(April 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(April 16, 2017 at 1:16 pm)emjay Wrote: 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.
Quote:
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.
Quote: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.
