Our theists of all labels please answer....

[Brian37]

Nobody is trying to bait anyone.

I am sorry it bothers you that I am including all religions in this thread. I would say the opposite. I would say that it is because everyone is stuck in their own corners and don't compare and dig in their heals, as much as I love the empathy of my fellow liberals, this reaction is exactly what allows the far right to cause the worst of our species divisions.

"Live and let live" is not an argument, of course we don't need more global divisions or violence. Nobody should want that. But no, sorry, if our species never questioned social norms we would not have progressed. 

This isn't a rights issue one bit so please don't try to imply that or try to hide behind it. 

I am quite sure Catholic Lady doesn't want more hate and violence.
I am quite sure that Atlas or MK don't want that either.
I like you too, and I am sure you don't want that either.

This is STRICTLY about logic and facts and reason, and trying to get people to focus that our personal beliefs cannot replace a neutral setting which has produced our modern understanding of the world through neutral scientific method. 

"Why you feel the need" to hold one club over another is precisely why the more closed societies and more bigoted violent sects in the world get away with hiding behind well intended liberals. This thread is needed and the conversation is needed. It isn't a call to end religion or get people to fight each other. It is to get more to think objectively.

Okay, I'll bite... for a while.

a) I am not a Buddhist.
b) I only trust science
c) I only trust Buddhist teachings where they agree with science. For instance, mindfulness plays a big part in many psychological therapies these days, especially in the realms of anger management. My sister is a psychologist and she uses mindfulness extensively in her work.

So can we at least get that out the way? So I am not representative of any club or religion. If Jesus had anything to say about psychology, and it made sense in line with science, I might take that advice on board too, but that wouldn't make me a Christian. So what I'm saying is I am not exclusively drawn to Buddhist teachings... I do not think it is right and everything else is wrong, I'm only drawn to teachings that make good psychological sense and agree with science.

I accept you when you say you are  not a Buddhist. Not my point. You still like to think science points to some of the Buddhist teachings. So what.

If you stop focusing on yourself and spend some time looking at other religion's arguments you will see they also accept some science but only up and until it points away from their club/writings. 

Sam Harris is also not a Buddhist. He also likes using his neurology degree to point to "some" of the Buddhist teachings. Problem is Ben Carson, a Christian, also has a neurology degree, but would claim that because the body is so complex that makes his bible the one true book. I am also sure Ben Carson would cherry pick that book and ignore it when science doesn't match his book and that is what cherry picking does.

"Neurology" is neutral, not "Neurology points to Buddhism" not "Neurology points to the bible".

You are not a Buddhist but still not my point. 

If your point is that Buddhism teaches you to be kind and science points to empathy so therefor "some" of the Buddhist teachings are correct. Well again, you still have other individuals of other positions that would claim the same things even if secular, and point to other writings of other clubs.

There are scientists with degrees in every nation and they also accept some science too, and ignore the other fantastic  claims and or rituals that don't match science. 

You can also find "secular Jews", those are people who like the rituals but dont believe in a real god. They would also use science to point to their Jewish history.

I think you like the idea of empathy and compassion and the reduction of suffering, and that is good. I am simply saying that empathetic desire, which is the good side of our species, isn't explained by old religions, but modern things like psychology, psychiatry and neurology. 

We already know that other species also display acts of empathy and sharing, and that tells me that our behaviors are not coming out of any religion or any "teaching" but are because of our natural evolution.

[Athene]

Oh, sure...'Cause the gobbleygook MK sucks up is the Really, Really, Real Deal.
Ha, ha....So, say ALL you motherfuckers.

Got anything BESIDES your stupid feelings/dumb-ass poetry, that justifies your claiming ultimate supremacy and "truthiness" over CL's brand of Catholic Voodoo?

I have a lot of evidence. A lot that I have not shown. But let me know when you are interested. 

Yeah, I'm interested in evidence...Now, quit offering more WORDS, and show me some goddamned MAGIC!
Right now! Let's see it!

Every thread that I begin to talk about a bit of these proofs, people, spiral out of control to demanding proof for God in the first place.

"Out of control"???  For demanding proof, before wholeheartedly accepting your version Magic, Invisible Overseer? Hell, I suppose you're right. 'Cause let's face it; your incessant whining, shitty poetry, and mere insistence should be enough any 'reasonable' person, right?

Sorry for being so 'difficult'...heh heh.

[Minimalist]

Ok here is a claim:

Yes, that's a claim all right.  Too bad you have no evidence to back it up!

[Brian37]

I have a lot of evidence. A lot that I have not shown. But let me know when you are interested. 

Yeah, I'm interested in evidence...Now, quit offering more WORDS, and show me some goddamned MAGIC!
Right now! Let's see it!

Every thread that I begin to talk about a bit of these proofs, people, spiral out of control to demanding proof for God in the first place.

"Out of control"???  For demanding proof, before wholeheartedly accepting your version Magic, Invisible Overseer? Hell, I suppose you're right. 'Cause let's face it; your incessant whining, shitty poetry, and mere insistence should be enough any 'reasonable' person, right?

Sorry for being so 'difficult'...heh heh.

@Mystic

How is this thread "out of control"? Of course we are demanding evidence, but not just from you. Catholic Lady has been in here too posting, and even emjay while not a Buddhist is also trying to claim science matches some of Buddhism's teaching. There is NOTHING personal going on here to you, or anyone.

It is why I started this thread for EVERYONE, and nobody has been able so far to make an argument that proves they are being neutral, you haven't CL has not and Emjay has not. 

That is why all of you need to ASK YOURSELVES, why you feel the need to hold your respective positions. Not what you believe or why you believe, but why you feel the need to hold your positions. 

The point is to get everyone of ANY label to consider that they do have a bias and are not being neutral.

Catholic Lady thinks she is being objective and neutral.
Emjay thinks she is also being objective and neutral.
I am sure if we had a Jew in this thread they would claim the same.
I am sure if we had a Hindu in this thread they would claim the same.

All of you will accept some science up and until it points away from your personal bias's. 

THAT is why I ask, "Why do you feel the need to hold your position". It cannot be considered neutral or objective if you have already pointed in one direction over all others.

If something is neutral, it doesn't point to anything, it is peer reviewed independently and can be replicated outside one's own personal bias.

[emjay]

I think you like the idea of empathy and compassion and the reduction of suffering, and that is good. I am simply saying that empathetic desire, which is the good side of our species, isn't explained by old religions, but modern things like psychology, psychiatry and neurology. 

We already know that other species also display acts of empathy and sharing, and that tells me that our behaviors are not coming out of any religion or any "teaching" but are because of our natural evolution.

I agree... empathy is innate... can I go now?

---

BTW Brian, I'm a bloke

[Brian37]

I think you like the idea of empathy and compassion and the reduction of suffering, and that is good. I am simply saying that empathetic desire, which is the good side of our species, isn't explained by old religions, but modern things like psychology, psychiatry and neurology. 

We already know that other species also display acts of empathy and sharing, and that tells me that our behaviors are not coming out of any religion or any "teaching" but are because of our natural evolution.

I agree... empathy is innate... can I go now?  

SILENCE!  No, not until I work you over with brass knuckles and pepper spray.

If you agree empathy is innate, then why would you feel the need to point to any "teachings". If empathy is in us, and I agree it is us, then no need to follow or like anything. You can, sure, but why would you feel the need? If you like that then ultimately you are admitting it is merely something you like, and not something that is required. Empathy being innate, and I agree proves no label or writing is required to explain where our empathy comes from.

FOAM FOAM FOAM, FROTH FROTH FROTH..... FIST SHAKE, ........ ABBA VIDEO! 

Just something for you to consider. If it is simply a personal like, then admit it, that's all. 

But once you go beyond calling it something that is more than a like, then you cant simply claim objectivity, you have to produce a neutral method and allow it to have independent peer review.

---

Son of a bitch sorry emjay, all this time I thought you were female.

NOW SEE that is also part of this, our brains gap fill and our perceptions of reality can be flawed. I don't know how I got that idea, but I gap filled. But now that you have corrected me, I now know you are a bloke.

[emjay]

I agree... empathy is innate... can I go now?  

SILENCE!  No, not until I work you over with brass knuckles and pepper spray.

I thought you were already doing that  

If you agree empathy is innate, then why would you feel the need to point to any "teachings". If empathy is in us, and I agree it is us, then no need to follow or like anything. You can, sure, but why would you feel the need? If you like that then ultimately you are admitting it is merely something you like, and not something that is required. Empathy being innate, and I agree proves no label or writing is required to explain where our empathy comes from.

Because mindfulness is not about empathy, it's about recognising your own mental state, whatever it is... eg recognising when you're feeling angry... which is also an innate state... and therefore taking a step back from it. Once you recognise a mental state you're in objectively, it loses some of its power over you... you can then choose whether to get sucked into it or let it go.

You may like being in anger but I don't. To me, anger is a miserable state to be in and one I'd rather not be in if I can help it... and with mindfulness I can help it. It is a way of tackling suffering from the inside; of accepting that you can't control the world, only your response to it. If you're angry and you argue with other angry people, nothing good ever comes from it... both sides dig in... both sides suffer from tunnel vision... both sides want to be right... both sides don't want to back down etc. But if you objectively recognise all of that, you can nip it in the bud before it starts or let go of whatever fuels it later on... such as personal feelings of pride.

FOAM FOAM FOAM, FROTH FROTH FROTH..... FIST SHAKE, ........ ABBA VIDEO! 

Please do... we could do with some ABBA

Just something for you to consider. If it is simply a personal like, then admit it, that's all. 

But once you go beyond calling it something that is more than a like, then you cant simply claim objectivity, you have to produce a neutral method and allow it to have independent peer review.

It is a personal thing... 'like'... and that's all I've ever said. It's a psychological approach that works for me... something else may work for you. But it only appeals to me on logical/scientific grounds; I do not believe in gods, I do not believe in reincarnation, I am not superstitious in any way, shape, or form. I'm aware of all the tricks the mind can play... confirmation bias, self-fulfilling prophesies, gap-filling as you mention below. Mindfulness speaks for itself, wherever the idea comes from because at it's core it's simply a means of introspection. I've always been introspective, long before I learnt about Buddhism, so I was already being mindful in many regards... Buddhist teachings just built on that and that's why they appealed. As to peer review, I'm sure it's already been done, to the extent that it's used in modern psychological therapy. But as I said, it speaks for itself because it's just observation of your own mind.

Son of a bitch sorry emjay, all this time I thought you were female.

NOW SEE that is also part of this, our brains gap fill and our perceptions of reality can be flawed. I don't know how I got that idea, but I gap filled. But now that you have corrected me, I now know you are a bloke.

No worries... you're not the first I'm just a gay bloke and not particularly manly... I'd rather talk about feelings than football... so that's probably why

[Neo-Scholastic]

From this thread and repeated posts found elsewhere, Brian37 has shown no interest in why theists hold the beliefs they do. Instead he foolishly thinks the plurality of religions, sects and denominations is a incontrovertible defeater, which of course it is not. It's like him saying that a birthday party never happened just because the guests don't completely agree on who attended, whether the cake was chocolate, or if there was a pinata.

[Valyza1]

I don't know

[Brian37]

From this thread and repeated posts found elsewhere, Brian37 has shown no interest in why theists hold the beliefs they do. Instead he foolishly thinks the plurality of religions, sects and denominations is a incontrovertible defeater, which of course it is not. It's like him saying that a birthday party never happened just because the guests don't completely agree on who attended, whether the cake was chocolate, or if there was a pinata.

No sorry, I am not the bad guy for challenging all labels to expand their sample rate. I am not the bad guy for saying that ONLY independent peer review is the only neutral filter that is agreed upon.

I accept the age of our species which was around long before any written religion. I accept he age of the planet as 4 billion years old, also older than our species. I accept the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years old, also older than any written religion.

Instead of blaming me for what you bought, why don't YOU consider your pet bias is merely that. Maybe you got it wrong and that your desire for a god to exist is merely your own evolutionary desire to be "forever'.

It was understandable in all of antiquity that people made claims of Osiris, Apollo, Allah and Buddha and Jesus, because EVERYONE back then mistook their good fortunes as coming from a higher "divinity".

That was then, this is now.