|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2007 : 18:26:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I am trying to achieve a joining of the issue, I am not trying to make people agree with me on the sentence in its thought that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.
You indicated that you wished to reach a "definitive settlement of the issue," yet you are unwilling to provide your own definitions, and insult those who ask. Yet history has already shown us that when you, Pachomius, try to criticize Buddhism, you instead wind up criticizing particular Buddhists, instead. So from this "documentary evidence," we can tentatively conclude that for you, Pachomius, 'Buddhism' means "a person who claims to be a Buddhist." This is, obviously, a ludicrous definition that confuses individuals with groups, and so it would seem that you are the one who requires an English major to parse the sentences for you.
Without providing definitions of the words you use, Pachomius, nobody will be able to agree that "skeptics are soft on Buddhism" is the issue to be "joined." And your memory is faulty: nobody has yet agreed on even that one sentence.quote:
If you do not think that the sentence can be used as the statement for us to join the issue on, then offer your formulation of a statement for us to join on the issue.
It is you who wish to come to a "definitive settlement of the issue," so it is up to you to provide a formulation for which you can provide evidence. Nobody else is going to do your homework for you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 22:30:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Okay, if you will not declare you agree or disagree with my formulation of the statement. "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," as I said already, yes honestly, then present your formulation of the statement on which we can achieve a joining of the issue.
I've resisted joining this one for ages, but figured I might as well join in.
There's nothing wrong with arguing for or against the statement "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism". For it to be meaningful, however, those in the discussion need to be agree on the definition and context.
Both "soft" and "Buddhism" need to be pretty well defined.
For the statement to be true, there only need to be two people who call themselves skeptics who are soft on someone who calls themselves a buddhist, which is a pretty trivial case pending these definitions.
Don't feel you have to have 100% watertight definitions, most of the folks here are pretty bright and will ask more questions if need be. At least let us know what you think they mean. A few sentences really ought to do it.
Based on my interpretations I'd say that most skeptics are not soft on Buddhism. By this I mean that the majority of skeptics would apply as much skepticism to an analysis of a Buddhist world view as to any other.
I think it would be very easy to show that Buddhism receives a lot less attention in terms of sheer quantity, when compared to other religions and world views. This would be for a number of reasons which many others have already mentioned, such as popularity and relative malevolence.
Even though I think it's irrelevant, in case you are compelled to ask: No, I do not practice any Buddhist meditation techniques, or follow any other practices which are of Buddhist origin (that I am aware of).
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 06:48:40 [Permalink]
|
In a general sense I disagree that skeptics are "soft on Buddhism".
Like most religions I can agree with many of the basic teachings - don't murder, don't steal, don't lie...etc.
But I don't buy the magical stuff with Buddhism or any other religion. I need some proof of the supernatural before I am going to accept it.
I don't rant on buddhism like I rant on fundamental christianity because buddhist are not trying to force there supernatural beliefs into the science classes where I live.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 13:45:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I don't rant on buddhism like I rant on fundamental christianity because buddhist are not trying to force there supernatural beliefs into the science classes where I live.
That's pretty much what a bunch of people said on page one of the original thread, and it was seemingly ignored by Pachomius. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 14:49:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's pretty much what a bunch of people said on page one of the original thread, and it was seemingly ignored by Pachomius.
Yeah, I know. I thought if I answered his question and then expounded a little he might respond in a meaningful way.
I guess it is a classic case of "hope overcoming reason".
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 17:02:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Okay, if you will not declare you agree or disagree with my formulation of the statement. "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," as I said already, yes honestly, then present your formulation of the statement on which we can achieve a joining of the issue.
I've resisted joining this one for ages, but figured I might as well join in.
There's nothing wrong with arguing for or against the statement "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism". For it to be meaningful, however, those in the discussion need to be agree on the definition and context.
Both "soft" and "Buddhism" need to be pretty well defined.
For the statement to be true, there only need to be two people who call themselves skeptics who are soft on someone who calls themselves a buddhist, which is a pretty trivial case pending these definitions.
Don't feel you have to have 100% watertight definitions, most of the folks here are pretty bright and will ask more questions if need be. At least let us know what you think they mean. A few sentences really ought to do it.
Based on my interpretations I'd say that most skeptics are not soft on Buddhism. By this I mean that the majority of skeptics would apply as much skepticism to an analysis of a Buddhist world view as to any other.
I think it would be very easy to show that Buddhism receives a lot less attention in terms of sheer quantity, when compared to other religions and world views. This would be for a number of reasons which many others have already mentioned, such as popularity and relative malevolence.
Even though I think it's irrelevant, in case you are compelled to ask: No, I do not practice any Buddhist meditation techniques, or follow any other practices which are of Buddhist origin (that I am aware of).
Thanks, JohnOAS; I am glad you have come along, and I will not bring up any more matters which will just keep others also bringing up other matters, etc., etc., etc., no end. Sad to say, if I may just say this in tribute to McQ -- the man said he would be leaving this forum owing to, etc., okay I will stop here because, okay, stop, no more.
===============================
For the statement to be true, there only need to be two people who call themselves skeptics who are soft on someone who calls themselves a buddhist, which is a pretty trivial case pending these definitions.
So if I can bring up two sketpcis who are soft on Buddhism, then the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is true; I agree with you perfectly.
Now, there is the matter of whether what is true is also a fact. I will get to the definitions of skeptics and soft and Buddhism presently.
"Skeptics are soft on Buddhism -- and please for the love of honesty and sincerity, I am not engaged in any tricks and snares, or whatever people here calling me troll, liar, etc., think I am into, which I used to feel very badly about, but now it just stirs up a sort of inconsequential souvenir chill that no longer is of concern or nostalgia (please forgive me, that is my style, interjecting personal reflections as I write a post, and perhaps why I rub some people wrongly that they call me yes unpleasant names, okay I will stop here -- just that 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... okay, stop now.)
I was saying, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," that I agree with you wholeheartedly is true, the sentence is true, the thought represented by the sentence is true. And for me it is also a fact.
And that is why I feel that the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism" represents a fact, and the evidence is if at least two skeptics are found to be soft on Buddhism.
I understand your mind, and as I said already twice that I agree perfectly with you, and I believe we have the same thinking. Yes, I will now define what I mean by skeptics, soft, and Buddhism. Allow me to use a web resource like WordWeb:
quote:
Skeptics: Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
- sceptic [Brit, Cdn], doubter
http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=skeptic
quote:
Soft: [listing just the definitions relevant to my formulation of the sentence, "Sketptics are soft on Buddhism.]
Adjective: soft (softer,softest) sóft
Yielding readily to pressure or weight
Compassionate and kind; conciliatory
"he was soft on his children"
Tolerant or lenient
"too soft on the children"; "they are soft on crime"
- indulgent, lenient
Soft and mild; not harsh or stern or severe
- gentle
Having little impact
"a soft (or light) tapping at the window"
- easy, gentle
Willing to negotiate and compromise
Not burdensome or demanding; borne or done easily and without hardship
"a soft job"
- cushy, easygoing
Mild and pleasant
"a soft breeze"
- balmy, mild
Adverb: soft sóft
In a relaxed manner; or without hardship
- easy
Derived forms: softer, softest
quote:
Buddhism: A religion represented by the many groups (especially in Asia) that profess various forms of the Buddhist doctrine and that venerate Buddha
The teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct and wisdom and meditation releases one from desire and suffering and rebirth
Derived forms: Buddhism
See also: Buddhist, Buddhistic
May I assume that we have the same meanings of skeptics, soft, and Buddhism?
Now, some people here are demanding that I produce evidence that the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is a fact.
We have agreed, or I agree with you that if at least two skeptics are soft on Buddhism then the sentence is true; but will two skeptics being soft on Buddhism makes the true sentence or statement, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," a fact?
Now, if I may, and if we can two of us, which us two are both skeptic, at least for myself, I consider myself a skeptic because I habitually doubt accepted beliefs, can agree that two skeptics if found and found to be soft on Buddhism, then the true sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism" is also a fact sentence.
So, in the sentence as formulated, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," we two at least if no one else here, would maintain that the sentence is a statement of fact.
But just the same, at least for me it is also a statement of opinion, and I personally prefer to look at it from the aspect of its being a statement of opinion.
Here is my thinking why it is a statement of fact and a statement of opinion.
For me a fact is a verity that |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 17:08:09 [Permalink]
|
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 18:44:57 [Permalink]
|
Pachomius, the definition of skeptic that you supplied is that of a philosophical skeptic. Since you keep mentioning scientific skeptics, you should use that as your definition of a skeptic.
scientific skepticism
I have no idea why I am helping you with this and I have no idea why you should need the help since it was you who said the skeptics that you speak of are of the scientific variety…
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 20:42:11 [Permalink]
|
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...
I find it hard to believe that you think it is valid to draw an inference for a group numbering in the millions from a sample size of precisely two. If I'm not mistaken, John was specifically drawing attention to the number two because it's ridiculously low. As he noted, it is "pretty trivial." It'd be like finding two Republicans who are against harsh prison sentences for drug users, and then concluding that Republicans in general are soft on crime. The conclusion isn't warranted from the data at hand.
If you were to, for example, poll 1,000 skeptics, and found only two who "are soft on Buddhism," it would mean that 99.8% of those skeptics are not "soft on Buddhism." Your generalization would be horribly wrong. But you seem perfectly willing to ignore that in favor of your "opinion."
Also, it appears that every one of the dictionary definitions you offered for the word 'soft' are relative. A steel girder is soft relative to diamond, but it's not soft relative to your skull. So the question must be asked: "skeptics are soft on Buddhism" relative to what? This part of the definition of your terms cannot be overlooked. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 21:03:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
May I assume that we have the same meanings of skeptics, soft, and Buddhism?
Kil already mentioned the problem with your definition of "skeptic". Also, you put up eight or nine definitions for "soft", and Dave explained how they only serve to perpetuate your ambiguity.
And regarding JohnOAS's comment, since there are undoubtedly hundreds of Christian murderers in prisons, then the blanket statement, "Christians are murderers," could be considered true at a most basic level. However, we couldn't have a productive discussion about Christians, murderers, or both if we started with the premise, however truthful, that "Christians are murderers". But then again, you've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you don't care to have a productive discussion, anyway. Unless you're just plain stupid, your expounding on that comment was just another dodge.
quote:
So, in the sentence as formulated, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," we two at least if no one else here, would maintain that the sentence is a statement of fact.
But just the same, at least for me it is also a statement of opinion, and I personally prefer to look at it from the aspect of its being a statement of opinion.
And you've been asked dozens of times to substantiate that opinion with some sort of evidence, to which you've indicated that you would eventually comply. How about you quit stalling and present your evidence, or show a little honesty and just admit you don't intend to do that?
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/10/2007 05:53:14 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 04:27:06 [Permalink]
|
So after a much too long and extremely boring reply, Pachomius still has not explained what he means with "skeptics are soft on Buddhism". Do you understand the notion of 'explaining', Pachomius? It does not mean 'restating your position in exactly the same words again and again'.
It still also has not yielded any evidence that the statement would indeed be true. Not that I am suprised. What did surprise me is that it included the accusation that others bring up other matters. If you read your own threads, Pachomius, it is you who does not keep to the topic at hand, not others. |
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- |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 06:46:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We have agreed, or I agree with you that if at least two skeptics are soft on Buddhism then the sentence is true; but will two skeptics being soft on Buddhism makes the true sentence or statement, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," a fact?
As Dave pointed out this is an absurd statement.
If there are 2 skeptics that are soft on Buddhism it would be accurate to say, "there are skeptics who are soft on buddhism", but not "skeptics are soft on buddhism".
There are several biologist who don't accept evolution, based on this certainly you would not consider it accurate to say, "biologist do not accept evolution", would you???
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 15:15:59 [Permalink]
|
Well, thanks a lot for your reactions; they are interesting.
I will wait for JohnOAS to come along or someone like him, and McQ.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 16:16:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
Well, thanks a lot for your reactions; they are interesting.
I will wait for JohnOAS to come along or someone like him, and McQ.
You seem to have missed the point JohnOAS was making. He explained very clearly how your comment, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," is essentially meaningless unless your terms are, as he said, "pretty well defined." He made the example of how silly it would be if we accepted your statement as truth, for purpose of discussion, if we found two skeptics who are soft on Buddhism. You took that part of his comment way out of context and used it to support your claim as a truth statement. Then you followed by providing either incorrect or virtually meaningless definitions of a couple of your terms. So although he didn't call you a troll (in so many words), it seems he actually meant you've failed so far in your responsibility to take the steps necessary to make this a meaningful conversation.
And regarding your repeated pleas for McQ's return, do you recall that he didn't actually offer any help with your issue, as the rest of us did? He didn't ask you, as everyone else has, to demonstrate that your claim is based on evidence. He didn't assist you in supporting or refuting your claim, as most others have. He expressed sympathy for your whimpering and was critical of almost everyone else here for being too hard on you. You appeared to wallow in his sympathy and appreciate his criticism of your detractors. But both you and he turned a blind eye when it was shown that you actually had made a claim which you were unwilling to substantiate.
Maybe you want McQ to come back so you can enjoy some more of that oh-poor-baby-Gerardo stuff? Maybe you consider him an ally in your ignorance? Truth is, McQ generally shows some pretty good sense around here. And since he was the only one who didn't recognize you as the troll you have proven yourself to be, it appears likely he just temporarily misunderstood the situation.
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 17:51:17 [Permalink]
|
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 sketpcis 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:
Originally posted by Pachomius
Well, thanks a lot for your reactions; they are interesting.
I will wait for JohnOAS to come along or someone like hi |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
