What is your favourite positive argument for atheism/unbelief?

[emjay]

I can't tell whether you're raging against me in all of this and it's making me paranoid. For the record, as I said, I'm not a Buddhist... but I do 'like what I was sold' to the extent that I agree with it but just as like what I was sold with any psychological theory or whatever that I agree with. Course I can get pissed if I think it's being misrepresented, but I think you'd be the same if you perceived someone misrepresenting ABBA (I'm afraid
I can't do that, cos they're cool ). Anyway, I don't think it's the source of humanity's goodness... indeed it goes very much against human nature... just a tool to reduce suffering by stepping back from shit... ie stepping back from 'attachment' to things or emotional states like anger. As you can see I'm not that good at it (at least right now), but that varies, and a better Buddhist simply would not care at all what other others thought about them... whether they were misrepresented etc... because that's what non-attachment leads to. So I'm not trying to sell it to you, just responding to a perceived attack... but at the same time, aware that that is attachment (to anger, pride etc) and therefore something I should let go for my own good... it's just harder sometimes than others, and I'm more self-aware/mindful sometimes than others.

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.