|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
 Posted - 12/25/2006 : 16:20:24 [Permalink]
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks everyone participating in this thread, I am getting feedbacks for my further education or enlightenment on those two questions.
Says Pachomius.
Ah, that old dodge.
Says Dave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Dave, if you want to approach this thread with ideas about people resorting to dodges, that is your privilege.
For the information of everyone else here, my purpose is to get feedbacks from others about my opinions or suspicions or guesses -- another or more dodges, if you prefer.
The feedbacks have been some constructive and others negative to the extent of being even hostile and pugnacious.
Are skeptics forums or some skeptics like that? engaged in pugnacity, animosity, hostility, belligerency, instead of dialog to arrive at some concurring positions for the, to use a Buddhist term -- though not original of course with Buddhism, enlightenment of each other?
At this point in this thread I would think my opinion that skeptics, atheists, rationalists or the Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism and harsh on other religions of the West and Middle East, I would think that I would prefer to put that in abeyance -- well, to Dave, another dodge, as you prefer, Dave.*
Thanks to everyone here who do agree with me that Buddhism as a whole is not compatible with skepticism.
If I may just continue with this thread, now focused on the incompatibility of Buddhism with skepticism, I would like to ask here the question as to what exactly makes Buddhism different from other world views and religions or just common wisdom of mankind in society and civilization.
So, allow me to invite everyone to concentrate on the peculiarly proprietary element in Buddhism which makes it distinctly of an identity different from other word views and religions or even philosophies.
I was saying just in the immediately preceding messages from myself that it must be Nirvana; and you know what? even Nirvana is not distinctively peculiar exclusively to Buddhism, because I read last night that there is also the doctrine of Nirvana in Jainism.
Pachomius
*Do you talk that way at home with your family members and friends in the neighborhood, or guys in the office where you work outside of managing this skeptics forum? I have come across people like you who turn every attempts from people for a conversation or exchange of ideas into a controversy where they take up the stance of combatants when there is no combat at all in others trying to do some civil social intercourse. Well, what else is new?
You are like, Dave, the guy in the streets whom I approach, a stranger and myself being a stranger, for some help to get to the post office, and he asks me with frowning eyes in return: "What do you mean by the post office? why do you want to get there when you can like everyone else use email, or are you so backward that you don't have computer access to the web..."
Okay, I know, another dodge. Hahaha. Anyway, Dave, may I wish you a Merry Christmas though it was yesterday already in my place and today in your place still Christmas day nonetheless(?) -- yes? no? another dodge, an old one?
By the way, no dodge here, Dave, but where is that search link in the forum pages of SNF; I asked that question in your thread on technical matters.
Just now the word cantankerous comes to mind, what do you think, Dave? Would that word befits your personality? Just joking, please, no dodges. |
 |
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2006 : 16:58:57 [Permalink]
|
I was saying that karma, rebirth, and Nirvana are the essential beliefs of Buddhism which make it distinctly different from other religions. Here is what the following website says about these three items.
quote:
Basic Buddhism Guide » Snapshots » Difference From Other Religions
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm
. . . . .
10. Karma and Karma Force are cornerstones in Buddhist doctrines. They are expounded very thoroughly in Buddhism. Karma refers to an important metaphysical concept concerned with action and its consequences. This law of karma explains the problem of sufferings, the mystery of the so-called fate and predestination of some religions, and above all the apparent inequality of mankind.
11. Rebirth is another key doctrine in Buddhism and it goes hand in hand with karma. There is a subtle difference between rebirth and reincarnation as expounded in Hinduism. Buddhism rejects the theory of a transmigrating permanent soul, whether created by a god or emanating from a divine essence.
. . . . .
27. Samsara is a fundamental concept in Buddhism and it is simply the 'perpetual cycles of existence' or endless rounds of rebirth among the six realms of existence. This cyclical rebirth pattern will only end when a sentient being attains Nirvana, i.e. virtual exhaustion of karma, habitual traces, defilements and delusions. All other religions preach one heaven, one earth and one hell, but this perspective is very limited compared with Buddhist samsara where heaven is just one of the six realms of existence and it has 28 levels/planes.
And what is Nirvana in Buddhism? Here, read the following excerpts from that website.
----------------------------------
Nirvana etymologically means a candle flame being blown out by a gust of wind, therefore: extinction.quote:
Dharma Data: Nirvana
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd43.htm
The most common of several names that the Buddha gave to the goal of his religion, some of the others being the Excellent (Pantam), Security (Khemam), Purity (Suddhi), the Island (Dipam) Freedom (Mutti) and the Culmination (Paryanam). The word Nirvana comes from the root meaning 'to blow out' and refers to the extinguishing of the fires of greed, hatred and delusion. When these emotional and psychological defilements are destroyed by wisdom, the mind becomes free, radiant and joyful and at death one is no longer subject to rebirth. Buddhist philosophers have long debated about whether Nirvana is absolute cessation or an ineffable transcendental state. During the Buddha's lifetime he was sometimes accused of being a nihilist, a charge he strongly denied, adding
----------------------------------
Buddhists are not sure exactly what is Nirvana; so, why do they believe in Nirvana?
quote:
"One thing and only one thing do I teach, suffering and the cessation of suffering". It would seem therefore that Nirvana is neither complete nothingness or existence being in the way that these words are usually used. One thing is certain though, it is not a heaven state and it is not the absorption of the individual soul into an Absolute, an idea that is more indicative of Hinduism. However, whichever way it is understood, the Buddha's saying that "Nirvana is the ultimate happiness" (nibbanam paramam sukham) makes it clear that it is a worthwhile goal. Several criticisms of the doctrine of Nirvana are sometimes expressed. If, it is asked, desire, wanting and craving causes rebirth then how could one ever attain Nirvana because in wanting to attain it one would be strengthening the very thing that prevents it from being attained? This comment fails to understand that Nirvana is not an object that one acquires by wanting and then pursuing, rather it is the state of being utterly without wanting.
-----------------------------------------
Buddha says anyone can attain Nirvana even in his lifetime; but he does not want or cannot tell us what it is, though.quote:
Another criticism is that Nirvana takes so long to attain and so few can do it. Neither of these criticisms correspond with the Buddha's view, on the contrary he asserted that anyone can attain Nirvana and that if his instructions are followed sincerely and carefully one could do it within the present life. On this point Theravada, Mahayana and Tantrayana agree. Mahayanists who have taken the bodhisattva vow, however, deliberately postpone that goal so they can remain in samsara to help all beings.
----------------------------
Well, what do you guys say, Buddhists are sure about Nirvana but not sure about what it is?
What about skeptics, the rational scientific kind? Are we first sure about what something is, and then not certain about whether it exists?
Pachomius |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2006 : 17:15:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
Well, Dave, if you want to approach this thread with ideas about people resorting to dodges, that is your privilege.
Recognizing your dodge isn't unique to Dave. You've claimed over and over again that skeptics are somehow easier on Buddhism than they are on other religions. You were asked time and again to provide evidence to support that assertion. You've sidestepped the issue, pretended to not understand the request, changed the subject, and in essence, flat out refused to provide any evidence. Then you took the low road by claiming that you are simply seeking feedback on your opinion. That is a dodge, Gerardo. It's dishonest, and it shows great disrespect for the people who have tried to participate in an honest, productive dialog with you.
quote:
For the information of everyone else here, my purpose is to get feedbacks from others about my opinions or suspicions or guesses -- another or more dodges, if you prefer.
Yes, it is a dodge, and just as dishonest this time as it has been each previous time you've resorted to it.
quote:
The feedbacks have been some constructive and others negative to the extent of being even hostile and pugnacious.
Are skeptics forums or some skeptics like that? engaged in pugnacity, animosity, hostility, belligerency, instead of dialog to arrive at some concurring positions for the, to use a Buddhist term -- though not original of course with Buddhism, enlightenment of each other?
When you make an assertion of fact, then go through your dishonest gyrations to avoid providing legitimate support for your assertion, even when asked repeatedly to provide that support, you're not likely to get very much friendly cooperation in any skeptics' forum. Don't you remember being banned elsewhere for badgering, taunting the mods, and generally making a pest of yourself?
quote:
At this point in this thread I would think my opinion that skeptics, atheists, rationalists or the Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism and harsh on other religions of the West and Middle East, I would think that I would prefer to put that in abeyance -- well, to Dave, another dodge, as you prefer, Dave.
Yes, that is another dodge.
quote:
Thanks to everyone here who do agree with me that Buddhism as a whole is not compatible with skepticism.
But no thanks to anyone else who may have taken the time to respond to you but perhaps did not agree with you for some reason or other? You are not only dishonest, you're an ingrate. Keep that up and you'll end up talking to yourself (an eventuality which you seem to be quickly approaching anyway).
quote:
If I may just continue with this thread, now focused on the incompatibility of Buddhism with skepticism, I would like to ask here the question as to what exactly makes Buddhism different from other world views and religions or just common wisdom of mankind in society and civilization.
So, allow me to invite everyone to concentrate on the peculiarly proprietary element in Buddhism which makes it distinctly of an identity different from other word views and religions or even philosophies.
I believe you've already been directed to Google, et al, as a very fine method for researching those concerns. You probably won't find many here who are willing to do your homework for you.
quote:
Do you talk that way at home with your family members and friends in the neighborhood, or guys in the office where you work outside of managing this skeptics forum? I have come across people like you who turn every attempts from people for a conversation or exchange of ideas into a controversy where they take up the stance of combatants when there is no combat at all in others trying to do some civil social intercourse. Well, what else is new?
Now you seem to be blaming other participants in this thread for your own lack of ability to communicate clearly and effectively. Maybe it's just the way people in Marikina are raised, but I'd venture to guess that kind of dishonesty isn't simply common to people in your region, but is actually something more unique to you as an individual.
quote:
You are like, Dave, the guy in the streets whom I approach, a stranger and myself being a stranger, for some help to get to the post office, and he asks me with frowning eyes in return: "What do you mean by the post office? why do you want to get there when you can like everyone else use email, or are you so backward that you don't have computer access to the web..."
And you're like the guy who makes claims of fact, continually refuses to provide any evidence to support the claim, then tries to pass responsibility for the unproductive conversation onto other people. Oh, no, you're not like that guy, Gerardo, you are that guy.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2006 : 19:06:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
For the information of everyone else here, my purpose is to get feedbacks from others about my opinions or suspicions or guesses -- another or more dodges, if you prefer.
And you have received exactly that: feedback. Strangely enough, most of it was negative. Do you think that reflects more on our attitude here, or on the content of your posts? quote:
The feedbacks have been some constructive and others negative to the extent of being even hostile and pugnacious.
This is very true. quote:
Are skeptics forums or some skeptics like that? engaged in pugnacity, animosity, hostility, belligerency, instead of dialog to arrive at some concurring positions for the, to use a Buddhist term -- though not original of course with Buddhism, enlightenment of each other?
I would direct you to any number of topics in which you are not a participant to answer that question. quote:
At this point in this thread I would think my opinion that skeptics, atheists, rationalists or the Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism and harsh on other religions of the West and Middle East, I would think that I would prefer to put that in abeyance -- well, to Dave, another dodge, as you prefer, Dave.*
I would like to thank you for answering my previous challenge, "Provide some evidence for your assertion ... or just tell us that you are too lazy to sustain a basic argument," in (apparently) the most direct fashion you can. quote:
Thanks to everyone here who do agree with me that Buddhism as a whole is not compatible with skepticism.
You're welcome. quote:
If I may just continue with this thread, now focused on the incompatibility of Buddhism with skepticism, I would like to ask here the question as to what exactly makes Buddhism different from other world views and religions or just common wisdom of mankind in society and civilization.
So, allow me to invite everyone to concentrate on the peculiarly proprietary element in Buddhism which makes it distinctly of an identity different from other word views and religions or even philosophies.
I was saying just in the immediately preceding messages from myself that it must be Nirvana; and you know what? even Nirvana is not distinctively peculiar exclusively to Buddhism, because I read last night that there is also the doctrine of Nirvana in Jainism.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but OK. quote:
By the way, no dodge here, Dave, but where is that search link in the forum pages of SNF; I asked that question in your thread on technical matters.
Try the Our Skeptic Forums page, on the left. quote:
I was saying that karma, rebirth, and Nirvana are the essential beliefs of Buddhism which make it distinctly different from other religions. Here is what the following website says about these three items.
Still sounds like Hindu to me. Please provide a better explanation. quote:
Nirvana etymologically means a candle flame being blown out by a gust of wind, therefore: extinction.
That is very interesting, and not what I had assumed. I will look further into this. quote:
Buddhists are not sure exactly what is Nirvana; so, why do they believe in Nirvana?
Christians are not exactly sure what Heaven is, so why do they believe in that? quote:
Buddha says anyone can attain Nirvana even in his lifetime; but he does not want or cannot tell us what it is, though.
Jesus says anyone can reach heaven even in his lifetime; but he cannot or will not tell us what is us. (Assuming, of course, that Jesus really existed.) quote:
Well, what do you guys say, Buddhists are sure about Nirvana but not sure about what it is?
Another character of Buddhism that makes it indistinguishable from other religions. quote:
What about skeptics, the rational scientific kind? Are we first sure about what something is, and then not certain about whether it exists?
I have no idea what you are trying to ask here. Please rephrase the question. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2006 : 21:28:30 [Permalink]
|
Just re-reading this whole thread and adding my unsolicited opinion on it. I do think that the thread became unduly hostile toward Pachomius. If a reasonable person were to go into it and read it in its entirety, I believe he/she would agree. If the members here are honest with themselves, they would see that as well.
It's my opinion, and you may feel free to skewer me for it, but I ask you to re-read this thread from beginning to end, and you'll see what I mean. Step outside of yourselves and take an objective look at it. Quite frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
If you can't see it for yourselves, please don't just get immediately defensive and challenge me to point it out. Because if you can't see it on reading it for yourselves, you won't see it or agree with me when I point it out either.
Again, just my opinion. Unduly hostile/adversarial.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2006 : 22:01:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
blah, blah, blah, Buddhism, blah blah.
Pachomius your opinions are groundless and irrelevent. Your statements are wrong and factless. Your posts are worthless. You refuse to acknowledge the replys and continue on in your rants.
You have not defended your original claim yet continue to pretend it is established fact. Why do you continue? |
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 - 12/25/2006 : 22:08:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
blah blah blah.. Nirvana.
I already told you that you are wrong about Nirvana (the band and the concept). But you do not acknowledge when your are wrong you continue in your opinions.
As an aside, Here is a poll for the other posters:
Poll
Do you care about Pachomius' opinions? |
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 - 12/25/2006 : 22:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Just re-reading this whole thread and adding my unsolicited opinion on it. I do think that the thread became unduly hostile toward Pachomius. If a reasonable person were to go into it and read it in its entirety, I believe he/she would agree. If the members here are honest with themselves, they would see that as well.
It's my opinion, and you may feel free to skewer me for it, but I ask you to re-read this thread from beginning to end, and you'll see what I mean. Step outside of yourselves and take an objective look at it. Quite frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
If you can't see it for yourselves, please don't just get immediately defensive and challenge me to point it out. Because if you can't see it on reading it for yourselves, you won't see it or agree with me when I point it out either.
Again, just my opinion. Unduly hostile/adversarial.
Hostile to Pachomius, yes! Unnecessary? No! I gave Pachomius the benefit of the doubt at first, but he has not yet given one piece of evidence at all for anything he has ever stated yet to date on this forum. He has ignored every request by every member who has requested anything from him. To those types of people I slowly gain hostility toward. I am not apologetic for it either. |
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.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 12/25/2006 22:18:46 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2006 : 23:42:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Just re-reading this whole thread and adding my unsolicited opinion on it. I do think that the thread became unduly hostile toward Pachomius. If a reasonable person were to go into it and read it in its entirety, I believe he/she would agree. If the members here are honest with themselves, they would see that as well.
It's my opinion, and you may feel free to skewer me for it, but I ask you to re-read this thread from beginning to end, and you'll see what I mean. Step outside of yourselves and take an objective look at it. Quite frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
If you can't see it for yourselves, please don't just get immediately defensive and challenge me to point it out. Because if you can't see it on reading it for yourselves, you won't see it or agree with me when I point it out either.
Again, just my opinion. Unduly hostile/adversarial.
You may be right.
I, for one, get annoyed when I ask for evidence for somebody's assertion and, not only is none provided, but the assertion is repeated. I hope the tone of my recent posts is not unduly adversarial; rather, I hope it is justifiably irritable. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 10:28:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Just re-reading this whole thread and adding my unsolicited opinion on it. I do think that the thread became unduly hostile toward Pachomius. If a reasonable person were to go into it and read it in its entirety, I believe he/she would agree. If the members here are honest with themselves, they would see that as well.
It's my opinion, and you may feel free to skewer me for it, but I ask you to re-read this thread from beginning to end, and you'll see what I mean. Step outside of yourselves and take an objective look at it. Quite frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
If you can't see it for yourselves, please don't just get immediately defensive and challenge me to point it out. Because if you can't see it on reading it for yourselves, you won't see it or agree with me when I point it out either.
Again, just my opinion. Unduly hostile/adversarial.
You may be right.
I, for one, get annoyed when I ask for evidence for somebody's assertion and, not only is none provided, but the assertion is repeated. I hope the tone of my recent posts is not unduly adversarial; rather, I hope it is justifiably irritable.
I dunno. If someone keeps talking about “scientific skepticism” in such a way as to include himself as a critical thinker, he should be aware of the demands that go with that territory. Making claims of fact and then refusing to support those claims are antithetical to critical thinking. And he is being called on it.
Our members can be blunt about that sort of thing.
I did look back over the thread and what I found were members who started off with questions and some observations. They were not addressed. Siberia wrote a fine post and her most salient points were completely ignored by Pachomius. Eventually, some who were originally replying to Pachomius gave up. I didn't even bother since I saw very early on where this was going.
We have skeptics here who are tenacious in their insistence that a self-proclaimed skeptic act as such. And I don't blame them. That some of us can be quick to cut to the chase is not a bad thing. It can look harsh, but hey, there is an easy remedy for that.
Parhomius can either join in a real discussion or continue to pontificate without regard to those who have problems with some assertions which he hasn't addressed. Last I saw he is still making the claim that skeptics give the magic of Buddhism a pass, even though it has been argued that he is not correct about that and he refuses to support that claim. So the discussion is, in large part, one way. Since this is a discussion forum, I believe that kind of behavior is not acceptable.
He can have all the opinions he wants to have. But here, in a skeptic forum, he needs to be ready to support any claims he makes.
Perhaps he needs to learn more about what critical thinking is before he makes claims of fact… Maybe the remedy is there.
Edited...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 16:15:13 [Permalink]
|
Thanks to everyone who sympathize with me.
I was asking I think at least once and several times in so many words,
What kind of evidence is acceptable to people asking evidence to support my opinion, suspicion, or guess that atheists, rationalists, skeptics, or the Western intelligentsia are soft on Buddhism but harsh on other religions traditional in the West and Middle East.
Perhaps and more certainly I should have started this thread not in the present place but in that section on anything, like what I did with my thread on what people did with hair before the invention of shears.
The thing is that I thought that we could have a casual relaxing conversation about an opinion of mine, but some people here seem to always act as though they are in mortal combat.
If I may, I will just give this thread a rest, because some people get overly worked up in some ulcerous condition in their guts.
Maybe I have the kind of attitude which people or some here do not or are not accustomed to, namely: I habitually join a forum to hear from others, how they react to my opinions; because they first read my opinions as statements of facts which I absolutely maintain with all the arsenals of proofs and logic and whatever instruments of argumentation of the heated to white hot hue kind -- which definitely I do not; for being a skeptic I have questions but no answers except guesses or suspicions or opinions.
Next, some people here then keep insisting on evidence, and start using unkind namecalling; when all I wish to engage in is to hear their opinions on the topic I bring up.
Well, if these people here want to see in me a dodger, then it's their privilege. I will not argue with them.
------------------------------
Let me just ask this question again in re skeptics, etc., are soft on Buddhism, since you ask me to produce evidence:
What kind of evidence will be acceptable to you?
In the meantime I will start a new thread in that section of this SNF forum on anything, about anal wipe, where the atmosphere is more relaxed and people don't put on armors and strap on their big guns to do combat of evidence and namecalling.
-----------------------------
Thanks, McQ Skeptic Friend, for your kind words, I really appreciate how you get my mind and heart very correctly. What do you say? if we all here act like friends first and then combative skeptics never, we would be enjoying a most cordial environment together in the pleasure of exchange, where we try out our hypothetical musings on a host of subjects.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 20:29:24 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I said I wouldn't do this, but I feel compelled, since kil, who I have great respect and admiration for, replied to my post on this. I can show that in the OP, Pachomius didn't claim anything. He simply asked if his impressions were also shared by others. I will repost the OP right here. Please show me where there is a statement of fact or any other claim that needs to be verified. Read it again, below (bolding is mine):
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I have been getting the impression from skeptics' websites that all kinds of people who are supposedly intellectuals or rationalists or skeptics or atheists or against religions are treating Buddhism with kids' gloves.
Is that true? is that a fact?
Use the search links of the CSICOP and the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation [dedicated to atheistic skepticism] for Buddhism and see if you can come up with more than the fingers of one hand findings of writings critical of Buddhism.
I asked once Pigliucci by email why? He said that it's because Buddhism and Buddhists don't antagonize the atheistic communities and their analogue groups.
Well, that is interesting, and as a matter of fact I have seen many who are out and out against theism and religion in general take up Buddhism, saying that it is not contrary if not in consonance with secular atheistic philosophies, including scientific skepticism.
First, is it true that the atheists communities and kindred groups treat Buddhism with kids' gloves?
Second, why? is it because Skepticism and Buddhism are compatible or not incompatible?
Pachomius
This is what I am astonished by. This is a totally reasonable post. The answers to it started off ok, but quickly became adversarial and confrontational. I submit that the members of this forum take a careful inventory of the way they react. This needs to be more than just a place where people simply try to be right. Exchange of information, ideas, and observations does not have to be rancorous.
Yes there are times when it gets that way, appropriately, with trolls, or those who truly refuse to discuss things rationally. We've seen plenty of them. This has not been the case here. I am asking you guys again, kil, Dave, Neurosis included (among others), to try and look at this more objectively.
I was particularly surprised to find kil accusing Pachomius of "making claims of fact, and then refusing to support those claims.". Kil, look at the OP here, as I posted it. He really did no such thing. You are one of the sharpest, most even-handed people I've seen in here, kil. Perhaps you were referring to another post. If so, accept my apology.
Again, my reference to the unduly hostile nature of this thread comes from what is a completely reasonable set of questions, based on observation. I agree with starting from the position of friends first, in order to share musing, ideas, etc. Please guys, rethink this.
Thanks.
(edited for crappy typing, dyslexia, and general dissatisfaction with my post!)
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 12/26/2006 20:37:22 |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 20:46:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
Just re-reading this whole thread and adding my unsolicited opinion on it. I do think that the thread became unduly hostile toward Pachomius. If a reasonable person were to go into it and read it in its entirety, I believe he/she would agree. If the members here are honest with themselves, they would see that as well.
It's my opinion, and you may feel free to skewer me for it, but I ask you to re-read this thread from beginning to end, and you'll see what I mean. Step outside of yourselves and take an objective look at it. Quite frankly, it's a little embarrassing.
If you can't see it for yourselves, please don't just get immediately defensive and challenge me to point it out. Because if you can't see it on reading it for yourselves, you won't see it or agree with me when I point it out either.
Again, just my opinion. Unduly hostile/adversarial.
You may be right.
I, for one, get annoyed when I ask for evidence for somebody's assertion and, not only is none provided, but the assertion is repeated. I hope the tone of my recent posts is not unduly adversarial; rather, I hope it is justifiably irritable.
I think it's just a matter of people wanting to turn Pachomius' OP into some kind of claim, or claims. He really was just musing on something (which I've seen ALL of us do), and asking:
1. Is it true?
and 2. Why?
It's just that I watched the topic turn ugly very fast, and quite frankly, it wasn't Pachomius who started the quarreling. I think most people here, including you, try their best to be fair with others. Somewhere, this went wrong here and people ended up demanding evidence for something that was not claimed in the first place.
I'm not trying to be a Pollyanna, or play referee (ok, maybe I am a little). I'm still a relatively new member here myself, but I do have a fairly strong sense of justice and don't like to see things like this happen unnecessarily. Fair is fair. I'm sure it will work itself out, but I ask everyone to sit back and think about this some more. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 20:49:29 [Permalink]
|
McQ, most here gave Pachomius the benefit of a doubt or two, even though he showed up with an "I don't think you self-proclaimed skeptics are being properly skeptical of this" attitude, which tends to be typical of the irrational thinker putting on airs of intellectual rigor. Pachomius has more than amply demonstrated his failure to engage in "rational, scientific skepticism" by the answers he's given to questions (especially his answer about how he determined that life is the "supreme value" - and it seems he thinks he can read his pets' minds). And now he's even pretending to not have made any claims, only to be gathering "feedback" on "opinions or suspicions or guesses," but that's such a transparent tactic that it's laughable.
I find Pachomius' sort of hypocritical, pretenious critique of skeptics to be highly insulting. This isn't the first time we've seen it, and it won't be the last. While he might be worthy of the respect one accords a stranger, it's important to realize that he isn't what he appears to be. His sucking up you, McQ, is just sickening.
And the idea that friends don't call "bullshit" on each other - that it's only "combative skeptics" who would - is just absurd. Yes, Pachomius, I do indeed talk to my friends, family and coworkers the way I write here: when someone is obviously talking out his/her butt, I call them on it, just like I called you on it. I have plenty of normal, civil, social interactions with them because they're generally honest enough to avoid making proclamations about subjects about which they know little, unlike you. But when they do start talking crap, and I confront them about it, they're also generally willing to engage in a two-way discussion about it, and so the interaction remains civil and social.
And guess what? They've got enough respect for me to treat me the same way. Hell, I hired a new guy just seven months ago, and it only took him a few weeks to figure out he could tell "the boss" that I was full of crap without fear of losing his job. Friends, family and coworkers who never call "bullshit!" on each other aren't being honest with each other, they're either being ass-kissers or they're scared of disturbing "the peace." But conflict itself isn't a danger to civility - it's conflict without resolution that's the danger to civility.
And you, Pachomius, have deliberately stirred up a conflict here and are refusing to participate in its resolution. You're the one who's making this whole thread uncivil. Just look at how you neglected to respond to a single one of the civil questions in my last post, and instead homed in on my pointing out the dodge you took. All you're doing now is trying to throw up distraction after distraction away from the fact that you spoke out of ignorance of both your subject and your audience, and that you're tossing irrelevancies around like they grow on trees. You could just admit to it and be done with it, and perhaps we could have a rational, scientific, skeptical discussion about Buddhism, but instead you've neatly turned this into a discussion about you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 21:02:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
McQ, most here gave Pachomius the benefit of a doubt or two, even though he showed up with an "I don't think you self-proclaimed skeptics are being properly skeptical of this" attitude, which tends to be typical of the irrational thinker putting on airs of intellectual rigor. Pachomius has more than amply demonstrated his failure to engage in "rational, scientific skepticism" by the answers he's given to questions (especially his answer about how he determined that life is the "supreme value" - and it seems he thinks he can read his pets' minds). And now he's even pretending to not have made any claims, only to be gathering "feedback" on "opinions or suspicions or guesses," but that's such a transparent tactic that it's laughable.
I find Pachomius' sort of hypocritical, pretenious critique of skeptics to be highly insulting. This isn't the first time we've seen it, and it won't be the last. While he might be worthy of the respect one accords a stranger, it's important to realize that he isn't what he appears to be. His sucking up you, McQ, is just sickening.
Dave I understand what you're saying. I was simply talking about this thread, and particularly this OP. That's it. Your reaction to what I posted is exactly what I was addressing. I was simply asking people to take this thread and this post at face value. Your other dealings with Pachomius (in other threads) shouldn't have any bearing on his OP here. They were just questions based on his observations.
Again, like kil, I've read enough of what you've posted to know you're an even-handed guy. I just think your wrong here, in this case, in this thread (and yes, I think we can call bullshit on our friends...I do it too). The reaction to the OP became unduly harsh, through no fault of the original poster.
That's all I'm talking about, not other threads. We ask others to stick to the topic at hand, and to not create straw-men, and to respond to what was actually posted. We need to be just as vigilant ourselves. In this thread, I assert we have not. I hope that makes more sense than my last ramble!
(also edited for crappy typing, etc.)
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 12/26/2006 21:06:02 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
