Morons: Terrible bane or lifeblood of the forum?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you don't use Wikipedia at all, how can you know whether it's a credible source of information?

Boru

That's why I don't use it, because it isn't credible. There's a lot of bullshit on there.

How do you know there’s a lot of bullshit there if you don’t use it ‘at all’?

Boru

[Ahriman]

That's why I don't use it, because it isn't credible. There's a lot of bullshit on there.

How do you know there’s a lot of bullshit there if you don’t use it ‘at all’?

Boru

Because I used to use it but haven't since I realized how heavily compromised so much of it is.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It absolutely IS Buddhism. Just as one can be a philosophical (as opposed to a religious) Christian, it’s perfectly possible to be a secular Buddhist.

Boru

Many western people think it's possible, but it's not. Buddhism requires its adherents to believe in a number of supernatural things, such as karma, "nirvana", various otherworldly realms, etc. You can't be a "secular Buddhist". That would be like, if I still called myself a Catholic despite not caring about God. Like, no?

It's always funny seeing a No True Scotsman argument launched by a non-Scotsman.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How do you know there’s a lot of bullshit there if you don’t use it ‘at all’?

Boru

Because I used to use it but haven't since I realized how heavily compromised so much of it is.

So, you’ve used it enough to know that ‘much’ of it is ‘compromised’ (whatever the fuck THAT means) but not enough to know that each article is sourced and referenced?

I think what you meant to say is, ‘I started to read a Wikipedia entry once, but the first paragraph scared me and made me cry.’

Boru

[Ahriman]

Because I used to use it but haven't since I realized how heavily compromised so much of it is.

So, you’ve used it enough to know that ‘much’ of it is ‘compromised’ (whatever the fuck THAT means) but not enough to know that each article is sourced and referenced?

Boru

Who says the sources/references are credible?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, you’ve used it enough to know that ‘much’ of it is ‘compromised’ (whatever the fuck THAT means) but not enough to know that each article is sourced and referenced?

Boru

Who says the sources/references are credible?

Everyone but you, but that’s not what I asked you. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn’t matter if the sources are credible - you said there was no way you could have known that the entries are sourced.

Boru

[Ahriman]

Who says the sources/references are credible?

Everyone but you, but that’s not what I asked you. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn’t matter if the sources are credible - you said there was no way you could have known that the entries are sourced.

Boru

Who knows, maybe there weren't even sources when I last checked, it's been over a decade.

[HappySkeptic]

Westley: "You're that smart?"
Vizzini: "Let me put it this way, have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?"
Westley:  "Yes."
Vizzini: "Morons."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Everyone but you, but that’s not what I asked you. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn’t matter if the sources are credible - you said there was no way you could have known that the entries are sourced.

Boru

Who knows, maybe there weren't even sources when I last checked, it's been over a decade.

So, you DID have a way of knowing whether Wikipedia cites sources?

You do have a way of getting your britches caught on your own pitchfork.

Boru

[Belacqua]

It absolutely IS Buddhism. Just as one can be a philosophical (as opposed to a religious) Christian, it’s perfectly possible to be a secular Buddhist.

Boru

Many western people think it's possible, but it's not. Buddhism requires its adherents to believe in a number of supernatural things, such as karma, "nirvana", various otherworldly realms, etc. You can't be a "secular Buddhist". That would be like, if I still called myself a Catholic despite not caring about God. Like, no?

There appear to be a number of layers to this onion.

The earlier references I made to "atheist Hindus" are to people who might not even be considered atheists on this forum. They reject the idea of the traditional Hindu gods (Shiva, Deva, etc.) but still hold to cosmological and metaphysical claims that are uniquely and recognizably Hindu. For example, they hold that there are eternal truths about the world that are metaphysical and therefore not provable by science. They probably hold that Brahman is a kind of Ground of Being, and that human thought is intrinsically tied, somehow, to this fundamental non-material eternal basis. 

So if this is true, they are atheist only in the narrow sense that they don't believe in a certain kind of god, but they are certainly religious. 

I would call this very different from a "cultural Catholic" who rejects all the supernatural or metaphysical teachings of the church, but who still wants the cultural and aesthetic aspects of the religion in his life. I can understand the appeal of this, though to be strict it might be seen as a kind of cosplay. 

I don't think that "cultural Catholics" are the same as secular Jews, since Jewishness is also an ethnicity. (Though I understand that there are very strict Jews who deny that an atheist can be a real Jew -- so there is still disagreement.)