(April 16, 2017 at 3:13 pm)emjay Wrote:(April 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm)Brian37 Wrote: 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.
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.
