|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2007 : 23:47:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
McQ said he was going to stay out of this thread, and so I'd appreciate it greatly if we leave him out of this thread. Make note of this, Pachomius, JohnOAS, and you too GeeMack. Not one more mention of his name until such a time as he chooses to re-enter this alleged discussion.
I'm confused. You mean we can't mention McQ? Or is it Pachomius, JohnOAS, and GeeMack whoese names we may not utter? Me, I'm happy not to mention any of those bastards. And I hope I don't get mentioned, either. [ducks]
(On second thought, for safety's sake, I'm striking all that out.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 00:28:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Having just skimmed through part 2, why don't we just run with Pachomius' definitions and answer it?
Answer: We couldn't tell you. None of the people on this forum habitually doubt accepted beliefs. We typically only doubt things when the evidence is contrary to accepted belief. And perhaps when people make extraordinary claims without any evidence.
Most of us however, are not soft on Buddhism. We would treat it like any other religion should we ever have to discuss any particular point about it.
It's 2007! Let's move on to new topics!
I second that! Of course, if you were to skim through part one you would see that almost everyone here gave him that same similar answer. Sadly, it does not seem to matter. |
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 |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 01:24:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
(On second thought, for safety's sake, I'm striking all that out.)
You missed the "I'm confused" part. Or when you said 'all', did you only mean 'most'?
 |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 02:24:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
(On second thought, for safety's sake, I'm striking all that out.)
You missed the "I'm confused" part. Or when you said 'all', did you only mean 'most'?
I meant all questionable stuff. There's never a doubt that I'm confused.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 17:58:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Having just skimmed through part 2, why don't we just run with Pachomius' definitions and answer it?
Answer: We couldn't tell you. None of the people on this forum habitually doubt accepted beliefs. We typically only doubt things when the evidence is contrary to accepted belief. And perhaps when people make extraordinary claims without any evidence.
Most of us however, are not soft on Buddhism. We would treat it like any other religion should we ever have to discuss any particular point about it.
It's 2007! Let's move on to new topics!
Having just skimmed through part 2, why don't we just run with Pachomius' definitions and answer it? -- Woolytoad
Thanks, Woolytoad. I am glad that you can understand what I am trying to say in this thread, and also the definitions for accepting them which I just took from WordWeb for convenience, and likewise I feel that their definitions are intended for everyone, and to cover the familiar meanings people understand of words being defined.
Answer: We couldn't tell you. None of the people on this forum habitually doubt accepted beliefs. We typically only doubt things when the evidence is contrary to accepted belief. And perhaps when people make extraordinary claims without any evidence. -- Woolytoad
Did you read my OP? Allow me to reproduce it here, and try to show you that I am just asking for the opinions of people here to my opinion.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pachomius Posted - 12/01/2006 : 16:20:21
Are skepticism and Buddhism compatible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Tell me, is there any extraordinary claim in the title of the thread and also in the text of the OP (I understand OP to mean original post, is that correct? anyway I am referring to my very first post which introduced the thread).
What do you say, as I also asked JohnOAS and am waiting for his answer to this question as I am similarly addressing to you, again namely, what do you say, is that original first post preceded by the title of the thread which I myself wrote, do they make up a statement of fact or a statement of opinion?
In the OP you will notice that I allege some grounds for stating the opinion that skeptics are soft on Buddhism; now, all the people interested to also give their opinions can just say they agree and likewise bring up some grounds why they agree, or they can say they disagree and bring up some grounds.
That's all there is to the thread.
However, since some people here keep on insisting that I am making a statement of fact, and therefore to produce evidence, I tried to accommodate by first adopting and I told the people here the mind that granting though not conceding that the opinion, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact then I might find out what evidence would be appropriate.
At this point, tell me, Woolytoad, can anyone ever produce evidence that will convince people or bring them to certitude that the opinion, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism" is a statement of fact and that in objective reality outside people's minds skeptics are soft on Buddhism?
It is also at that juncture, that I am required to produce evidence to prove that my opinion, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is in effect a statement of fact, and consequently to prove that it is a fact, at this juncture namely that I request the people here so making such a demand to see whether they would accept a joining of the issue on two points:
1. The formulation of the sentence at issue, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism";
2. That documentary evidence should be required and be sufficient to prove the opinion to be a fact statement and to prove the fact.
JohnOAS accepted the sentence and said that if at least two skeptics are soft on Buddhism, that sentence is true; but he added that as it stands, people would imagine that more skeptics than just two are intended by the speaker of the sentence.
I have not yet attended to this suggestion of JohnOAS about formulating the sentence so that instead of "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," the sentence should read, "many skeptics are soft on Buddhism."
What I did first is to inquire from him as I am now asking from you, whether the title of the thread and the OP is tantamount to a statement of opinion or to a statement of fact. And I am still waiting for JohnOAS to answer to my question; because I am thinking that if JohnOAS could it see clearly as a statement of opinion and not as a statement of fact, then we should have arrived at a concurring position that what I am after in this thread is to offer an opinion, not to make an extraordinary claim of fact.
That is a first concurrence that will do away with so much exchanges which are not apropos; then we can all settle down to -- on the assumption that the opinion, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism." is a statement of fact and not opinion, expedition how do we go about finding evidence to prove the fact.
This is how I would go about finding evidence to prove that (please keep in mind that I am just granting but not conceding that the sentence, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is not an opinion but a fact) -- and I would like JohnOAS to consider whether my kind of proof and my kind of 'evidencing' can hold any water.
Here:
1. The sentence, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," has for its subject a plural noun, skeptics; and as JohnOAS said, if so much as or at least two skeptics are found to be soft on Buddhism, then the sentence is true (I will go to the search for two skeptics later).
2. Two skeptics are factual entities, and their being soft on Buddhism is a factual disposition on their part.
3. So, in that sentence, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," there is contained within it the fact of two skeptics who are soft on Buddhism.
4. Summing up: the sentence, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is a fact, because at least it is true of two skeptics; and if it is true with two skeptics, there can be found other skeptics who are soft on Buddhism.
The task now |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 18:51:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Pachomius...
Here:
1. The sentence, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," has for its subject a plural noun, skeptics; and as JohnOAS said, if so much as or at least two skeptics are found to be soft on Buddhism, then the sentence is true (I will go to the search for two skeptics later).
2. Two skeptics are factual entities, and their being soft on Buddhism is a factual disposition on their part.
3. So, in that sentence, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," there is contained within it the fact of two skeptics who are soft on Buddhism.
4. Summing up: the sentence, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is a fact, because at least it is true of two skeptics; and if it is true with two skeptics, there can be found other skeptics who are soft on Buddhism.
The task now for people who want to insist that the sentence, "skeptics are soft on Buddhism." is a statement of fact and not a statement of opinion is to go all over history and the world looking for skeptics soft on Buddhism, so that one day they will if possible finally reach all skeptics who have ever existed and will ever exist who are soft on Buddhism, thus they can convince or try to convince people that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.
Can we find at least two skeptics soft on Buddhism, can I, can anyone; and will more than two be found?
In your original post, Gerardo, you said...
quote:
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.
(Emphasis mine.) In that first post you claimed, as a matter of fact, that you have seen many skeptics taking up with Buddhism. So all your carrying on about two skeptics being soft on Buddhism, the stuff you pulled from JohnOAS's comment, shows how absolutely dishonest you're willing to be. In your original post you clearly said "many". You've made it clear to everyone that you are indeed a lying troll, Gerardo, abundantly clear, to everyone, no matter who you might believe to be an ally in your desperate quest to be correct.
You also grossly misrepresented what JohnOAS said and meant, another flagrant display of your dishonesty, proof of your disrespect for the good people of this forum. You're treating people here pretty damned poorly, Gerardo, decent people who have made a concerted effort to help you with your problem. And when you treat helpful, honest people like that, you deserve no more respect than the piece of shit you've proven yourself to be.
You've about worn out your welcome, Gerardo. There's no more pretending. You've made your purpose clear. You are a lying troll.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 19:55:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
That is why McQ's posts...
That's one official warning for disregarding my previous announcement.quote:
PS
McQ's posts...
That's two official warnings for disregarding my previous announcement. |
- 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 - 01/14/2007 : 16:55:02 [Permalink]
|
And here is a third mention of MCQ: honestly and sincerely and truly, why are you preventing people here from referring to McQ's posts and his person, he might have left the forum for good or this thread only, but is that reason enough to not consider his thoughts and feelings and his memory anymore, and to consider his contributions of ideas and emotions which I find to be most ennobling to himself and most inspirational to people like myself who go for free and civil exchange of views.
I think for your being, if I am right and this is an opinion not an extraordinary claim of a fact, for your being a founder, an administrator, and a moderator of this forum, you are mixing up the task of moderator with the zeal of a censor or an expurgator and suppressor of ideas, against freedom of inquiry, thought, and speech.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
McQ said he was going to stay out of this thread, and so I'd appreciate it greatly if we leave him out of this thread. Make note of this, Pachomius, JohnOAS, and you too GeeMack. Not one more mention of his name until such a time as he chooses to re-enter this alleged discussion.
That injunction from you is definitely in suppression of speech, and if you disagree with me, you can take the action you care to as you do have the physical power to do anything here you want to do to assuage your passions.
But I am glad to have had the chance to enjoy some good old fun of freedom of inquiry, thought, and speech up to the present moment, notwithstanding as McQ said in so many words the unfair hostility and uncivil namecalling hurled at me in the process -- altogether most dismally uncalled for but a sad reflection of you and some people here.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
That is why McQ's posts...
That's one official warning for disregarding my previous announcement.quote:
PS
McQ's posts...
That's two official warnings for disregarding my previous announcement.
I will always carry in my database those two posts from you as examples of colossally monumental specimens of suffocation of free inquiry, free thought, and free speech, in a forum dedicated [sic] to skepticism.
Now I know why the mission of this forum is thus stated quote:
The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.
... with no explicit mention of free inquiry, free thought, and free speech, to be exercised in a civil language.
Here, let me proffer a revision of the statement to read as follows:
quote:
The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote, by free inquiry, free thought, and free speech, exercised in a civil language, skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members, again: through free inquiry, free thought, and free speech, exercised in a civil language, to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.
The words in bold are introduced into the mission statement by yours truly in honor of McQ on the fundamentally quintessential principle that nothing will ever be achieved for the advancement of knowledge and good will and peace among men, unless with free inquiry, free thought, and free speech conducted in a civil language.
I will leave this website/forum now, and thanks again for the chance as I said to have a good fun time, notwithstanding and in spite of the most uncivil of tongue from some members here and also your 'zealotrous' display of your physical power.
Pachomius
PS
If I may flatter myself, as I always believe that if anything at all we must whatever the unpleasant feelings between parties involved, maintain a channel of communication, my email is:
pachomius2000@yahoo.com.sg
Au revoir s'il est possible -- something like that in my broken French -- hahaha and hehehe and a sweet smile and no more such mirth from yours truly.
And please don't delete this post, that's what they do elsewhere I had been to, hope you and your forum make up one exception. Hahaha!
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 18:31:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
I think for your being, if I am right and this is an opinion not an extraordinary claim of a fact, for your being a founder, an administrator, and a moderator of this forum, you are mixing up the task of moderator with the zeal of a censor or an expurgator and suppressor of ideas, against freedom of inquiry, thought, and speech.
[. . .]
That injunction from you is definitely in suppression of speech, and if you disagree with me, you can take the action you care to as you do have the physical power to do anything here you want to do to assuage your passions.
[. . .]
I will always carry in my database those two posts from you as examples of colossally monumental specimens of suffocation of free inquiry, free thought, and free speech, in a forum dedicated [sic] to skepticism.
Oh poor pitiful persecuted you, Gerardo. You spent years whining on various forums about how you felt you were unjustly denied your "freedom of speech" when you previously got banned for violating the rules of a forum. It seems likely you'll do that again when you get banned from here. It's too bad you aren't able to understand how you're cutting your own throat in these situations, but you aren't. You lie, as much to yourself as anyone else, trying to justify your perceived righteousness. And because of that, you no longer have any credibility. Besides being a liar and a troll, you're a crybaby.
quote:
I will leave this website/forum now, and thanks again for the chance as I said to have a good fun time, notwithstanding and in spite of the most uncivil of tongue from some members here and also your 'zealotrous' display of your physical power.
And as long as you avoid correcting the cause of your problems, Gerardo, your inability to communicate effectively and your unwillingness to actually participate in an honest, civil conversation among a group of people, you're likely to continue getting banned from forums. As long as you continue to neglect your responsibility to treat people in a decent and honest manner, as long as you treat good folks with the kind of disdain which you've so frequently displayed here at SFN, you'll never merit the respect that you seem to believe you deserve.
Bottom line, Gerardo, when you treat people like shit the way you do, people are likely to respond in kind. Good riddance, troll. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/14/2007 18:36:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 19:29:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
And here is a third mention of MCQ
And that was your final infraction. You are now temporarily banned from the SFN. If you wish to have your posting privileges reinstated, you may send an email to me asking for reinstatement no earlier than February 14th, 2007. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 19:34:43 [Permalink]
|
| I have little doubt that Pachomius will complain, on some other forum, that he was banned because of his "opinion" about Buddhism. Of course that isn't true, he was banned because he directly and willfully violated a rule put in place by an administrator. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 21:21:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I have little doubt that Pachomius will complain, on some other forum, that he was banned because of his "opinion" about Buddhism. Of course that isn't true, he was banned because he directly and willfully violated a rule put in place by an administrator.
Yeah. As if you didn't give Pachomius adequate, repeated warning. As if he didn't deliberately repeat the offense in the same message where he actually quoted your warning. He wanted to be banned. Good, he got his wish, and so did I.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 21:57:59 [Permalink]
|
(raises hand)
Can I go home now?
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 22:25:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
(raises hand)
Can I go home now?
You are home... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 03:38:30 [Permalink]
|
| It does make me wonder. Suddenly in a few short months, two bannings. While I agree with them in both cases, where do these idiots suddenly come from? Are they a left-over christmas present or something? Was Santa supposed to take them with him to the North Pole but decided he couldn't cope with them, so he send them to SF? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
