What is your favourite positive argument for atheism/unbelief?

[Brian37]

I am not "railing" against any individual nor trying to make anyone "paranoid".

That's okay... I'm not paranoid about it any more after (I thought) clarifying my position to you. As far as I'm concerned it's done and dusted and how you choose to take or ignore that is your business. In any case, I think you're seeing an argument and claim from me that doesn't exist.  

I am pointing out our species flawed evolution in that we gap fill and create clubs as a gap. That does have the real affect of creating social order and safety in numbers, but that is a false perception. Life was around long before humans and long before any written religion or stationary society.

My skepticism is based on our modern scientific knowledge and I don't give anyone a pass. I don't even see the word "atheist" as having any magic power to make an individual only do good or only do bad. The truth of all religions is "that was then, this is now". There are tons of empathetic individuals all over the planet, not because a religion makes them that way, but because our evolution produces the attribute of cooperation and empathy in that individual. I merely doubt ALL religions when someone claims it is coming out of antiquity in holy writings or holy people.

If you have not read, and I keep pointing out this author and two books. If you want to understand my position "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism" both by Victor Stenger , in both books he debunks the idea of the need for a god/God/supernatural. But in the second book, "The New Atheism" in one of his later chapters he compares multiple religions WORLDWIDE, points out how each point to their "goodness" and claims to morality, and makes the point, and I agree, if everyone can point to those things, then it should be obvious that our behaviors are in us, not our labels.

 
I've never said anything against that... in fact I agree. I am not inspired by the Buddha's writings because of his reputation, but because of the logic of the argument put forward. If it had been written yesterday by a bloke in the pub it wouldn't make any difference to how I perceive it because a logical argument speaks for itself, regardless of author... it's the argument I find appealing not the author. For instance, I've been to a Buddhist monastery to meditate and I felt decidedly uncomfortable when it came to all the ritual bowing and reverence for the Buddha, and did not partake. It was made clear to me that it was only reverence for a wise teacher, not worship, but nonetheless that's how it appears. Likewise with the statues and imagery... not supposed to be idols but 'meditation objects'... reminders of the peace you're aiming for in meditation. But on first impressions, either look like worship, and even when explained, still seem like worship or at least taking reverence too far. I can admire someone as a great thinker, but that's as far as it goes; I would not bow before an image of Einstein, or on here Khemikal , and so likewise I will not bow before an image of the Buddha.

I get what you're saying about clubs and labels and agree wholeheartedly... where there are clubs and labels, conflict always follows. It says as much in very introduction of the book I recommended to you. If it weren't for something you wrote a long time ago, I wouldn't have known that there was sectarian violence even among Buddhists, so I know Buddhism where it is fused with religion is not exempt from this process... it's just what unfortunately naturally follows from labels and clubs. Basically I hate labels... they always bring out the worst in people, myself included. As I see it, one little word could change the world: 'some'... if we consistently said 'some x do/say/are y' rather than '[implicit all] x do/say/are y' then it would save a lot of conflict. I only wish I could remember that more often.

And the reason I took offence, and thus responded to you, basically comes down to that... that not all but only some Buddhists are religious. Where it's mixed with Hinduism or whatever, I have no idea what is being claimed, but as I understand it it is atheistic philosophy with no Gods in sight, nor heavens, hells etc... nothing arbitrary, just a (imo) compelling logical argument. So I responded to the implication that I, as one of that 'all', was being charmed by naked assertions and appeal to authority, and indeed to the implication that that was all that was offered by Buddhist teachings. That may be the case where religious Buddhism is concerned but if so, that is only some, not all of the whole picture. But that said, you've talked about (and against) Buddhism a long time, and when I've been in a more Buddhist frame of mind in the past, I've not responded precisely because to do so would create unnecessary conflict, and because ultimately the aim of Buddhism is to eliminate 'attachment' to temporary objects of awareness (ie everything of which you can be consciously aware). In this case it would be feelings of anger and pride and the aim would not be to eliminate the states themselves, but just attachment to them... where 'attachment' could be roughly translated as emotional investment. So basically be mindfully aware of them but detached from them, knowing they are transient... basically summed up pretty well by saying something like 'I am aware I'm feeling anger/pride, but it will inevitably pass... and I can either fuel that anger/pride by getting sucked into it, or let it go'. So the fact that I responded now is because basically I haven't been thinking like that for a while, so this has been a welcome reminder of what I've been missing; it doesn't matter if you're right and I'm wrong (about anything I mean... not just this) or I'm right and you're wrong, because attachment to either situation tends to lead to conflict... that's basically the Buddhist message (or one Buddhist message ).

Even Jefferson, without knowing how right he was in a modern scientific sense, saw goodness and morality in others who didn't share the same beliefs, "whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists".

I cant put it any more simply than, "That was then, this is now". We do know where morality comes from, it comes from evolution. It comes from our socializing and by that socializing we form groups, but that does not mean everything we do makes that group right about everything, and that group can be centered around very false perceptions. 

Humans for the most part ON AVERAGE, think locally and defend that which they are raised in. It does foster protection in a local sense, but the downside is at the same time, it produces divisions against other groups.

I don't give anyone a pass on this, logically speaking only. I want more humans to consider that what makes us different isn't as important to me as what we have in common. It still remains we are the same species with the same ability to be compassionate or cruel. There is not one nation that does not have prisons or hospitals.

Fair enough. I've never made any claims one way or the other about the source of morality, and for the record I do not claim Buddhists to be more moral that anyone else. Buddhism (again, as I understand it) is not about that, only reducing suffering. It's about accepting the human condition for what it is, warts and all, and peacefully co-existing with it. So for instance, Buddhist monks on YouTube (I would recommend Ajahn Brahm... Londoner turned Buddhist as a very down to earth and funny bloke to watch) are not afraid to talk about when they've been angry, pissed off, etc. Because all those states are accepted as being part of the human condition. There is no 'sin' in Buddhism and Karma, if understood the way it is written in the book, is not some mystical force that comes and bites you on the arse for 'bad' deeds, but just the natural cause and effect response to actions in life... kind of like the 'Pay it forward' ripple effect... anger breeds anger... peace breeds peace etc... if you emotionally invest in negative states it tends to lead to future negative states through simple cause and effect, and vice versa for positive states.

I know you want to  believe Buddhism promotes the reduction of suffering, but even all their diverse majority nations and sub sects also have a history of conflict. A Tibet Buddhist does not agree with a Chinese Buddhist who doesn't agree with a Japanese Shinto Buddhist. And those competing countries have had their histories of both conflicts with each other and even power struggles within even the same countries that still lead to violence.

And Buddhism is also NOT the only label that claims to have the cure to reduce humanity's suffering. 

And you are doing the same with with "karma" that Christians do with "sin". You can only state your own individual interpretation of "karma" but it is still rooted in superstition and many Buddhists ARE superstitious as individuals. 

"peace breeds peace" I agree, but that is not due to a label. If you raise a kitten and puppy from birth they are far more likely to get along. Now again, if you have not read it, "The New Atheism" by Victor Stinger compares the claims of goals of multiple religions including those of Asia. You compare enough of the world's religions we really do all want that good side of our species, but again, that is not the club doing it, that is the individual doing it.

You are good because you the individual are good. And I am being fair because I can and will admit that there ARE atheists whom I don't like and do see as selfish and greedy and even xenophobic. China has prisons, Tibet has prisons and so does Japan. Our species behaviors, are in us, not the clubs we flock to. 

Labels, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and even atheist, have no magic power to make the individual only do good and always be non violent. All nations, friend and foe alike have hospitals and prisons. That says to me our behaviors are in our genes, not old clubs or old writings.

No other species has our complex language but we can see in other mammals acts of empathy and care for other members. We can also see in other mammals acts of cruelty even to other members. If you have not read that book I would highly recommend you do.

[emjay]

That's okay... I'm not paranoid about it any more after (I thought) clarifying my position to you. As far as I'm concerned it's done and dusted and how you choose to take or ignore that is your business. In any case, I think you're seeing an argument and claim from me that doesn't exist.  

 
I've never said anything against that... in fact I agree. I am not inspired by the Buddha's writings because of his reputation, but because of the logic of the argument put forward. If it had been written yesterday by a bloke in the pub it wouldn't make any difference to how I perceive it because a logical argument speaks for itself, regardless of author... it's the argument I find appealing not the author. For instance, I've been to a Buddhist monastery to meditate and I felt decidedly uncomfortable when it came to all the ritual bowing and reverence for the Buddha, and did not partake. It was made clear to me that it was only reverence for a wise teacher, not worship, but nonetheless that's how it appears. Likewise with the statues and imagery... not supposed to be idols but 'meditation objects'... reminders of the peace you're aiming for in meditation. But on first impressions, either look like worship, and even when explained, still seem like worship or at least taking reverence too far. I can admire someone as a great thinker, but that's as far as it goes; I would not bow before an image of Einstein, or on here Khemikal , and so likewise I will not bow before an image of the Buddha.

I get what you're saying about clubs and labels and agree wholeheartedly... where there are clubs and labels, conflict always follows. It says as much in very introduction of the book I recommended to you. If it weren't for something you wrote a long time ago, I wouldn't have known that there was sectarian violence even among Buddhists, so I know Buddhism where it is fused with religion is not exempt from this process... it's just what unfortunately naturally follows from labels and clubs. Basically I hate labels... they always bring out the worst in people, myself included. As I see it, one little word could change the world: 'some'... if we consistently said 'some x do/say/are y' rather than '[implicit all] x do/say/are y' then it would save a lot of conflict. I only wish I could remember that more often.

And the reason I took offence, and thus responded to you, basically comes down to that... that not all but only some Buddhists are religious. Where it's mixed with Hinduism or whatever, I have no idea what is being claimed, but as I understand it it is atheistic philosophy with no Gods in sight, nor heavens, hells etc... nothing arbitrary, just a (imo) compelling logical argument. So I responded to the implication that I, as one of that 'all', was being charmed by naked assertions and appeal to authority, and indeed to the implication that that was all that was offered by Buddhist teachings. That may be the case where religious Buddhism is concerned but if so, that is only some, not all of the whole picture. But that said, you've talked about (and against) Buddhism a long time, and when I've been in a more Buddhist frame of mind in the past, I've not responded precisely because to do so would create unnecessary conflict, and because ultimately the aim of Buddhism is to eliminate 'attachment' to temporary objects of awareness (ie everything of which you can be consciously aware). In this case it would be feelings of anger and pride and the aim would not be to eliminate the states themselves, but just attachment to them... where 'attachment' could be roughly translated as emotional investment. So basically be mindfully aware of them but detached from them, knowing they are transient... basically summed up pretty well by saying something like 'I am aware I'm feeling anger/pride, but it will inevitably pass... and I can either fuel that anger/pride by getting sucked into it, or let it go'. So the fact that I responded now is because basically I haven't been thinking like that for a while, so this has been a welcome reminder of what I've been missing; it doesn't matter if you're right and I'm wrong (about anything I mean... not just this) or I'm right and you're wrong, because attachment to either situation tends to lead to conflict... that's basically the Buddhist message (or one Buddhist message ).


Fair enough. I've never made any claims one way or the other about the source of morality, and for the record I do not claim Buddhists to be more moral that anyone else. Buddhism (again, as I understand it) is not about that, only reducing suffering. It's about accepting the human condition for what it is, warts and all, and peacefully co-existing with it. So for instance, Buddhist monks on YouTube (I would recommend Ajahn Brahm... Londoner turned Buddhist as a very down to earth and funny bloke to watch) are not afraid to talk about when they've been angry, pissed off, etc. Because all those states are accepted as being part of the human condition. There is no 'sin' in Buddhism and Karma, if understood the way it is written in the book, is not some mystical force that comes and bites you on the arse for 'bad' deeds, but just the natural cause and effect response to actions in life... kind of like the 'Pay it forward' ripple effect... anger breeds anger... peace breeds peace etc... if you emotionally invest in negative states it tends to lead to future negative states through simple cause and effect, and vice versa for positive states.

I know you want to  believe Buddhism promotes the reduction of suffering, but even all their diverse majority nations and sub sects also have a history of conflict. A Tibet Buddhist does not agree with a Chinese Buddhist who doesn't agree with a Japanese Shinto Buddhist. And those competing countries have had their histories of both conflicts with each other and even power struggles within even the same countries that still lead to violence.

And Buddhism is also NOT the only label that claims to have the cure to reduce humanity's suffering. 

And you are doing the same with with "karma" that Christians do with "sin". You can only state your own individual interpretation of "karma" but it is still rooted in superstition and many Buddhists ARE superstitious as individuals. 

"peace breeds peace" I agree, but that is not due to a label. If you raise a kitten and puppy from birth they are far more likely to get along. Now again, if you have not read it, "The New Atheism" by Victor Stinger compares the claims of goals of multiple religions including those of Asia. You compare enough of the world's religions we really do all want that good side of our species, but again, that is not the club doing it, that is the individual doing it.

You are good because you the individual are good. And I am being fair because I can and will admit that there ARE atheists whom I don't like and do see as selfish and greedy and even xenophobic. China has prisons, Tibet has prisons and so does Japan. Our species behaviors, are in us, not the clubs we flock to. 

Labels, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and even atheist, have no magic power to make the individual only do good and always be non violent. All nations, friend and foe alike have hospitals and prisons. That says to me our behaviors are in our genes, not old clubs or old writings.

No other species has our complex language but we can see in other mammals acts of empathy and care for other members. We can also see in other mammals acts of cruelty even to other members. If you have not read that book I would highly recommend you do.

God, you're more stubborn than Drich when it comes to arguing a point that was never made. Be careful you don't become exactly what it is you're arguing against.

If you ever fancy actually reading what I've written, let me know, but until then, peace out. I've addressed everything you've said already, and for that matter agreed with most of it, so this argument is a pointless waste of both of our time because clearly we're talking past each other. That said, I still like you... whether you like me or not is your call... I just see that this is going nowhere and therefore I am choosing to disengage from the argument.

[Brian37]

I know you want to  believe Buddhism promotes the reduction of suffering, but even all their diverse majority nations and sub sects also have a history of conflict. A Tibet Buddhist does not agree with a Chinese Buddhist who doesn't agree with a Japanese Shinto Buddhist. And those competing countries have had their histories of both conflicts with each other and even power struggles within even the same countries that still lead to violence.

And Buddhism is also NOT the only label that claims to have the cure to reduce humanity's suffering. 

And you are doing the same with with "karma" that Christians do with "sin". You can only state your own individual interpretation of "karma" but it is still rooted in superstition and many Buddhists ARE superstitious as individuals. 

"peace breeds peace" I agree, but that is not due to a label. If you raise a kitten and puppy from birth they are far more likely to get along. Now again, if you have not read it, "The New Atheism" by Victor Stinger compares the claims of goals of multiple religions including those of Asia. You compare enough of the world's religions we really do all want that good side of our species, but again, that is not the club doing it, that is the individual doing it.

You are good because you the individual are good. And I am being fair because I can and will admit that there ARE atheists whom I don't like and do see as selfish and greedy and even xenophobic. China has prisons, Tibet has prisons and so does Japan. Our species behaviors, are in us, not the clubs we flock to. 

Labels, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and even atheist, have no magic power to make the individual only do good and always be non violent. All nations, friend and foe alike have hospitals and prisons. That says to me our behaviors are in our genes, not old clubs or old writings.

No other species has our complex language but we can see in other mammals acts of empathy and care for other members. We can also see in other mammals acts of cruelty even to other members. If you have not read that book I would highly recommend you do.

God, you're more stubborn than Drich when it comes to arguing a point that was never made. Be careful you don't become exactly what it is you're arguing against.

If you ever fancy actually reading what I've written, let me know, but until then, peace out. I've addressed everything you've said already, and for that matter agreed with most of it, so this argument is a pointless waste of both of our time because clearly we're talking past each other. That said, I still like you... whether you like me or not is your call... I just see that this is going nowhere and therefore I am choosing to disengage from the argument.

I would like you to point out in any one of my posts where I said I didn't like you. I have been consistent in saying not just to you, but my entire time here, on issues of logic, I don't give anyone a pass, not even fellow atheists. It either makes logical sense or it does not. 

I am not attacking Buddhism because I hate all Buddhists or you for that matter. I am saying that other life existed long before humans and other species display acts of compassion and acts of cruelty. I think you are reading into my posts things are not there. 

I am being fair to you. I like CL too, but I think she got it wrong. I see all religions as mere inventions of humans. I see our ability to be compassionate or cruel in our evolution, not our labels, not even the word "atheist" will magically make a human only do good. That is all I am saying. 

That said, I still like you... whether you like me or not is your call..

Glad you like me, but that is not the issue, the issue is logic and scientific fact. I like you too, but again, still not the issue.

The point is our planet is 4 billion years old and was around long before humans even started writing things down. Our universe is 13.8 billion years old and has 100s billions of galaxies. Our finite time here and our clubs will not matter in 5 billion years. The only thing I agree to right now with humans with beliefs is that they have a right to be free from violence, but even as much as I may like you, I don't see any evidence that it is any different than you found something you like. 


If you want me to say there is more logic to Buddhism, I cant do that. It has lots of pretty art and empathetic historical figures and nice motifs in the writings, sure, but no more required to the universe than I am. It too is merely 1 religion among many.  I am not saying that to burst your bubble, I am saying that because it is true for any human living, no matter the nation, no matter the power or poverty. The ride begins and ends for all of us. 

Sagan's Pale Blue dot is where I am at. Victor Stenger's "The New Atheism" is where I am at. Neil Tyson's COSMOS series is where I am at. We can disagree and even be blunt with each other without feeling like it is some desire to stab each other to death. I simply think, just like with CL a Christian, and Atlas a Muslim that those are clubs you like, but I'd say the good is in the individual and not really a requirement in science in order to explain anything about reality. 

I am ok with you and like you, but on this subject, I don't agree that you need it anymore than you would think CL needs to be a Christian or Atlas needs to be a Muslim. Outside this subject I am sure we can agree on lots. You are from what I have seen a very empathetic person as an individual.

[emjay]

God, you're more stubborn than Drich when it comes to arguing a point that was never made. Be careful you don't become exactly what it is you're arguing against.

If you ever fancy actually reading what I've written, let me know, but until then, peace out. I've addressed everything you've said already, and for that matter agreed with most of it, so this argument is a pointless waste of both of our time because clearly we're talking past each other. That said, I still like you... whether you like me or not is your call... I just see that this is going nowhere and therefore I am choosing to disengage from the argument.

I would like you to point out in any one of my posts where I said I didn't like you. I have been consistent in saying not just to you, but my entire time here, on issues of logic, I don't give anyone a pass, not even fellow atheists. It either makes logical sense or it does not.

I wasn't referring to the whole argument with that, I was just saying in a slightly long-winded way, 'no hard feelings' about choosing to disengage with the argument.

 
I am not attacking Buddhism because I hate all Buddhists or you for that matter. I am saying that other life existed long before humans and other species display acts of compassion and acts of cruelty. I think you are reading into my posts things are not there. 

I am being fair to you. I like CL too, but I think she got it wrong. I see all religions as mere inventions of humans. I see our ability to be compassionate or cruel in our evolution, not our labels, not even the word "atheist" will magically make a human only do good. That is all I am saying.

That said, I still like you... whether you like me or not is your call..

Glad you like me, but that is not the issue, the issue is logic and scientific fact. I like you too, but again, still not the issue.

The point is our planet is 4 billion years old and was around long before humans even started writing things down. Our universe is 13.8 billion years old and has 100s billions of galaxies. Our finite time here and our clubs will not matter in 5 billion years. The only thing I agree to right now with humans with beliefs is that they have a right to be free from violence, but even as much as I may like you, I don't see any evidence that it is any different than you found something you like. 


If you want me to say there is more logic to Buddhism, I cant do that. It has lots of pretty art and empathetic historical figures and nice motifs in the writings, sure, but no more required to the universe than I am. It too is merely 1 religion among many.  I am not saying that to burst your bubble, I am saying that because it is true for any human living, no matter the nation, no matter the power or poverty. The ride begins and ends for all of us. 

Sagan's Pale Blue dot is where I am at. Victor Stenger's "The New Atheism" is where I am at. Neil Tyson's COSMOS series is where I am at. We can disagree and even be blunt with each other without feeling like it is some desire to stab each other to death. I simply think, just like with CL a Christian, and Atlas a Muslim that those are clubs you like, but I'd say the good is in the individual and not really a requirement in science in order to explain anything about reality. 

I am ok with you and like you, but on this subject, I don't agree that you need it anymore than you would think CL needs to be a Christian or Atlas needs to be a Muslim. Outside this subject I am sure we can agree on lots. You are from what I have seen a very empathetic person as an individual.

Let me try another tack... because clearly the word Buddhism has a lot of baggage for you which is getting in the way of our conversation. Would you be equally as vocal if I talked about the psychological schools of thought I agree with and find helpful? If I say for instance, I'm not a fan of Freud because I think it's too vague, but I do find say Alfred Adler, appealing. So if I was going for therapy, I would not choose Freudian psychoanalysis because I'm dubious of it's value, but I might choose Adlerian therapy, because it makes sense to me. So if I said, 'I personally benefit from Adlerian therapy' would you find fault with that? And if I further added to the statement, 'but that's just me... you might prefer something else', would you find fault? If the answer is no, then as far as I'm concerned there is no difference... as far as I'm concerned, the-word-that-shall-not-be-mentioned is just another psychological school of thought, like Freud or Adler; I personally find it, or parts of it, psychologically helpful just as I could with any other therapy, but that does not mean I'm trying to enforce it on you or anyone else. I'm not claiming it to be the sole source of happiness in the world, just one option among many, of 'therapy', which I personally find helpful.

You maintain that it's not logical, but all I can really say to that is you're talking about something else other than what I'm talking about because, especially where psychology and neuroscience are concerned... which are my passions, I do not take anything lightly or on faith, almost pathologically... I personally find it logically and demonstrably compelling and that's the only way it could have been compelling for me; because I'm not looking for a magic pill and wouldn't trust it even if it was offered... my mind just doesn't work that way... hence why I'm not a theist.

[Brian37]

I would like you to point out in any one of my posts where I said I didn't like you. I have been consistent in saying not just to you, but my entire time here, on issues of logic, I don't give anyone a pass, not even fellow atheists. It either makes logical sense or it does not.

I wasn't referring to the whole argument with that, I was just saying in a slightly long-winded way, 'no hard feelings' about choosing to disengage with the argument.

 
I am not attacking Buddhism because I hate all Buddhists or you for that matter. I am saying that other life existed long before humans and other species display acts of compassion and acts of cruelty. I think you are reading into my posts things are not there. 

I am being fair to you. I like CL too, but I think she got it wrong. I see all religions as mere inventions of humans. I see our ability to be compassionate or cruel in our evolution, not our labels, not even the word "atheist" will magically make a human only do good. That is all I am saying.


Glad you like me, but that is not the issue, the issue is logic and scientific fact. I like you too, but again, still not the issue.

The point is our planet is 4 billion years old and was around long before humans even started writing things down. Our universe is 13.8 billion years old and has 100s billions of galaxies. Our finite time here and our clubs will not matter in 5 billion years. The only thing I agree to right now with humans with beliefs is that they have a right to be free from violence, but even as much as I may like you, I don't see any evidence that it is any different than you found something you like. 


If you want me to say there is more logic to Buddhism, I cant do that. It has lots of pretty art and empathetic historical figures and nice motifs in the writings, sure, but no more required to the universe than I am. It too is merely 1 religion among many.  I am not saying that to burst your bubble, I am saying that because it is true for any human living, no matter the nation, no matter the power or poverty. The ride begins and ends for all of us. 

Sagan's Pale Blue dot is where I am at. Victor Stenger's "The New Atheism" is where I am at. Neil Tyson's COSMOS series is where I am at. We can disagree and even be blunt with each other without feeling like it is some desire to stab each other to death. I simply think, just like with CL a Christian, and Atlas a Muslim that those are clubs you like, but I'd say the good is in the individual and not really a requirement in science in order to explain anything about reality. 

I am ok with you and like you, but on this subject, I don't agree that you need it anymore than you would think CL needs to be a Christian or Atlas needs to be a Muslim. Outside this subject I am sure we can agree on lots. You are from what I have seen a very empathetic person as an individual.

Let me try another tack... because clearly the word Buddhism has a lot of baggage for you which is getting in the way of our conversation. Would you be equally as vocal if I talked about the psychological schools of thought I agree with and find helpful? If I say for instance, I'm not a fan of Freud because I think it's too vague, but I do find say Alfred Adler, appealing. So if I was going for therapy, I would not choose Freudian psychoanalysis because I'm dubious of it's value, but I might choose Adlerian therapy, because it makes sense to me. So if I said, 'I personally benefit from Adlerian therapy' would you find fault with that? And if I further added to the statement, 'but that's just me... you might prefer something else', would you find fault? If the answer is no, then as far as I'm concerned there is no difference... as far as I'm concerned, the-word-that-shall-not-be-mentioned is just another psychological school of thought, like Freud or Adler; I personally find it, or parts of it, psychologically helpful just as I could with any other therapy, but that does not mean I'm trying to enforce it on you or anyone else. I'm not claiming it to be the sole source of happiness in the world, just one option among many, of 'therapy', which I personally find helpful.

You maintain that it's not logical, but all I can really say to that is you're talking about something else other than what I'm talking about because, especially where psychology and neuroscience are concerned... which are my passions, I do not take anything lightly or on faith, almost pathologically... I personally find it logically and demonstrably compelling and that's the only way it could have been compelling for me; because I'm not looking for a magic pill and wouldn't trust it even if it was offered... my mind just doesn't work that way... hence why I'm not a theist.

Whatever scientist get wrong they hash out in a lab, the same cannot be done with religion.

Buddhism is not a philosophy, it is a religion. It has the same flaws all others do, and it has sub sects that do not agree. You can call it a "school of thought" all you want, but it is not a science textbook either. 

Now I really would suggest you read "The New Atheism" because Victor takes issue with Sam Harris too in his attempt to use neuroscience to point to Buddhist rituals. My argument would be to Sam, "Yea I hear you claim that, but Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon too".  Sam would argue you can skip the superstitious stuff too. But no, the seeming ability to control ones body can also be found in the training in Navy Seals. 

"My passions" yes and? Other people with other religions are also passionate about mixing science to point to their likes and clubs. Neutral science in a lab does not work like that.

And again, even with someone like Sam, and I DO LIKE HIM, up and until he talks about how science points to Buddhism. It still remains other life existed long before humans, so if Buddhism were an evolutionary requirement we would not be here at all, or we would have been Buddhists 150,000 years ago from the start in our early evolution. And it still remains that in 5 billion years none of us will be here and none of the religions we have created as humans will be here. 

Just because ANY label creates something does not make the label a cure. It only means someone or some group made a discovery. This is the same logic I have a problem with when people point to Aquinas or Newton to point to the bible. If it worked like that then one could argue Islam is the one valid and true religion because Arabs invented algebra.

Along with Stenger's "The New Atheism". I'd also highly suggest you watch all 13 episodes of the COSMOS series hosted by Neil. 

Our species ability to make discoveries or find patterns in things is evolutionary too, but it does not make the religion a requirement itself, it only means we have evolved to be curious. We know that other primates use sticks to dig into termite hills which makes the stick a tool. Our developed language is only one attribute of one species. 

If you wont use the bible to explain the big bang, and you wont use the Koran to explain entropy or gravity, why should Buddhism be given any favor? Because Sam Harris said so? He isn't the only neurologist and other neurologists exists all over the world in all the world's religions. Hospitals exist in every nation. 

I am not saying that to be mean. I am simply looking at 13.8 billion years of the universe knowing we are only minutes old metaphorically speaking and the universe didn't care about us then and wont after we go extinct. Humans are the only thing that can care about other humans.

Of course their rituals have an affect on the body, but that works the same way prayer does, if you think it will work it most likely will make you feel like it does work. But that still does not make Asia's history violence free or conflict free or prison free. 

Buddhism doesn't have "baggage" for me anymore than any other religion has "baggage" for me. I am not rejecting it for emotional reasons. I am saying it is no more special and no more a cure for 7 billion humans than any other. Again, our species is far older than written religions or sedentary farming.

[emjay]

I wasn't referring to the whole argument with that, I was just saying in a slightly long-winded way, 'no hard feelings' about choosing to disengage with the argument.


Let me try another tack... because clearly the word Buddhism has a lot of baggage for you which is getting in the way of our conversation. Would you be equally as vocal if I talked about the psychological schools of thought I agree with and find helpful? If I say for instance, I'm not a fan of Freud because I think it's too vague, but I do find say Alfred Adler, appealing. So if I was going for therapy, I would not choose Freudian psychoanalysis because I'm dubious of it's value, but I might choose Adlerian therapy, because it makes sense to me. So if I said, 'I personally benefit from Adlerian therapy' would you find fault with that? And if I further added to the statement, 'but that's just me... you might prefer something else', would you find fault? If the answer is no, then as far as I'm concerned there is no difference... as far as I'm concerned, the-word-that-shall-not-be-mentioned is just another psychological school of thought, like Freud or Adler; I personally find it, or parts of it, psychologically helpful just as I could with any other therapy, but that does not mean I'm trying to enforce it on you or anyone else. I'm not claiming it to be the sole source of happiness in the world, just one option among many, of 'therapy', which I personally find helpful.

You maintain that it's not logical, but all I can really say to that is you're talking about something else other than what I'm talking about because, especially where psychology and neuroscience are concerned... which are my passions, I do not take anything lightly or on faith, almost pathologically... I personally find it logically and demonstrably compelling and that's the only way it could have been compelling for me; because I'm not looking for a magic pill and wouldn't trust it even if it was offered... my mind just doesn't work that way... hence why I'm not a theist.

Whatever scientist get wrong they hash out in a lab, the same cannot be done with religion.

Buddhism is not a philosophy, it is a religion. It has the same flaws all others do, and it has sub sects that do not agree. You can call it a "school of thought" all you want, but it is not a science textbook either. 

I can see this is going to be a looong night Buddhism is a philosophy and school of thought to me... that's what I take from it. To other people it may be other things, religion included. I'm not speaking for those others, I'm speaking for me. And I do disagree with you there, I think it is perfectly valid as what you'd call a science textbook; everything it proposes (except reincarnation which is basically speculation) is demonstrable by looking in your own mind.

Yes or no, do you agree that mental objects are transient... i.e. they come and go? Mental objects meaning anything you can be aware of... sights, sounds, thoughts, emotions etc.

Yes or no, do you agree that the more you engage with any of these mental objects, the stronger they grow... the more they pull you in?

Put them together, say we have time t, and time t+1. Faced with a pointless conversation that is going to go nowhere, and only cause stress all round... as with say a theist or an ABBA fan  ... at time t. I can either engage and at t+1 still be arguing, getting stressed, getting angry... generally feeling shitty. Or at time t I can disengage... say 'fuck it... it's not important... let him have the last word... my pride is only transient anyway so it doesn't matter' and go off and watch some Netflix and at time t+1 be watching the end credits of the film. In the first case I've made myself miserable for no good reason, because nothing would come from the argument (which is why as general rule I don't bother debating with theists any more... or honourary theists... which you're in danger of becoming ), but in the second case I've let it go and moved on to something I do enjoy.

So as far I'm concerned that's as demonstrable as it needs to be, and doing that has made me a lot happier all round. Basically, so much shit in life just ain't worth it.

Do you disagree with the logic of this? And are you claiming that mindfulness and meditation, which basically boil down to that, have no value in life as psychological tools? For you they may not, but for me they demonstrably do... and for the sake of my own mental well being, that's what's important for me... what works for me.

Now I really would suggest you read "The New Atheism" because Victor takes issue with Sam Harris too in his attempt to use neuroscience to point to Buddhist rituals. My argument would be to Sam, "Yea I hear you claim that, but Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon too".  Sam would argue you can skip the superstitious stuff too. But no, the seeming ability to control ones body can also be found in the training in Navy Seals.

Tell you what, I'll read your books if you read mine   Not likely I know, but had to ask.

"My passions" yes and? Other people with other religions are also passionate about mixing science to point to their likes and clubs. Neutral science in a lab does not work like that.

I'll let you have the last word on that. Those who know me on here and have seen me debate psychology, neuroscience, and the mind, know what I mean, even if you don't.

And again, even with someone like Sam, and I DO LIKE HIM, up and until he talks about how science points to Buddhism. It still remains other life existed long before humans, so if Buddhism were an evolutionary requirement we would not be here at all, or we would have been Buddhists 150,000 years ago from the start in our early evolution. And it still remains that in 5 billion years none of us will be here and none of the religions we have created as humans will be here. 

Just because ANY label creates something does not make the label a cure. It only means someone or some group made a discovery. This is the same logic I have a problem with when people point to Aquinas or Newton to point to the bible. If it worked like that then one could argue Islam is the one valid and true religion because Arabs invented algebra.

Along with Stenger's "The New Atheism". I'd also highly suggest you watch all 13 episodes of the COSMOS series hosted by Neil. 

Our species ability to make discoveries or find patterns in things is evolutionary too, but it does not make the religion a requirement itself, it only means we have evolved to be curious. We know that other primates use sticks to dig into termite hills which makes the stick a tool. Our developed language is only one attribute of one species. 

If you wont use the bible to explain the big bang, and you wont use the Koran to explain entropy or gravity, why should Buddhism be given any favor? Because Sam Harris said so? He isn't the only neurologist and other neurologists exists all over the world in all the world's religions. Hospitals exist in every nation. 

I am not saying that to be mean. I am simply looking at 13.8 billion years of the universe knowing we are only minutes old metaphorically speaking and the universe didn't care about us then and wont after we go extinct. Humans are the only thing that can care about other humans.

Of course their rituals have an affect on the body, but that works the same way prayer does, if you think it will work it most likely will make you feel like it does work. But that still does not make Asia's history violence free or conflict free or prison free. 

Buddhism doesn't have "baggage" for me anymore than any other religion has "baggage" for me. I am not rejecting it for emotional reasons. I am saying it is no more special and no more a cure for 7 billion humans than any other. Again, our species is far older than written religions or sedentary farming.

Again, you're arguing against an argument I'm not making. I don't know Sam Harris... never seen/read anything from him/her. And I've already said, I don't care where the knowledge comes from... it could be the Buddha or a bloke from the pub... so therefore I'm not claiming as you seem to think I'm claiming that Buddhism owns the copyright as it were to anything it says or has 'discovered'. I'm saying that something I find helpful, just happens to come from a Buddhist source.

Anyway, now I'm going to go and watch Netflix, which I should've done ages ago, because this argument is indeed utterly pointless. I may as well be a brick wall to you, for the amount you're actually reading, without bias, what I'm saying. I'm just your sounding board, to rant about Buddhism, but I suggest you save those arguments for someone who's actually making the points you're arguing against. Goodnight.

[Brian37]

Buddhism is a religion, the fact that some individuals or sects want to call it a philosophy does not cut it. It is a spin off of Hinduism and incorporates Hindu ideas and that religion is far older. And if you have not you should do research on the oldest known Buddhism mythology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(moth...he_Buddha)  Concepts of heaven too.

Cure to human suffering? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

Cure to misogyny maybe?





https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4021...f-buddhism

Even this following article talks about "spirituality" and "nirvana" and "past lives".

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/8d.asp

There is no such thing as going through one's life never suffering at all, it is physically impossible so there is no such thing as "nirvana".  And there is absolutely no scientific evidence that your cognition was a different life form prior or will become another life form in the future. But to claim no Buddhist believes those things is not true. Even in parts of Asia you have individuals and sects that believe in evil spirits and the word for them are "nats". 

Now after you read all that and view the video you are going to come back with "well they aren't doing it right" or "they don't have the right "philosophy". The fact there are so many sub sects and different majority nations says everything about the RELIGION being no different than any other.  Buddhism has overlap with Hinduism, and funny that, Asia is right next to India.

https://sites.google.com/a/cbmsonline.ne...d-hinduism

[emjay]

Buddhism is a religion, the fact that some individuals or sects want to call it a philosophy does not cut it. It is a spin off of Hinduism and incorporates Hindu ideas and that religion is far older. And if you have not you should do research on the oldest known Buddhism mythology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(moth...he_Buddha)  Concepts of heaven too.

Cure to human suffering? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

Cure to misogyny maybe?





https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4021...f-buddhism

Even this following article talks about "spirituality" and "nirvana" and "past lives".

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/8d.asp

There is no such thing as going through one's life never suffering at all, it is physically impossible so there is no such thing as "nirvana".  And there is absolutely no scientific evidence that your cognition was a different life form prior or will become another life form in the future. But to claim no Buddhist believes those things is not true. Even in parts of Asia you have individuals and sects that believe in evil spirits and the word for them are "nats". 

Now after you read all that and view the video you are going to come back with "well they aren't doing it right" or "they don't have the right "philosophy". The fact there are so many sub sects and different majority nations says everything about the RELIGION being no different than any other.  Buddhism has overlap with Hinduism, and funny that, Asia is right next to India.

https://sites.google.com/a/cbmsonline.ne...d-hinduism

Goodnight Brian. I won't be coming back with anything... that's me done here. Wish I could say it's been a pleasure talking to you, but I can't. You've now officially been upgraded to an honourary theist... a title I reserve for only the most stubborn and biased atheists. Give yourself a pat on the back, or fuck off, whichever you prefer.

[The Grand Nudger]

By and large, western buddhism was packaged as a product and heavily retconned to a western (and psuedo-scientific) perspective.  Individual practitioners (or interested parties) further retcon or read in what they wish to see - largely along their own interests.  Case in point, emjay likes psychology and neuroscience..and so sees it in whatever is being referred to as "buddhist philosophy".  

It's entirely likely that whatever emjay is referring to as buddhist philosophy bares about as much resemblance to the religion of buddhism as a fish does to an elephant.

[Brian37]

By and large, western buddhism was packaged as a product and heavily retconned to a western (and psuedo-scientific) perspective.  Individual practitioners (or interested parties) further retcon or read in what they wish to see - largely along their own interests.  Case in point, emjay likes psychology and neuroscience..and so sees it in whatever is being referred to as "buddhist philosophy".  

It's entirely likely that whatever emjay is referring to as buddhist philosophy bares about as much resemblance to the religion of buddhism as a fish does to an elephant.

I really do know what she is doing mentally with her argument and I see that attempt to separate the religion from it's past by trying to take out all the mythology in even Jews, we do know Jews some of them don't literally believe in a God but call themselves "secular Jews" are try to call it a race or ethnic group. This does not work because it is a religion. The Jewish Yahweh was a character name taking from prior Canaanite polytheism. 

Even Bill O'Reilly once tried to call Catholicism a "philosophy". 

But ok, if it is merely a "philosophy" so what, still stuck with different sects who don't agree with what the correct "philosophy" is, and it still does not change that others DO buy into the superstitions. See the links in my prior post. 

This is the same type of avoiding the past I see from Christians who call something metaphor now. The further back in time you go in any religion the more literally and truly more people believed in spirits and the divine world. No religion escapes this.

It is the same attempt to revise some older interpretation to avoid the pratfalls and bad logic of the older interpretations. Changing the "interpretations" does not make it a "philosophy". 

And again, in that one article, it says the same thing she argues, "it is about reducing suffering', well sounds nice sure, but human empathy is a evolutionary trait, not even a "philosophy" but an evolutionary observation in a very real scientific fact. Again we even see other species display acts of sharing and compassion for the group.