A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explains

Ways and means of promoting skepticism
User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby octopus1 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:08 pm

Eric D R wrote:
Any parts of the article which may have given me pause for thought, were fatally undermined by the constant acidic snipes against All Skeptics with their sexism and racism, when in fact such objectionable behavior is only ever displayed by Some Skeptics.


Good points, Octopus. I have definitely come across a few people in skeptic sites and comments sections who would fit many of the author's generalizations, but I'd say most only show some such traits/tendencies if any. I think his rant is only useful as a critique of the behavior and ideology of that limited sector of the skeptic community he's describing.


I genuinely find the majority of folks here to be more than willing to "fall on their swords" when they make a mistake. I suspect it may have something to do with the mix of different (rational) viewpoints, and a tolerance of them.

Most people here (exceptions noted and noted!) will be patient with others, even as they don't believe a word of it themselves.

You mentioned your interest in a "soul". I also think it's interesting, but perhaps for different reasons (I don't believe that it necessarily exists, but there ya go!). My interest would be more about the way that different cultures have developed individual and unconnected beliefs around the concept. What is it about Homo Sapiens that makes us want to be eternal? An understanding of mortality? A fear of it?

If there's something there, it's likely to be impossible to pin down. It's convenient that it isn't something that can be measured or seen - We've just got to ride it out, wait and see ;)
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Daedalus » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:44 pm

octopus1 wrote:
Eric D R wrote:
Any parts of the article which may have given me pause for thought, were fatally undermined by the constant acidic snipes against All Skeptics with their sexism and racism, when in fact such objectionable behavior is only ever displayed by Some Skeptics.


Good points, Octopus. I have definitely come across a few people in skeptic sites and comments sections who would fit many of the author's generalizations, but I'd say most only show some such traits/tendencies if any. I think his rant is only useful as a critique of the behavior and ideology of that limited sector of the skeptic community he's describing.


I genuinely find the majority of folks here to be more than willing to "fall on their swords" when they make a mistake. I suspect it may have something to do with the mix of different (rational) viewpoints, and a tolerance of them.

Most people here (exceptions noted and noted!) will be patient with others, even as they don't believe a word of it themselves.

You mentioned your interest in a "soul". I also think it's interesting, but perhaps for different reasons (I don't believe that it necessarily exists, but there ya go!). My interest would be more about the way that different cultures have developed individual and unconnected beliefs around the concept. What is it about Homo Sapiens that makes us want to be eternal? An understanding of mortality? A fear of it?

If there's something there, it's likely to be impossible to pin down. It's convenient that it isn't something that can be measured or seen - We've just got to ride it out, wait and see ;)


For me, admitting that you're wrong is essential to skeptical thought, and patience with others who are genuine in their inquiries is likewise critical. The problem online is that often discussions are kept to the realm of opinion, and inquiries are often mere props to make a point, or less than sincere.

Offline, this is rarely a problem, IMO.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby octopus1 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:16 pm

Daedalus wrote:
octopus1 wrote:
Eric D R wrote:
Any parts of the article which may have given me pause for thought, were fatally undermined by the constant acidic snipes against All Skeptics with their sexism and racism, when in fact such objectionable behavior is only ever displayed by Some Skeptics.


Good points, Octopus. I have definitely come across a few people in skeptic sites and comments sections who would fit many of the author's generalizations, but I'd say most only show some such traits/tendencies if any. I think his rant is only useful as a critique of the behavior and ideology of that limited sector of the skeptic community he's describing.


I genuinely find the majority of folks here to be more than willing to "fall on their swords" when they make a mistake. I suspect it may have something to do with the mix of different (rational) viewpoints, and a tolerance of them.

Most people here (exceptions noted and noted!) will be patient with others, even as they don't believe a word of it themselves.

You mentioned your interest in a "soul". I also think it's interesting, but perhaps for different reasons (I don't believe that it necessarily exists, but there ya go!). My interest would be more about the way that different cultures have developed individual and unconnected beliefs around the concept. What is it about Homo Sapiens that makes us want to be eternal? An understanding of mortality? A fear of it?

If there's something there, it's likely to be impossible to pin down. It's convenient that it isn't something that can be measured or seen - We've just got to ride it out, wait and see ;)


For me, admitting that you're wrong is essential to skeptical thought, and patience with others who are genuine in their inquiries is likewise critical. The problem online is that often discussions are kept to the realm of opinion, and inquiries are often mere props to make a point, or less than sincere.

Offline, this is rarely a problem, IMO.


Agreed on that. The internet is almost like front-and-center stage. There are people who will behave like the hammiest of actors online - But in real life they'll hide in a corner until the noise dies down :lol:

That isn't limited to any special interest forum - Just take a good hard look at YouTube! What a largely tiresome bunch of pricks frequent its comments pages because they're "bored".

Free Speech - The be all, and shite end of humanity :P
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby kennyc » Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:17 pm

octopus1 wrote:....

Free Speech - The be all, and shite end of humanity :P


and Free Time.....the devils work! :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby kennyc » Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:18 pm

I think we summed up this thread quite nicely there. :D
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby octopus1 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:21 pm

I think, at the risk of criticism from the intelligentsia of the blogosphere, that we have! :lol:

Who's for a game of poker?



D'oh! I can never get a good hand!!! :-D
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:46 am



I quite liked that....

I very much agree with this point about what he terms "skeptics":

...skeptics have no time for philosophy; many skeptics hate and fear it. It's the skeptic Kryptonite. As a fundamental, rigorous, intellectually respectable but defiantly non-scientific discipline, philosophy makes a lot of skeptics feel threatened. Skeptics are like a naval fortress, with weapons fixed to sea; while they regard themselves invulnerable against fleets of art grads, paranormalists, and true believers, they know that philosophers can strike them freely in their defenceless rear. Little wonder that philosophers bring out their inferiority complex. Some skeptics would love to dismiss philosophy, all philosophy, in the same way they dismiss religion, but they'd be afraid of appearing stupid or attracting ridicule in doing so. If anything, they're afraid philosophers already find them ridiculous.


Bingo.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Shen1986 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:16 am

salomed wrote:


I quite liked that....

I very much agree with this point about what he terms "skeptics":

...skeptics have no time for philosophy; many skeptics hate and fear it. It's the skeptic Kryptonite. As a fundamental, rigorous, intellectually respectable but defiantly non-scientific discipline, philosophy makes a lot of skeptics feel threatened. Skeptics are like a naval fortress, with weapons fixed to sea; while they regard themselves invulnerable against fleets of art grads, paranormalists, and true believers, they know that philosophers can strike them freely in their defenceless rear. Little wonder that philosophers bring out their inferiority complex. Some skeptics would love to dismiss philosophy, all philosophy, in the same way they dismiss religion, but they'd be afraid of appearing stupid or attracting ridicule in doing so. If anything, they're afraid philosophers already find them ridiculous.


Bingo.


No bingo. Several philosophers are skeptics and atheists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... ilosophers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:A ... ilosophers

Also lets look on skeptical philosophers:

Robert Todd Carroll, philosopher. Author of The Skeptic's Dictionary book and website.
Sven Ove Hansson, philosopher. Founding Chairperson of the Swedish Skeptics (Vetenskap och Folkbildning) and Editor of the organisation's journal Folkvett.
Paul Kurtz, philosopher, author. Founder of CSICOP (now CSI), Publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sk ... anizations

So we have besides atheistic philosophers also skeptical philosophers. Hmm. So your point that skeptics dont look into philosophy is dead wrong..Therefore to me the person who wrote bingo and the person who wrote that about philosophy both know nothing about philosophy and about skepticism itself. I like philosophy if it doesn't turn into theology or woology.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:36 am

Shen1986 wrote:
salomed wrote:


I quite liked that....

I very much agree with this point about what he terms "skeptics":

...skeptics have no time for philosophy; many skeptics hate and fear it. It's the skeptic Kryptonite. As a fundamental, rigorous, intellectually respectable but defiantly non-scientific discipline, philosophy makes a lot of skeptics feel threatened. Skeptics are like a naval fortress, with weapons fixed to sea; while they regard themselves invulnerable against fleets of art grads, paranormalists, and true believers, they know that philosophers can strike them freely in their defenceless rear. Little wonder that philosophers bring out their inferiority complex. Some skeptics would love to dismiss philosophy, all philosophy, in the same way they dismiss religion, but they'd be afraid of appearing stupid or attracting ridicule in doing so. If anything, they're afraid philosophers already find them ridiculous.


Bingo.


No bingo. Several philosophers are skeptics and atheists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... ilosophers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:A ... ilosophers

Also lets look on skeptical philosophers:

Robert Todd Carroll, philosopher. Author of The Skeptic's Dictionary book and website.
Sven Ove Hansson, philosopher. Founding Chairperson of the Swedish Skeptics (Vetenskap och Folkbildning) and Editor of the organisation's journal Folkvett.
Paul Kurtz, philosopher, author. Founder of CSICOP (now CSI), Publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sk ... anizations

So we have besides atheistic philosophers also skeptical philosophers. Hmm. So your point that skeptics dont look into philosophy is dead wrong..Therefore to me the person who wrote bingo and the person who wrote that about philosophy both know nothing about philosophy and about skepticism itself. I like philosophy if it doesn't turn into theology or woology.



Um yes... I know. I'd say most, maybe all, philosophers are skeptics. It's the only way to be if one is reasonable.

My point for the scare quotes was that many of these modern so called "skeptics" are not at all skeptical. They think they are, often with arrogance and hammer, but in my opinion they are not.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Shen1986 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:16 am

salomed wrote:My point for the scare quotes was that many of these modern so called "skeptics" are not at all skeptical. They think they are, often with arrogance and hammer, but in my opinion they are not.


Which according to you are people who belong to this "skeptics" group??
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:57 am

Shen1986 wrote:
salomed wrote:My point for the scare quotes was that many of these modern so called "skeptics" are not at all skeptical. They think they are, often with arrogance and hammer, but in my opinion they are not.


Which according to you are people who belong to this "skeptics" group??


You mean "who" I shall assume.

People who do not always employ the first principle of reason.
People who do no question their framework.
People who assume with prejudice.
People who use ridicule rather than reason.
People who are dogmatic about that which they should be doubtful.
People who do not doubt their doubts, and their certainties, with philosophical vigour.

Maybe you have met these people? I know I have sometimes been one of them. Doh! :)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26915
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Gord » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:34 pm

octopus1 wrote:You mentioned your interest in a "soul". I also think it's interesting, but perhaps for different reasons (I don't believe that it necessarily exists, but there ya go!). My interest would be more about the way that different cultures have developed individual and unconnected beliefs around the concept. What is it about Homo Sapiens that makes us want to be eternal? An understanding of mortality? A fear of it?

I'm also interested in the concept of a soul, but in yet another way. In various cultures, people have believed in multi-part souls, and I'd like to find out more about that.

octopus1 wrote:There are people who will behave like the hammiest of actors online - But in real life they'll hide in a corner until the noise dies down :lol:

Well, I don't like noise! It's loud! :P

salomed wrote:...the first principle of reason.

Oh you made that up! I went googling for a definition, and I couldn't find out. I found First Principles [plural] of Reason; first principles [plural] in mathematics; first principle of practical reason; Principle of Sufficient Reason; and even first principles [plural] in formal logic; but no "first principle of reason".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby kennyc » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:36 pm

He probably meant "principal" ... you know, ol' Omar!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:57 pm

Gord wrote:
salomed wrote:...the first principle of reason.

Oh you made that up! I went googling for a definition, and I couldn't find out. I found First Principles [plural] of Reason; first principles [plural] in mathematics; first principle of practical reason; Principle of Sufficient Reason; and even first principles [plural] in formal logic; but no "first principle of reason".


Oh Lordy Gordy. Of course I didn't make it up. . You must have been fighting in the reason arena all these years with a floppy sword:p

Read yer Descartes, aka skepticism 101.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:18 pm

There is no first principle of reason from Descartes. There is a first principle in philosophy:

In philosophy, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:09 pm

Kaepora Gaebora wrote:There is no first principle of reason from Descartes. There is a first principle in philosophy:

In philosophy, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.


Descartes, Discourse on the method! book 2. Keep up!
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Daedalus » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:26 pm

You think Descartes is "skepticism 101"? :lol:

Hume maybe... "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." (David Hume)
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:35 pm

Daedalus wrote:You think Descartes is "skepticism 101"? :lol:

Hume maybe... "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." (David Hume)


I would wager you have read neither. Is this correct?

Had you any understanding about the history of philosophy and reason you would see exactly where Descartes fits in. Golly, he nigh on starts the age of reason all by himself ( others might put bacon on top. Kinda pun there!). The process of skeptical doubt that Descartes pioneers in the west is an absolute cornerstone of what skepticism is. It's the biggest change in skepticism since Socrates. Utterly earth shaking for mankind. And yet the likes of you would put it down with pointless philosophy.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:54 pm

You are coming across as condescending here. If you were to actually want people to listen and understand your point, get off your high horse.

The chapter you mention on Discourse on the Method is merely about introducing rules for a method obtaining knowledge, not what you claim as 'first principle of reason'. You certainly can twist it to mean that, but it isn't known as such.

Additionally, Descartes wouldn't be known as the origin of skepticism. You might want to look further back to Socrates, who questioned people's understanding of reality. "I know that I know nothing".

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby octopus1 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:57 pm

salomed wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
salomed wrote:My point for the scare quotes was that many of these modern so called "skeptics" are not at all skeptical. They think they are, often with arrogance and hammer, but in my opinion they are not.


Which according to you are people who belong to this "skeptics" group??


You mean "who" I shall assume.

People who do not always employ the first principle of reason.
People who do no question their framework.
People who assume with prejudice.
People who use ridicule rather than reason.
People who are dogmatic about that which they should be doubtful.
People who do not doubt their doubts, and their certainties, with philosophical vigour.

Maybe you have met these people? I know I have sometimes been one of them. Doh! :)


That list would far more accurately describe individuals who are not Skeptical. In fact, with the previously mentioned exception of the first point, that list fairly well describes the mewlings of the original article's author... :lol:

There is the ideal approach to a problem, and then there's how people actually approach a problem. In a Utopia, there would be no errors - But in the real World, there are logical mistakes and appeals to emotion lurking underneath almost all Philosophical discourse. It doesn't matter, so long as those mistakes are quickly corrected when pointed out.

"Believers" don't like being told that they're wrong. For Skeptics, there's the 'Edit' Button ;)
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Shen1986 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:14 pm

salomed wrote:
Kaepora Gaebora wrote:There is no first principle of reason from Descartes. There is a first principle in philosophy:

In philosophy, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.


Descartes, Discourse on the method! book 2. Keep up!


Oh boy Rene Descartes the guy with his dualism woo:

Descartes in his Passions of the Soul and The Description of the Human Body suggested that the body works like a machine, that it has material properties. The mind (or soul), on the other hand, was described as a nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of nature. Descartes argued that the mind interacts with the body at the pineal gland. This form of dualism or duality proposes that the mind controls the body, but that the body can also influence the otherwise rational mind, such as when people act out of passion. Most of the previous accounts of the relationship between mind and body had been uni-directional.

Descartes suggested that the pineal gland is "the seat of the soul" for several reasons. First, the soul is unitary, and unlike many areas of the brain the pineal gland appeared to be unitary (though subsequent microscopic inspection has revealed it is formed of two hemispheres). Second, Descartes observed that the pineal gland was located near the ventricles. He believed the cerebrospinal fluid of the ventricles acted through the nerves to control the body, and that the pineal gland influenced this process. Cartesian dualism set the agenda for philosophical discussion of the mind–body problem for many years after Descartes's death.[31]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes#Dualism

I end here. No need to go more into it for me....
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:32 pm

Kaepora Gaebora wrote:You are coming across as condescending here. If you were to actually want people to listen and understand your point, get off your high horse.


My horse is a tiny little pony, but I try to ride it well and care not how I come across on an internet forum.

>>>The chapter you mention on Discourse on the Method is merely about introducing rules for a method obtaining knowledge, not what you claim as 'first principle of reason'.

I disagree.

>>>You certainly can twist it to mean that, but it isn't known as such.

I disagree.

>>Additionally, Descartes wouldn't be known as the origin of skepticism.

You should reread what I said. Methinks you have done ye old skim read get ready to fight kind of reply. I even said: "It's the biggest change in skepticism since Socrates."

>>You might want to look further back to Socrates, who questioned people's understanding of reality. "I know that I know nothing".

Clearly, I have, see above.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby kennyc » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:35 pm

Shen1986 wrote:...
Oh boy Rene Descartes the guy with his dualism woo:
.......



:lol: :lol: :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:39 pm

Shen1986 wrote:Oh boy Rene Descartes the guy with his dualism woo:


Oh I absolutely agree. He looses/changes the game when it comes to his proof of gods existence and cartesian dualism. Most philosophers find that in his process of reason he starts from nothing and, using his principles of reason, ends up at the monumental cogito.

This is some of the best thinking ever (Read the Meditations or Discourses rather than Wikipedia, its amazing thinking!) but then he goes and tries his version of ontological argument, which is generally agreed is the most sound statement of it (Russel and I think Wittgenstein say this).

So its not woo in the sense that it can be debunked but its woo in the sense that its thesistic and dualistic.

You can read his first meditations it in an hour. It will change you and make you a better skeptic, guaranteed!

Enjoy


Edit: Shen, assuming you are a Buddhist, compare Cartesin Doubt with the KS. Very similar!
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:57 pm

salomed wrote:
Kaepora Gaebora wrote:You are coming across as condescending here. If you were to actually want people to listen and understand your point, get off your high horse.


My horse is a tiny little pony, but I try to ride it well and care not how I come across on an internet forum.


If you don't care about how you communicate, how you come across, prepared to struggle with people listening.


>>>The chapter you mention on Discourse on the Method is merely about introducing rules for a method obtaining knowledge, not what you claim as 'first principle of reason'.

I disagree.

>>>You certainly can twist it to mean that, but it isn't known as such.

I disagree.


Tell me why you disagree and show me evidence where it is known among philosophers as 'first principle of reason'. I was using Wikipedia as a reference, but by all means, show me something else that says it is known as the first principle of reason.


>>Additionally, Descartes wouldn't be known as the origin of skepticism.

You should reread what I said. Methinks you have done ye old skim read get ready to fight kind of reply. I even said: "It's the biggest change in skepticism since Socrates."

>>You might want to look further back to Socrates, who questioned people's understanding of reality. "I know that I know nothing".

Clearly, I have, see above.


Alright, I made a mistake.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Daedalus » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:00 pm

salomed wrote:
Daedalus wrote:You think Descartes is "skepticism 101"? :lol:

Hume maybe... "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." (David Hume)


I would wager you have read neither. Is this correct?

Had you any understanding about the history of philosophy and reason you would see exactly where Descartes fits in. Golly, he nigh on starts the age of reason all by himself ( others might put bacon on top. Kinda pun there!). The process of skeptical doubt that Descartes pioneers in the west is an absolute cornerstone of what skepticism is. It's the biggest change in skepticism since Socrates. Utterly earth shaking for mankind. And yet the likes of you would put it down with pointless philosophy.


No, it's not correct.

Your head is just too far up your own ass to realize that people who think you're a fool are not necessarily ignorant. You are in fact, a pitiful pseudointellectual poser, which I suspect is why you try so hard (and fail) to condescend.

Try again... you're coming off as desperate.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Shen1986 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:11 pm

This is some of the best thinking ever (Read the Meditations or Discourses rather than Wikipedia, its amazing thinking!) but then he goes and tries his version of ontological argument, which is generally agreed is the most sound statement of it (Russel and I think Wittgenstein say this).


You mean this right?: Discourse on the Method?

I read some philosophy books because my wife studies philosophy and also I have studied philosophy in college.

So its not woo in the sense that it can be debunked but its woo in the sense that its thesistic and dualistic.


It was debunked in the sense that we have people with Alzheimer and dementia. This is a problem but I agree with the rest of the sentence.

You can read his first meditations it in an hour. It will change you and make you a better skeptic, guaranteed!

Enjoy


Thanks but read some of his stuff but I cant quite remember it. I am out of college and I read it in 2nd class so it was 4 years I read it.

Edit: Shen, assuming you are a Buddhist, compare Cartesin Doubt with the KS. Very similar!


Nope... I will disappoint you I am no Buddhist. I am non-religious I am a freethinker with no religion and I am here to debunk the motion of the soul because I think that the soul in the ethereal/afterlife sense is a lie...
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:16 pm

Kaepora Gaebora wrote:If you don't care about how you communicate, how you come across, prepared to struggle with people listening.

I am prepared.

>Tell me why you disagree and show me evidence where it is known among philosophers as 'first principle of reason'. I was using Wikipedia as a reference, but by all means, show me something else that says it is known as the first principle of reason.

I have been studying descartes for over twenty years. These are the four principles of reason as I have always known them. Descartes calls them "precepts" in translation and also "laws".

Happy for them to be called whatever you want, they are the key principles of reason and the first is the most important.

Alright, I made a mistake.


Respect.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:20 pm

Daedalus wrote: Your head is just too far up your own ass to realize that people who think you're a fool are not necessarily ignorant.


I don't think that people who think I am a fool are ignorant, they are often right on that. I think people who do not doubt all things equally are not true skeptics.

You are in fact, a pitiful pseudointellectual poser, which I suspect is why you try so hard (and fail) to condescend.


I don't try to condescend. I don't pose. I am happy to be called the rest.

Try again... you're coming off as desperate.


I really don't care what people think of me. This is a texted based forum, not the real world with real people. Its just not important.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:27 pm

Shen1986 wrote:Nope... I will disappoint you I am no Buddhist. I am non-religious I am a freethinker with no religion and I am here to debunk the motion of the soul because I think that the soul in the ethereal/afterlife sense is a lie...


Not disapointed your not a Buddhist! And you could be a buddhist and a free thinker and believe in no soul. The Kalama Sutta is a masterpiece of skepticism, the Buddha was a master skeptic.

What do you think of this:

It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain;uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.



:) Cheers
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Daedalus » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:28 pm

salomed wrote:
Daedalus wrote: Your head is just too far up your own ass to realize that people who think you're a fool are not necessarily ignorant.


I don't think that people who think I am a fool are ignorant, they are often right on that. I think people who do not doubt all things equally are not true skeptics.

You are in fact, a pitiful pseudointellectual poser, which I suspect is why you try so hard (and fail) to condescend.


I don't try to condescend. I don't pose. I am happy to be called the rest.

Try again... you're coming off as desperate.


I really don't care what people think of me. This is a texted based forum, not the real world with real people. Its just not important.


I suspect you are no more competent in your social interactions offline, and this is just your sad attempt to rationalize your lack of skill in that area. Fortunately the mediocrity of your ability to connect is matched only by the mediocrity of your ideas... so nothing of value is lost in this setting.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:35 pm

Daedalus wrote:
salomed wrote:
Daedalus wrote: Your head is just too far up your own ass to realize that people who think you're a fool are not necessarily ignorant.


I don't think that people who think I am a fool are ignorant, they are often right on that. I think people who do not doubt all things equally are not true skeptics.

You are in fact, a pitiful pseudointellectual poser, which I suspect is why you try so hard (and fail) to condescend.


I don't try to condescend. I don't pose. I am happy to be called the rest.

Try again... you're coming off as desperate.


I really don't care what people think of me. This is a texted based forum, not the real world with real people. Its just not important.


I suspect you are no more competent in your social interactions offline, and this is just your sad attempt to rationalize your lack of skill in that area. Fortunately the mediocrity of your ability to connect is matched only by the mediocrity of your ideas... so nothing of value is lost in this setting.



It's amazing how mean you are being! I'm not at all bothered, but it is odd. Would you be this mean in a real chat face to face with someone you think is stupid, mediocre or condescending?

When you are on your deathbed, I hope 100+ years!, will you look back on these moments of meanness and be proud or ashamed? assuming you can remember them, of course.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Daedalus » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:28 pm

salomed wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
salomed wrote:
Daedalus wrote: Your head is just too far up your own ass to realize that people who think you're a fool are not necessarily ignorant.


I don't think that people who think I am a fool are ignorant, they are often right on that. I think people who do not doubt all things equally are not true skeptics.

You are in fact, a pitiful pseudointellectual poser, which I suspect is why you try so hard (and fail) to condescend.


I don't try to condescend. I don't pose. I am happy to be called the rest.

Try again... you're coming off as desperate.


I really don't care what people think of me. This is a texted based forum, not the real world with real people. Its just not important.


I suspect you are no more competent in your social interactions offline, and this is just your sad attempt to rationalize your lack of skill in that area. Fortunately the mediocrity of your ability to connect is matched only by the mediocrity of your ideas... so nothing of value is lost in this setting.



It's amazing how mean you are being! I'm not at all bothered, but it is odd. Would you be this mean in a real chat face to face with someone you think is stupid, mediocre or condescending?

When you are on your deathbed, I hope 100+ years!, will you look back on these moments of meanness and be proud or ashamed? assuming you can remember them, of course.


We would never have this conversation offline Salomed, because the moment you started acting like woo-peddling, pseudointellectual, condescending prick, I would turn on my heels and walk away. Still, if you insisted on pursing this in person, or followed me, I would be incredibly cutting in person.

I would point out that however you care to dress it up, referencing the death of someone is a fundamentally aggressive thing to do. Your gentility is as transparently false as your intellectual aspirations.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:58 am

salomed wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:Nope... I will disappoint you I am no Buddhist. I am non-religious I am a freethinker with no religion and I am here to debunk the motion of the soul because I think that the soul in the ethereal/afterlife sense is a lie...


Not disapointed your not a Buddhist! And you could be a buddhist and a free thinker and believe in no soul. The Kalama Sutta is a masterpiece of skepticism, the Buddha was a master skeptic.

What do you think of this:

It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain;uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.



:) Cheers


I decline but thanks for the offer. Buddha was no skeptic he believed in the supernatural:

Mara (Sanskrit, also Māra; Tibetan Wylie: bdud; Burmese: မာရ်နတ်; Thai: มาร), in Buddhism, is the demon that tempted Gautama Buddha by trying to seduce him with the vision of beautiful women who, in various legends, are often said to be Mara's daughters.[1] In Buddhist cosmology, Mara personifies unwholesome impulses, unskillfulness, the "death" of the spiritual life. He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making mundane things alluring, or the negative seem positive.

The early Buddhists, however, rather than seeing Mara as a demonic, virtually all-powerful Lord of Evil, regarded him as more of a nuisance. Many episodes concerning his interactions with the Buddha have a decidedly humorous air to them.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)

Or here:

There are numerous heavens and hells in Buddhist cosmology, along with other planes such as that of animals.


Taken from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Buddhism

It is only the top of the iceberg. I had many hours in college about Buddhism and its another religion filled with superstition. I admit they have no soul but they have reincarnation and other stuff which is superstition. Therefore no..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:27 am

Shen1986 wrote:
salomed wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:Nope... I will disappoint you I am no Buddhist. I am non-religious I am a freethinker with no religion and I am here to debunk the motion of the soul because I think that the soul in the ethereal/afterlife sense is a lie...


Not disapointed your not a Buddhist! And you could be a buddhist and a free thinker and believe in no soul. The Kalama Sutta is a masterpiece of skepticism, the Buddha was a master skeptic.

What do you think of this:

It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain;uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.



:) Cheers


I decline but thanks for the offer. Buddha was no skeptic he believed in the supernatural:

Mara (Sanskrit, also Māra; Tibetan Wylie: bdud; Burmese: မာရ်နတ်; Thai: มาร), in Buddhism, is the demon that tempted Gautama Buddha by trying to seduce him with the vision of beautiful women who, in various legends, are often said to be Mara's daughters.[1] In Buddhist cosmology, Mara personifies unwholesome impulses, unskillfulness, the "death" of the spiritual life. He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making mundane things alluring, or the negative seem positive.

The early Buddhists, however, rather than seeing Mara as a demonic, virtually all-powerful Lord of Evil, regarded him as more of a nuisance. Many episodes concerning his interactions with the Buddha have a decidedly humorous air to them.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)

Or here:

There are numerous heavens and hells in Buddhist cosmology, along with other planes such as that of animals.


Taken from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Buddhism

It is only the top of the iceberg. I had many hours in college about Buddhism and its another religion filled with superstition. I admit they have no soul but they have reincarnation and other stuff which is superstition. Therefore no..


There is an interesting discussion to be had about what the Buddha really taught versus how his beliefs became Buddhism. The KS is a key point there. But I can see you are not open to that discussion. Cheerio.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:08 am

salomed wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
salomed wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:Nope... I will disappoint you I am no Buddhist. I am non-religious I am a freethinker with no religion and I am here to debunk the motion of the soul because I think that the soul in the ethereal/afterlife sense is a lie...


Not disapointed your not a Buddhist! And you could be a buddhist and a free thinker and believe in no soul. The Kalama Sutta is a masterpiece of skepticism, the Buddha was a master skeptic.

What do you think of this:

It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain;uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.



:) Cheers


I decline but thanks for the offer. Buddha was no skeptic he believed in the supernatural:

Mara (Sanskrit, also Māra; Tibetan Wylie: bdud; Burmese: မာရ်နတ်; Thai: มาร), in Buddhism, is the demon that tempted Gautama Buddha by trying to seduce him with the vision of beautiful women who, in various legends, are often said to be Mara's daughters.[1] In Buddhist cosmology, Mara personifies unwholesome impulses, unskillfulness, the "death" of the spiritual life. He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making mundane things alluring, or the negative seem positive.

The early Buddhists, however, rather than seeing Mara as a demonic, virtually all-powerful Lord of Evil, regarded him as more of a nuisance. Many episodes concerning his interactions with the Buddha have a decidedly humorous air to them.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)

Or here:

There are numerous heavens and hells in Buddhist cosmology, along with other planes such as that of animals.


Taken from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Buddhism

It is only the top of the iceberg. I had many hours in college about Buddhism and its another religion filled with superstition. I admit they have no soul but they have reincarnation and other stuff which is superstition. Therefore no..


There is an interesting discussion to be had about what the Buddha really taught versus how his beliefs became Buddhism. The KS is a key point there. But I can see you are not open to that discussion. Cheerio.


Every time I point to the fact that Buddha was a believer I mostly get this answer. Sheesh people be more original. I don't get it. I never said I am not open to a discussion. I however get from your answer Salomed the feeling that you are scared as others when I brought this up. I get the feeling from your reply that you didn't knew that Buddha was a believer because many people who believe in Buddhism claim similar things like you do, that Buddhism is open to skepticism and to science when in many instances it is not.

Also I know Buddhism and that a long time now. My brother is a practicing Buddhist who knows a lot of things and met a lot of people in Buddhism. I also have a master degree in Science of religion so there is no twisting it that Buddha was a atheist. Nope he was not. He believed we can reincarnate into other beings like gods etc.. Buddha was a believer and here ends the whole discussion..
Last edited by Shen1986 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby kennyc » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:12 am

But I thought Buddha was just a fat, lazy, aristocrat.... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
salomed
Regular Poster
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby salomed » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:24 am

kennyc wrote:But I thought Buddha was just a fat, lazy, aristocrat.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


A common misconception. And the fat guy isn't Buddha he is a Chinese monk merchant whose name I forget.

Buddhism oozes woo but the core doctrine is very woo free.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby Daedalus » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:25 am

Hoti
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: A Former Skeptic Rejects the Skeptic Movement and Explai

Postby octopus1 » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:18 am

salomed wrote:
kennyc wrote:But I thought Buddha was just a fat, lazy, aristocrat.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


A common misconception. And the fat guy isn't Buddha he is a Chinese monk merchant whose name I forget.

Buddhism oozes woo but the core doctrine is very woo free.


Does it not require faith, nevertheless? Unquestioning faith?
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....


Return to “Skeptical Activism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest