|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 12/20/2006 : 13:49:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As an atheist, <snip>
I'm skeptical of your Atheism...  |
-Chaloobi
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 15:00:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As an atheist, <snip>
I'm skeptical of your Atheism...
And I of your skeptisim.... 
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 15:31:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As an atheist, <snip>
I'm skeptical of your Atheism...
And I of your skeptisim....
LOL - Touche!  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 15:56:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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!
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.
Not exactly a fact statement, please read all my posts in this thread.
Anyway, if you feel that skeptics are not partial to Buddhism, that's no problem with me.
What I am asking myself and other skeptics is whether Buddhism is compatible with skepticism or not; and on my own part I would say yes, because the doctrines and practices of Buddhism are not based on factual evidence but on what we might call esoteric guess works.
Karma, rebirth, and Nirvana, these are the essential teachings of Buddhism and the groundwork of observances like life in the sangha (read that isolation from home, family, and community, to meditate on emptiness and arrive at emptiness).
Now with rational, scientific skepticism, the radical justification for knowledge are facts, evidence, reason, logic.
As I said, if you feel that Buddhism is not incompatible with skepticism, that is no problem with me; you are entitled to your conviction on whatever grounds you fancy. There is such a thing as free will and free opinion, and you are the proof in the concrete of free will and free opinion.
That is good for all of us who do take free will and free opinion for granted -- if ever we are pushed to the wall for a proof.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 17:19:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
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.
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.
I see we have a difference of opinion, or opinion from your part but fact from my part.
...access to all the world's pleasures (via wealth, in this case)... I would rather sincerely and honestly and hopefully and work for it first and also enjoy the work, and attain it now before my earthly demise, then think about whether [it] still will not lead you to a happy life. Happiness comes from within.
But I grant you the right to cultivate the second of the two alternatives, namely, [wealth] still will not lead you to a happy life. Happiness comes from within.
I would be also most tempted as a cynic to relish the prospect of 90% of mankind looking for happiness from within their minds, and leave all the wealth to me and others like myself, to do about attaining happiness from wealth and pleasures.
And that is why I consider Buddhism to be incompatible with skepticism, the kind of skepticism I cultivate which is ordained to knowledge of facts and truths that lead to happiness, spell that wealth and pleasures.
So, paging all people who do not want wealth because it does not lead to happiness, but search happiness in their minds, please report to Buddhism and sign up for inclusion inside their sanghas -- but work for a living at the minimum to keep yourselves alive as you seek the happiness in your minds, instead of begging for a living.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 19:31:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
Anyway, if you feel that skeptics are not partial to Buddhism, that's no problem with me.
And if you feel that skeptics are partial to Buddhism, which apparently you do, you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever to support that contention. Come on, Pachomius, be honest. Are you a troll, being intentionally evasive and ambiguous? Or are you just so poor at using the English language as to be nearly incapable of making a cogent point?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 20:05:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
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.
Not exactly a fact statement, please read all my posts in this thread.
Absolutely it was a "fact statement," as you've yet to criticize any central tenet of Buddhism.quote:
Anyway, if you feel that skeptics are not partial to Buddhism, that's no problem with me.
Great, it's taken you seven pages and 20 posts to simply acknowledge a second response to your first questions here.quote:
What I am asking myself and other skeptics is whether Buddhism is compatible with skepticism or not...
You may be asking that, but you seem to be unable to present any evidence for or against your question.quote:
...and on my own part I would say yes, because the doctrines and practices of Buddhism are not based on factual evidence but on what we might call esoteric guess works.
The entire enterprise of "science" is not based upon factual evidence.quote:
Karma, rebirth, and Nirvana, these are the essential teachings of Buddhism and the groundwork of observances like life in the sangha (read that isolation from home, family, and community, to meditate on emptiness and arrive at emptiness).
None of that is "essential" to Buddhism except in your own mind. You have yet to mention any of the central tenets of Buddhism. Without those tenets, Karma, rebirth, Nirvana and sangha are all meaningless. And if you strip Buddhism of Karma, rebirth, Nirvana and sangha, it will remain almost entirely unaffected.quote:
Now with rational, scientific skepticism, the radical justification for knowledge are facts, evidence, reason, logic.
Except that logic and reason are definitional, not empirical, and what pass for facts and evidence are based upon an assumption we all agree to, but for which there can be no independent facts or evidence.quote:
As I said, if you feel that Buddhism is not incompatible with skepticism, that is no problem with me; you are entitled to your conviction on whatever grounds you fancy. There is such a thing as free will and free opinion, and you are the proof in the concrete of free will and free opinion.
You think I'm proof of free will? Holy crap your standards of evidence are low, low, low! You don't really have a clue about science, do you? I bet you just think it sounds cool to throw the word around as if doing so makes what you say scientific.quote:
That is good for all of us who do take free will and free opinion for granted -- if ever we are pushed to the wall for a proof.
How does what I said constitute "proof" of free will in any way, shape or form? This is a subject that philosophers have been arguing about for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and you think you've got "proof" in a single SFN post? Your powers of deduction must be finely honed, indeed!  |
- 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 - 12/21/2006 : 06:44:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
<snip> I see we have a difference of opinion, or opinion from your part but fact from my part.
I'm not sure what you get out of this board, but I enjoy a clear 2-way conversation. So if you don't mind, which facts do you have that conflict with opinions I have?
quote:
I would rather sincerely and honestly and hopefully and work for it first and also enjoy the work, and attain it now before my earthly demise, then think about whether [it] still will not lead you to a happy life. Happiness comes from within.
Ok, this is another comment I'd put under the 'unclear' category. Are you saying you WOULD be happy if you got wealth from hard work? And so then my opinion then is trumped by your fact? Note in this case that your happiness is coming from the work you choose to devote yourself to, not from the wealth it generates. Very likely you'd be just as happy if your work generated very little wealth. Hard to say though. Buddhism I think looks to mental discipline and essentially the shaping of wants and expectations to achieve contentment in life.
quote:
I would be also most tempted as a cynic to relish the prospect of 90% of mankind looking for happiness from within their minds, and leave all the wealth to me and others like myself, to do about attaining happiness from wealth and pleasures.
And likely you'd be the unhappy one.
quote:
And that is why I consider Buddhism to be incompatible with skepticism, the kind of skepticism I cultivate which is ordained to knowledge of facts and truths that lead to happiness, spell that wealth and pleasures.
Huh? What was that? I missed the "Why" in the muddiness of your statements. Could you clearly spell it out for me? Talk to me like I'm a 3-year old. I'm a very simple man.
quote:
So, paging all people who do not want wealth because it does not lead to happiness, but search happiness in their minds, please report to Buddhism and sign up for inclusion inside their sanghas -- but work for a living at the minimum to keep yourselves alive as you seek the happiness in your minds, instead of begging for a living.
I'm of the opinion that hard, meaningful work, whatever it is, goes a long way toward a happy life. Not sure if that's 'incompatible' with Buddhism or not. Or is part of being Buddhist also being a beggar? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 12/21/2006 06:47:12 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 10:08:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
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.
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.
I see we have a difference of opinion, or opinion from your part but fact from my part.
...access to all the world's pleasures (via wealth, in this case)... I would rather sincerely and honestly and hopefully and work for it first and also enjoy the work, and attain it now before my earthly demise, then think about whether [it] still will not lead you to a happy life. Happiness comes from within.
But I grant you the right to cultivate the second of the two alternatives, namely, [wealth] still will not lead you to a happy life. Happiness comes from within.
I would be also most tempted as a cynic to relish the prospect of 90% of mankind looking for happiness from within their minds, and leave all the wealth to me and others like myself, to do about attaining happiness from wealth and pleasures.
And that is why I consider Buddhism to be incompatible with skepticism, the kind of skepticism I cultivate which is ordained to knowledge of facts and truths that lead to happiness, spell that wealth and pleasures.
So, paging all people who do not want wealth because it does not lead to happiness, but search happiness in their minds, please report to Buddhism and sign up for inclusion inside their sanghas -- but work for a living at the minimum to keep yourselves alive as you seek the happiness in your minds, instead of begging for a living.
Pachomius
Everything you have said is an opinion thus far. So now give us the facts. You can try your damnest to to do whatever you damn well please, just as you seem to be asserting you will and have done. That is totally irrelevent, however.
Here try this worksheet:
Why do you believe Buddhism is incompatable with skepticism, be sure to include the major tenets and actual factual claims?
Why do you believe that Buddhism runs through skepticism and the two are mutually exclusive?
Please include facts and data and refrain from anecdotes, quotes from yourself, personal opinions, website philosophy, and ect. unless relevent to discussion. |
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.] |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 11:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
<snip>
Here try this worksheet:
Why do you believe Buddhism is incompatable with skepticism, be sure to include the major tenets and actual factual claims?
Why do you believe that Buddhism runs through skepticism and the two are mutually exclusive?
Please include facts and data and refrain from anecdotes, quotes from yourself, personal opinions, website philosophy, and ect. unless relevent to discussion.
I'd first like to know what he means by 'incompatible.' What happens if someone is a "scientific skeptical" thinker and is also a Buddhist? Is he a 'pretender' of some kind? Self-deluded? A hypocrite? Is he necessarily insane? Will his head explode? What does "incompatible" mean? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 12/21/2006 11:59:45 |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 16:42:01 [Permalink]
|
Well, tell me everyone here who claim to know that I don't the essential or central tenets of Buddhism (to yourselves):
What are the essential or central or whatever tenets of Buddhism making up Buddhism to be what it is -- to you?
I have already said that Buddhism essentially consists of and in karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
If they are not the essential, central or whatever tenets that make Buddhism what it is to anyone who is a Buddhist in the traditional homelands of Buddhism, then you tell me?
Yes, I know, you will now be asking me what I or it is to be understood by the words: essential, central, tenets, etc.
In which case, please report to your grade school teacher of English.
Perhaps you will tell me that the central or essential tenets of Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. I can agree with you, but I want to direct you to more essential or more central tenets of Buddhism which I see to be karma, rebirth, and Nirvana.
Pachomius
PS
I am a newbie here, tell me where the search link is located in this SNF forum webpages. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 09:08:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
<snip> I have already said that Buddhism essentially consists of and in karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
It's interesting you picked out the supernatural aspects as your central tenets... that certainly supports your argument.
When I look for the fundamental concept, I'm looking for the purpose as it relates to the individual. "What does this religion do for / mean for me?
For Buddhism, the fundamental human condition in the world is suffering. This can be countered allowing humans to find contentment/happiness via mental discipline. Everything else is built around this fundamental human problem. What is the true purpose of buddhism? To find contentment/happiness in a world that is constructed, one way or another, to provide only lasting suffering.
Similarly, in Christianity the underlying problem is that humanity is flawed toward acts of evil and disobedience to the creator. Everything else is structured to solve that fundamental problem. Human beings on an individual level need to be 'saved' from their fundamental flaw - original sin - in order to avoid everlasting condemnation from the creator. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 12/22/2006 09:13:32 |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 15:56:21 [Permalink]
|
Before anything else, Chaloobi, thanks for your most collaborative reply in order for us to arrive at some concurring ideas about Buddhism, and decide whether Buddhism is compatible with rational and scientific skepticism or not; and also secondarily whether skeptics are partial to Buddhism whereas they are not to other religions traditional in the West and say Middle East, I refer to Christianity and Islam and Judaism predominantly.
This thread is just an exercise in critical thinking; I don;t have any personal animosity toward Buddhism and Buddhists, not like what we might call personal animosity of white supremacists toward peoples who are not white. My interest is purely academic, a hobby to keep my mind involved in issues and also to hear from others who also love to engage in issues and contribute in any way to the advancement of knowledge and of course critical thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
<snip> I have already said that Buddhism essentially consists of and in karma, rebirth, Nirvana.
----------------------------
It's interesting you picked out the supernatural aspects as your central tenets... that certainly supports your argument.
When I look for the fundamental concept, I'm looking for the purpose as it relates to the individual. "What does this religion do for / mean for me?
For Buddhism, the fundamental human condition in the world is suffering. This can be countered allowing humans to find contentment/happiness via mental discipline. Everything else is built around this fundamental human problem. What is the true purpose of buddhism? To find contentment/happiness in a world that is constructed, one way or another, to provide only lasting suffering.
Similarly, in Christianity the underlying problem is that humanity is flawed toward acts of evil and disobedience to the creator. Everything else is structured to solve that fundamental problem. Human beings on an individual level need to be 'saved' from their fundamental flaw - original sin - in order to avoid everlasting condemnation from the creator.
For Buddhism, the fundamental human condition in the world is suffering.
That is certainly we can agree without any tergiversations (haha, that is a word that can smack of tergiversation, but it just came to mind because I was afraid earlier as I open this webpage that I was going to find messages asking me for evidence, definitions, indulging in namecalling, etc., instead of attending to the conspicuously clear intent of my thread and messages here); yes, man, we can agree that Buddhism is concerned with human suffering in a most fundamental manner.
That is obvious also for all religions, and if you would not be 'tergiversatious' true of all human endeavors, they are all concerned with human suffering.
Nothing supernatural there.
But the cause of suffering in the world, that is where Buddhism becomes supernatural in its underpinning doctrines, namely, karma, rebirth, and Nirvana.
-----------------------------------
What is the true purpose of buddhism? To find contentment/happiness in a world that is constructed, one way or another, to provide only lasting suffering.
And here is where Buddhism also goes into supernaturalism; because it tells us that suffering cannot be assuaged in life, but beyond life in a what we can call a supernatural realm, supernatural meaning here as not within and of nature as we know nature from our attitude as rational scientific skeptics (there are skeptics who are not rational and scientific but fanatical and bigoted -- watch out now, some people will start hollering for evidence, definitions, and do namecalling and everything else of no relevance except to tergiversate, hahaha.
And what is that realm propounded in Buddhism where suffering will no longer bind the human condition? What else but Nirvana in this life and Parinirvana in the existence post the grave and all rebirths.
And what is the cause of suffering as a human condition? Karma, the doctrine that there exists an order in the universe which determines your lot in life from your previous acts in earlier rebirths. Karma is certainly as expounded by Buddhist doctrinaires a part of their supernatural metaphysics, like matter and energy is a part of scientific metaphysics.
By the way, can man really find happiness or relief from suffering in this life, i.e., in our essentially biological existence, with Buddhism? yes, but only if you steep your mind and heart in Buddhist supernaturalism and play the drama of their karma, rebirth, and meditation on the Four Noble Truths to arrive at Nirvana via the Eightfold Path. I don't think I want to arrive at that kind of a happiness; I would honestly prefer wealth and pleasures, including of course the pleasures of the mind and the heart which I hope to and I am sure I will accomplish with wealth more certainly than without.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 16:12:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
[. . .] and also secondarily whether skeptics are partial to Buddhism whereas they are not to other religions traditional in the West and say Middle East, I refer to Christianity and Islam and Judaism predominantly.
You've been making the claim since your first post, Pachomius, that skeptics are partial to Buddhism, treat Buddhism with kid gloves, or are somehow less inclined to apply skepticism to Buddhism than they are to other religions. You have been asked many times to provide some evidence to support that claim. You have been unwilling to provide any evidence, and it has become abundantly obvious that you are intentionally ignoring that concern. So how about filling us in, Gerardo, why are you ignoring requests to support your contention?
|
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 19:36:15 [Permalink]
|
What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you?
Pachomius |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
