|
On November 30 2008 11:01 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 10:28 travis wrote:
What I am saying is what buddhism is. Couldn't you have said that from the start? Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 10:39 DamageControL wrote:
To Klochan3: The point here isn't to be the 'best arguer'
I do not try to be the best arguer, I try to get points across, do not matter if its mine, yours, travis or anyone else arguing. For me argumentations are about learning, and nothing hurts more than seeing a person lay out interesting points but leaving a ton of holes in it which means that the recipient will just poke hole in the points and once again stalling the discussion. I want to see how others see things, and to do that you need to get them to stop rehashing the mantras of their opinions sides and instead start actually talking about their own personal beliefs on the matter. And usually the only way to remove all the generic arguments in one go, either by crushing them instantly or laying all of them out and thus showing that you are not ignorant on the subject and instead wants to talk to them and not their pamphlet. And excuse my tone, it is just that trying to argue with a religious person is like trying to bang your head against a wall and I did not this time expect it which made me a bit frustrated.
You insult people out of hand, and use the same tactic of try to poke little technicalities in what the other person is saying. Lets not forget this all started with you getting annoyed how travis over complicates things (I think he tends to too, but at the same time, its the idea, not the wording that counts.)
EDIT: Meaning no offense to either you or travis. I understand the competitive urge, but I think your lying if you say you don't have it.
Travis, your wording is occasionally overly complex. I have no problem with this, but I think... well one should try to make his ideas as accessible as possible.
|
On November 30 2008 11:05 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 11:01 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 10:28 travis wrote:
What I am saying is what buddhism is. Couldn't you have said that from the start? it is my ideas, it is just coincidence that it is also what buddhism believes.
But then say "I believe in a supernatural sense of self, kind of like a Buddhist" instead of using cryptic statements which could mean just about anything so that we know your stance instead of a lot of people rising up against you with their own belief of your opinion.
On November 30 2008 11:06 food wrote:
travis destroyed poor swede. let him breathe lol
Did you even understand the discussion?
I tried to make him get to the point, he really dodged it till he explained that he believed in roughly the same things as a Buddhist, and now that I know that there is no more any point in arguing. I can not argue against or for anything which can not be proven or reasoned about.
On November 30 2008 11:11 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 11:01 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 10:28 travis wrote:
What I am saying is what buddhism is. Couldn't you have said that from the start? On November 30 2008 10:39 DamageControL wrote:
To Klochan3: The point here isn't to be the 'best arguer'
I do not try to be the best arguer, I try to get points across, do not matter if its mine, yours, travis or anyone else arguing. For me argumentations are about learning, and nothing hurts more than seeing a person lay out interesting points but leaving a ton of holes in it which means that the recipient will just poke hole in the points and once again stalling the discussion. I want to see how others see things, and to do that you need to get them to stop rehashing the mantras of their opinions sides and instead start actually talking about their own personal beliefs on the matter. And usually the only way to remove all the generic arguments in one go, either by crushing them instantly or laying all of them out and thus showing that you are not ignorant on the subject and instead wants to talk to them and not their pamphlet. And excuse my tone, it is just that trying to argue with a religious person is like trying to bang your head against a wall and I did not this time expect it which made me a bit frustrated. You insult people out of hand, and use the same tactic of try to poke little technicalities in what the other person is saying. Lets not forget this all started with you getting annoyed how travis over complicates things (I think he tends to too, but at the same time, its the idea, not the wording that counts.) EDIT: Meaning no offense to either you or travis. I understand the competitive urge, but I think your lying if you say you don't have it. Travis, your wording is occasionally overly complex. I have no problem with this, but I think... well one should try to make his ideas as accessible as possible.
Well in a way I do it for the competition, but if it weren't for learning I would not argue at all. If I am sure to win an argument I do not engage it if I am not really pissed.
Also I try to poke holes in his since I do not understand what he wants to say, I do it to force him to solidify his views instead of leaving vague points. By pointing out the holes you point out what was vague with it, if they make a contradiction it means that one of the posts were wrong and therefore I want to know which one was correct, if a point is so vague that it can be read in a lot of different ways I try to challenge it by reading it in a ridiculous way and questioning if thats what they mean. All this I do to make them focus.
|
If i remember correctly Buddhism is a lot philosophy a little religion
|
On November 30 2008 11:11 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 11:01 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 10:28 travis wrote:
What I am saying is what buddhism is. Couldn't you have said that from the start? On November 30 2008 10:39 DamageControL wrote:
To Klochan3: The point here isn't to be the 'best arguer'
I do not try to be the best arguer, I try to get points across, do not matter if its mine, yours, travis or anyone else arguing. For me argumentations are about learning, and nothing hurts more than seeing a person lay out interesting points but leaving a ton of holes in it which means that the recipient will just poke hole in the points and once again stalling the discussion. I want to see how others see things, and to do that you need to get them to stop rehashing the mantras of their opinions sides and instead start actually talking about their own personal beliefs on the matter. And usually the only way to remove all the generic arguments in one go, either by crushing them instantly or laying all of them out and thus showing that you are not ignorant on the subject and instead wants to talk to them and not their pamphlet. And excuse my tone, it is just that trying to argue with a religious person is like trying to bang your head against a wall and I did not this time expect it which made me a bit frustrated. Travis, your wording is occasionally overly complex. I have no problem with this, but I think... well one should try to make his ideas as accessible as possible.
this may be so but it is not intentional. I think it has much to do with the subject matter. Oftentimes people don't realize that there are in fact subtle differences between the way I say something and a less complex version of what I say.
|
a round balloon is surely going to have holes poked all in it when you're living in a world of cubes
im not interested in winning anything, im not interested in convincing people I am right, I am interested in trying to honestly and accurately convey what I believe(which is no easy task). if people see what I see then that is good. if they do not that is fine too
|
On November 30 2008 11:19 DamageControL wrote:
If i remember correctly Buddhism is a lot philosophy a little religion
buddhism is a guide to end suffering
|
On November 30 2008 11:19 DamageControL wrote:
If i remember correctly Buddhism is a lot philosophy a little religion
The point is about the supernatural self that is a sum of experiences. It is not tied to anything of this world and therefore it can't be argued about unless you start to get into an argument of pure beliefs and I have no intentions of doing so, I am happy enough trying to understand everything that can be understood instead of dwell on things that can never be understood.
Also I am apologizing to Travis for being rough, I shouldn't really get frustrated by internet discussions.
On November 30 2008 11:30 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 11:11 DamageControL wrote:On November 30 2008 11:01 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 10:28 travis wrote:
What I am saying is what buddhism is. Couldn't you have said that from the start? On November 30 2008 10:39 DamageControL wrote:
To Klochan3: The point here isn't to be the 'best arguer'
I do not try to be the best arguer, I try to get points across, do not matter if its mine, yours, travis or anyone else arguing. For me argumentations are about learning, and nothing hurts more than seeing a person lay out interesting points but leaving a ton of holes in it which means that the recipient will just poke hole in the points and once again stalling the discussion. I want to see how others see things, and to do that you need to get them to stop rehashing the mantras of their opinions sides and instead start actually talking about their own personal beliefs on the matter. And usually the only way to remove all the generic arguments in one go, either by crushing them instantly or laying all of them out and thus showing that you are not ignorant on the subject and instead wants to talk to them and not their pamphlet. And excuse my tone, it is just that trying to argue with a religious person is like trying to bang your head against a wall and I did not this time expect it which made me a bit frustrated. Travis, your wording is occasionally overly complex. I have no problem with this, but I think... well one should try to make his ideas as accessible as possible. this may be so but it is not intentional. I think it has much to do with the subject matter. Oftentimes people don't realize that there are in fact subtle differences between the way I say something and a less complex version of what I say.
Therefore it is better to try to use many parallel descriptions which in unison creates a well defined concept than one short and very vague one. Use many vague ones and together it will become a strong one. I myself hate when people misunderstands what I say so I always tries to not leave any openings for misunderstanding when I write things.
|
On November 30 2008 11:36 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 11:19 DamageControL wrote:
If i remember correctly Buddhism is a lot philosophy a little religion The point is about the supernatural self that is a sum of experiences. It is not tied to anything of this world and therefore it can't be argued about unless you start to get into an argument of pure beliefs and I have no intentions of doing so, I am happy enough trying to understand everything that can be understood instead of dwell on things that can never be understood. Also I am apologizing to Travis for being rough, I shouldn't really get frustrated by internet discussions.
if you can't identify with something you should say that you can't identify with it, not that it is wrong.
I used to believe the world was simpler too. I used to think that material science could explain everything about who and what we are.
buddhism is still a science. it is verifiable and it follows laws.
|
On November 30 2008 11:42 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 11:36 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 11:19 DamageControL wrote:
If i remember correctly Buddhism is a lot philosophy a little religion The point is about the supernatural self that is a sum of experiences. It is not tied to anything of this world and therefore it can't be argued about unless you start to get into an argument of pure beliefs and I have no intentions of doing so, I am happy enough trying to understand everything that can be understood instead of dwell on things that can never be understood. Also I am apologizing to Travis for being rough, I shouldn't really get frustrated by internet discussions. if you can't identify with something you should say that you can't identify with it, not that it is wrong.
Did I ever say that it was wrong?
On November 30 2008 11:42 travis wrote:
buddhism is verifiable
How?
|
On November 30 2008 11:44 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 11:42 travis wrote:On November 30 2008 11:36 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 11:19 DamageControL wrote:
If i remember correctly Buddhism is a lot philosophy a little religion The point is about the supernatural self that is a sum of experiences. It is not tied to anything of this world and therefore it can't be argued about unless you start to get into an argument of pure beliefs and I have no intentions of doing so, I am happy enough trying to understand everything that can be understood instead of dwell on things that can never be understood. Also I am apologizing to Travis for being rough, I shouldn't really get frustrated by internet discussions. if you can't identify with something you should say that you can't identify with it, not that it is wrong. Did I ever say that it was wrong?
I don't think you did, I apologize for that. It wasn't really what I meant but I am sloppy sometimes.
practicing it yourself. within a few years it is likely you will understand.
anyone who actually follows through and practices what buddha taught most likely has the capabilities to understand the truth of it all.
hopefully this doesn't sound too arrogant, but rather, confident
|
holy shit I can't believe you just went there travis, you have really lost it, first you say it's verifiable than you say we just need to study it for years to understand.
The whole point of metaphysics (which includes buddhism) is that it's not verifiable, it goes against the principles of science. There's a reason philosophy falls in the category arts, not sciences.
|
I've lost it? lol
even if what I say is wrong that is quite an exaggeration. but it isn't wrong.
omg. years. omfg!
that's like, actually a long amount of time! holy shit!
and you talk of buddhism as though you study it. while it is easy to conclude what you have concluded, in doing so you show that you surely do not study it.
buddha wouldn't give a shit how you wanted to classify buddhism. buddha didn't have a name for what he taught. you can't just apply a label to it and then assume it fits into that label with all the pre-ordained rules that label insinuates.
let me tell you, buddhism is verifiable.
|
ugh
this is beyond retarded
The mindset of you is hilarious, you're not one bit different from people who think they can track water with divining rods. The whole point of science is that there is no truth.
Just wondering, what did you study. If it was anything science related I will be completely amazed.
|
I studied the suttas(pali cannon) but not as closely as most serious buddhists. I do believe I have a good grasp on the teachings though, and think I am definitely getting somewhere(slowly) in my practice.
|
For most purposes I could care less what other people think, the only important thing is what kind of results happen.
|
my results haven't been as good as I would like but I am impatient. and there are those who's results have been amazing and I know deep down that I can do it as well, and even if I don't this life was pointless anyways - this is really what it is about for me. I don't have many attachments I think. though the few that are still there are strong.
|
couldn't care less!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just to be clear, weren't you the guy who called psychology mostly false anyway? You're basically Tom Cruise except you chose Buddhism instead of scientology. I can't believe how you refuse to be critical of your own reasoning. I don't think I have ever seen you admit you were wrong, it's always 'that's not what I said' or some irrelevant response.
It's not possible to debate with you.
|
I said that isn't what I meant.
I am critical of my own understanding quite regularly, but most of the time happens after the initial conversation(and most of the time during them I am high). And I admit, I don't go back and admit I was wrong with whatever statement most of the time. Generally I don't care enough to.
When I am sober and on adderall I am rarely wrong.
I admitted I was wrong on this page. Is it bad for me to explain a reason why I posted what I did? Would you prefer that there was no reason for my incorrect post?
Or do you feel that by posting a reason I am somehow taking fault off of myself?
|
are we supposed to have notepads out and be writing down scores?
|
Huh I don't even know what that last comment is supposed to imply, scores for what?
you definately are arrogant
When I am sober and on adderall I am rarely wrong.
top that off with attributing most of your faulty logic to being high and your good moments with being yourself
You are definately one of the more closed minded persons I know.
edit: I am not trying to insult you, just trying to show you where I believe you go wrong, just to be clear, I like you. I always feel like an ass when I read back my comments lol. okay bedtime
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
