What is your favourite positive argument for atheism/unbelief?

[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.