuttier things on the part of individual Buddhists or groups of them. That's easy to do with any religion. It's exactly like pointing to Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps and suggesting that he's typical of Christianity - an idea that most Christians would find repugnant. Your actions, like that, are certainly not rational, logical, scientific or skeptical. And this secret test of yours to see if someone else here sees the same things you read into some sets of Google search results is likewise anti-skeptical.quote:
In which case I give up.
Oh, good. Bye now! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 13:33:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
<snip>
I do think I hit the jackpot being born human. <snip>
What an odd thought. Do you think there was a chance you could have been born something else??? What does it mean to be you, anyway?
Well, since I was born human, then the odds of my being born human are 100%.
But there are a lot of other animals on this planet. Nematodes outnumber humans by a shit load. (Technical language.) Most animals are prey to something and are often more likely to be eaten alive than to reach a ripe old age (or even adulthood) with the time to read and whatnot. (Of course, there are a lot of pitfalls along the way that could sabotage that result. And not everyone lives in a place where just surviving is not all we have the time to do. But just being born human gives many of us the potential to break away from a bad circumstance. At the risk of anthropomorphizing, tell that to a male black widow.)
That I even have the time to contemplate my existence sets me apart from at least most of the other life forms on this planet. That's a good thing in my view. Not having to spend all of my time just trying to survive and not be eaten is definitely on the plus side.
So, yeah. As life on earth goes, I do think that being born human is the jackpot, when I consider all the other things I could have been born as. (I know, in reality, that is a bogus concept. But what the hell. It works for me...)
I love stuff like this. Just a couple thoughts:
#1. I believe 100% that most of (if not ALL) what makes you YOU is being human. To suggest YOU could be born anything else is like saying a human could be simultaneously a nematode.
Really what you're tapping into is our underlying cultural belief in a non-corporeal soul. Said soul - often thought of as our "mind" and encompassing our memories and identity - is commonly thought to be transportable between material "containers" so that you could actually just as easily been born a dog or cat and your being human was the luck of the draw.
Pure fantasy, that. Souls almost certainly don't exist and your entire identity is your physical form - personality, memory, identity all built into the the actual structure of your brain. You could not be anything other than human because human IS what makes you YOU. You literally can't be anything else and still be YOU.
Regarding Male Black Widows - the primary imperative of all living things, as far as anyone knows, is to breed (yes there's species level altruism, but lets not pick nits). Once that's successfully done, nothing else matters. When a male black widow is eaten by his mate, the nutrition in his body is given over to aid in the survival of his newly fertilized young. In a very real sense, it's a survival advantage, for his genetic line, if he is eaten by the mother of his children at conception.
Yes, the counter argument is that his genetic line might be better served if he were to survive to breed again. But there's the female's genetic line and her imperative at play in this as well. It's best for her if she eats him. It's good for him whether he's eaten or not, albeit in different ways. So if he escapes, he breeds again. If he doesn't, his young get a nutrition boost. It's a win-win.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 13:46:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
This thread is on the question whether rational or scientific skepticism is compatible with Buddhism, or more correctly whether Buddhism can be compatible with rational or scientific skepticism.
What do you mean by 'compatible?' Do you mean, can I be a Budhist and be a rational scientific skeptic at the same time?
I suspect the answer is a matter of degrees and definitions.
What's a Budhist? Does a Budhist have to accept the supernatural aspect of said philosphy or can I be Buddist and not believe in gods and reincarnation? Does belief in reincarnation DEFINE a Budhist or is it more about the philosophy that suffering is a defining characteristic of the human condition?
What's a skeptic? Can I be skeptical about most things in life but maintain an agnostic attitude toward certain questions that cannot be answered, such as the existance of a God, and still be a Scientific Skeptic? Can I be a skeptic and at the same time be certain that no God exists even though there can not be hard evidence to support that certainty?
And what DOES "compatible" mean in your context? Is it that if I believe in both then I'm a hypocrit? Clearly religion and science mix well in the human mind - there are many great scientists who are also devout Christians. So what's it mean to have incompatible ideas? A Skeptical Budhist's head will explode? All the other skeptics will make fun of him? What is the point of this question anyway???  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
