What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[emjay]

That is the SECOND TIME you posted that meme, and I posted SEVERAL links to articles of OTHER religions pointing to science too. 

EVERYONE of ALL religions when they cant peddle their writings flat out, either try to debunk science, and when they cant do that try to claim science points to their club. EVERYONE does it!

There is no Catholic theory of gravity.
There is no Jewish theory of evolution.
There is no Hindu entropy.
There is no Buddhist law of thermodynamics.

Humans make discoveries? NO SHIT, now would you like me to post video of primates using tools?

You continue to misrepresent me and I can't tell if it's deliberate and thus disingenuous or just the result of massive amounts of confirmation bias. Either way, it sucks.

Unless you've been talking to actual Buddhists, then you're just using me - a non-Buddhist - as 'evidence' that Buddhists point to science.

If you are as neutral and objective as you say you are, then if you're going to make a claim about what Buddhists do, then you should only accept that evidence from an actual Buddhist! Ie don't use me to bolster your case because that's dishonest, biased, or both.

There is a HUGE difference between what you are claiming theists do (and what you are implicitly claiming I did, notwithstanding the falsely attributed claim that Buddhist's do it - if based only on the strength of what a non-Buddhist, ie me, said) and what I actually did:

Case 1. When theists are theists FIRST and THEN cherry pick, from INSIDE, the parts of their religion that agree with science, that is rationalisation after the fact because it did not play a part in the formation of their belief system.
Case 2. I am an atheist and skeptic FIRST and THEN cherry pick, from OUTSIDE, parts of a religion/philosophy (in this case Buddhism) that make logical, rational, and scientific sense.

The difference is the motivation: case 1 uses science to rationalise preexisting irrational beliefs and case 2 uses rational thought/skepticism and science first to test the validity of something before accepting it. Big difference.

As I've said before, I do not give a flying fuck where Meditation and Mindfulness come from. Mindfulness happens to come from Buddhism. Meditation comes from Buddhism and probably many other Eastern traditions... it doesn't matter where they come from because they have been cherry picked from the outside for their psychological usefulness; they are beneficial in the context of certain psychological therapies and science agrees that they are. That's all I've ever said. But you continue to imply that regarding me, it is a case 1 situation when it is clearly case 2, and further, you imply that I am claiming the 'patent' for those discoveries should go to Buddhism, when I have repeatedly said, including in this paragraph, that I don't give a fuck where it comes from, only whether it's good. On that point I agree fully with you: no one owns the patent to knowledge.

So can we drop this now, please? If you want to make claims about what Buddhists say, please wait until you speak to one and don't drag me into it. That's all I'm asking.