quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnOAS

Note: I started this reply yesterday, but didn't finish it, so the first half was written when Kil's Post was the last one, and the rest after the replies from Dave, GeeMack, Tomk, Furshur, Pachomius, so I apologise if any of it is redundant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

So if I can bring up two skeptics who are soft on Buddhism, then the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is true; I agree with

you perfectly.

---

Yes, it will be true, but I think that's a pretty trivial case to prove, and would not be the interpretation I would assume most people would have. If I made the argument that "Firefighters beleive in Reiki", I could probably prove the sentence true by finding two or more firefighters who happened to be beleivers in Reiki. It'd be a pretty pointless argument however, with several billion people wandering about, you can find a handful who will believe/say/do just about whatever takes your fancy.

My interpretation of the statement would include an implicit quantitative qualifier for "skeptics", something like "Most", "in general" or even "a significant proportion of" so that what is actually implied is something like:

"Most Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."

This statement I believe to be false. If your intention is simply to assert that there is more than one skeptic who is soft on Buddhism, then I am willing to concede the argument, without any further need to refine the definitions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

I feel happy and relieved, finally someone like McQ has come along, again; and please don't leave even though you might like McQ get

so disappointed and disillusioned here, that he said he would leave the forum

---

I honestly don't know how you've concluded a similarity between myself and McQ. I'm not implying that I'm in any way offended, I've read plenty of McQ's posts, and he may well be more concerned with the comparison than I. I don't get how you came to that conclusion, but it is really of little consequence.

I assure you however, that I have no intention of leaving the forum because of an argument on one topic, with or without harsh words. To be honest, the variety of opinions and styles is one of the things I really like about SFN.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

I understand your mind, and as I said already twice that I agree perfectly with you, and I believe we have the same thinking.

---

I only agree with your statement in the very limited sense, as already discussed. I disagree with the statement as I believe most people would interpret it, as I've just pointed out. As to "knowing my mind" and "having the same thinking" these are fairly vague statements in this context, and I doubt they are true even in this limited sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

I will now define what I mean by skeptics, soft, and Buddhism. Allow me to use a web resource like WordWeb:
...
May I assume that we have the same meanings of skeptics, soft, and Buddhism?

---

Not entirely.

I agree with Kil that scientific skepticism would probably be a better definition to use in this instance. The "general" definitions aren't too bad, but tend to be a little broad. The philosophical definition is a little, well, philosophical to be of great use in this discussion.

The first sentence from the "characteristics" subheading of the wikipedia definition linked to above is rather appropriate:

quote:

---

Like a scientist, a scientific skeptic aims to decide claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories.

---

This highlights the reason that the definitions of soft and Buddhism that you provided are usable, although soft is still a rather non-concise term.

For "soft", as has pointed out by Dave, a point of reference will be necessary. I assume that "soft compared with the way skeptics generally treat other religions, such as christianity" will be the sort of thing we can use, although I'm not offering this as a strict definition just yet.

For "Buddhism", the definition you provided is a reasonable one. I'd prefer to do a little more research first. My intent would be to keep the definition to one which applies to Buddhism in general, and does not include the individual practices, rituals and beleifs of various sects which are not common to all. As such, I would prefer to reference definitions from non-denominational sources. We can get into this more later as necessary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

From the fact that there are two skeptics we have so far found to be soft on Buddhism, we assume that there could be more and even many, as much as to justify us to draw a suspicion, a guess, a hazard, that is an opinion, that skeptics are soft on Buddhism, meaning generally -- because for that sentence to be an absolute statement of fact we have to seek out every skeptic and ascertain that they are all not one excluded soft on Buddhism, which task is impossible insofar as I Pachomius and you JohnOAS are concerned, being of limited time and resources.

---

One could use the same method, starting with "we have 2 skeptics who are not soft on Buddhism" and concluding that "Skeptics are not soft on buddhism", and this is important, "in general". The fact that exactly the same logic can be used to reach mutually exclusive conclusions demonstrates that the logic is fatally flawed.

If all you are intending to show is that at least two skeptics are soft on Buddhiism, then you'll get no argument from me, and this discussion is more or less over. If however, you are still positing that:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

that skeptics are soft on Buddhism, meaning generally

---

Then you'll have to offer a better argument and provide some evidence, after settling on some more solid definitions.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

For the record, I am just making a statement of opinion that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W....

If the latter, then your opinion is just a fiction and so your second post on the subject was intensely rude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius...

In the meantime, allow me to invite you to read the posts in part 1 of this thread from McQ; I read them again and I find them very edifying, he gives me the impression of a person which the Romans might call as one cultivating the quality or personal habit of mind and heart in the quote, Nequid nimis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

I will wait for JohnOAS' reply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mojo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pachomius

I will wait for JohnOAS' reply.

---

I've had this from him before...

It's not necessarily an attempt to get someone who agrees with him to respond, more of a simple attempt to avoid having to address what others have posted.

---