nyouremyperfect10

To promote clarity and ease of reading, I'll answer your points below: - Meditation en masse is and has not been practiced in Western culture. You cite that psychologists cite the non-spiritual aspect, but psychologists themselves do not. Why then on Dr. Oz does he use Eastern imagery to promote meditation? So if one is a Christian, is meditating to Buddha compatible with Jesus' teachings? - I accept change, as I presume most do, based on the evidence/arguments at hand. Most major social changes over the past 200 years have been as such. I doubt abolitionists said "blacks shouldn't be slaves because we say so." Psychologists use pseudo-spiritual belief to justify that "everybody" should meditate, without promoting the non-spiritual aspect. Besides, who is to say most people in the West wouldn't agree with me? Who can read minds say they wouldn't or don't? Most people don't really meditate in that fashion, and citing it as "common" is silly. I have an open mind, but as with any human I question things that are alien to my culture or upbringing. So per you comments, persons in India who bemoan young women wearing revealing clothes are "evil", or commenting on something contrary to their cultural norms? - I'm just citing a suspicion when I mention a plot/agenda, and generally I consider myself a very intuitive person. - In my experience, psychologists don't seek to describe as per science in general, but say what SHOULD be. So yeah, tigers are obligate carnivores since mammalogists SAY so, not via observation or testing of behaviour or tigers' digestive tract....

People contradict. You do, all humans do it. Kindly state why mine are wrong, and yours are right?

So thinking per se is meditation? lol.. yeah, so if I meet my girlfriend after a hard day's work in the mall and think "damn, I need to be in there tonight" this is meditation or just anticipation or prospective thought? lololol... I think you're making apologetics for the "profession".

Do you know if bees can philosophise on their social structures? Again, humans can, right?

So homo erectus and the Australopithecenes meditated? I'd like to see Leakey, Johanson or Springer validate that. lolol.. Kindly prove your point that meditation is not religious, and that the bulk of psychologists affirm this. I dispute subjective "mental illness", this is often used as a tool for ill. As it's subjective, then mental illness can be assigned to anybody who is not normal. People can assign this label to persons they don't like nor approve of, and thus justify it via the subjectivity.

No, I meant sapient. A cat is sentient (nay, all mammalians are) but is not as far as we can tell sapient. Thus, we can reflect on our social structures, bees cannot (again, as far as we can tell).

Stoicism is a minority belief/value system. Again, how does a minority value system denote widespread practice? lol.. I consider myself an open-minded and rational person, however this does not mean total acceptance of all things. I'm human, so I still hold values and standards. So if a new value can enhance our existing culture, so be it. However, you still have not cited how meditation has widespread practice in Western culture. Let us consider since the early modern era. So since the late 15th century, Westerners meditated en masse? I'd think the closest thing is prayer, and even then anybody with a brain who has studied early modern history knows prayer and "spirituality" didn't make people "more kind" as the psychologists say it would lol.. ... I'm simply saying psychologists wish to undermine society via introducing Eastern meditation. If not, they need a better PR/marketing communications programme, so I cannot be blamed for holding my opinion lol... As for opinions, well yes, humans with our limited perception can determine which view is of absolute value hahaha... If you hate liberal democracy, go to North Korea or Saudi. So as mental illness is subjective, then psychiatry holds no purpose. A science must be objective by definition. Geology is subjective, so I think that giant snakes constricting prey in the mantle cause plate tectonics. Anthropology is subjective, so I believe that humans evolved from a prehistoric space horse, and that archaeology is solely about piecing human history from excavating rotten wood from the Eocene period. My point about Jesus' crucifixion was that you all are citing minority beliefs as mainstream practice. Today, some in Western cultures are neo-Nazis, so what, this doesn't mean everybody is nor that reflects our basic value system. As for why "they" tell people to be religious lol.. It's because these fools cannot accept social change, nor ironically accept the culture they live in.

I've not cited logical fallacies. I'm simply saying there is an agenda by psychologists to change the world. I'm entitled to my opinion, right? In this event, it's best that psychology be outlawed. As a fact, I generally shun psychologists in open company. I hate them and their science, so I don't hang out with evil people and their morally bereft "science".

Humans are sapient, bees are not. We can choose to violate "rules", though I doubt bees are,

lol.. really? It's clear this the insinuation of psychologists.

If this is the case, it simply stems from our more advanced brain. The distinction between humans and animals is not so black and white as once thought. Besides, who is to say animals cannot abstract? Nobody can and ever has read the mind of a dog, a tiger, or a chimpanzee to see if they have spirituality or a belief in supernatural forces.

It's clear that empathy arose from more complex social interactions. There is again an insinuation that animals lack empathy, and that they're somehow less "moral" than we are. The primary difference between humans and animals is our brains and how we walk. Little else. If anything, many traits we thought were exclusively human have been noted in animals. An example is tool use. Though if we ever see chimps cracking open stones and hammering them on bones and nuts, then the shit will really hit the fan lol.. (or habilis is back from the dead...)

lol.. OK, so producing a study saying "men who like big breasts are sexist" does not denote an agenda? If they had said "we've noted a correlation, but not a causation" then fine. Anybody who has briefly studied statistics knows that relationship. However, there has not been any PR move to cite this, hence condemning us who like large boobs as "hating" women. ha hah.. Humans judge motivations all the time. It's called empathy, induction, and theory of mind.

"If evolution is true, why are blue whales the largest ever known animal?" "If evolution is true, why do bovine species have four stomachs?" "If evolution is true, why do some snakes kill prey by injecting venom whilst others kill prey via constriction?" Erm, if anything this proves evolution, since they all arose due to natural selection and adaptation to environments. I would say though that many other social mammalians have "rules", namely: - Chimps and Bonobos - Gorillas - Lions - Old World and New World monkeys - Dolphins - Aucas/Killer whales - Seals - Sealions - Walrus - Baleen whales (e,g. blue whales as above, humpbacks, etc.) - Horses, Zebra and other equines - Bovines including domestic cattle - Canines including domestic dogs and wolves If one disputes this, see what happens if an omega wolf tries to usurp the alpha wolf's position. Another thing, look at recorded human history. There have been COUNTLESS instances of inhumanity occurring. It's only due to the Enlightenment that we really believe cruelty is wrong. IMO, anybody who believes humans are not an inherently savage species (not inherently, not exclusively) is too naive for his or her benefit.

Reality is shaped by the individual. All persons know that, I'd have thought.

heh heh.. It's not a "shift of the goalposts". it's a fact that psychology deems non-theism as suspect, when this is contrary to how society (at least in the West) is. I am British, and frankly people are not generally judged for being non-religious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8vGy9CtGn4 - this video has a clear agenda, as does much of psychology. Many psychologists do cite Eastern beliefs/spirituality as the key in health. Yet, there is an unsubstantiated assumption that somehow Eastern beliefs are somehow better than other spiritual traditions. Perhaps psychologists can cite how cultures in which Christianity has been the norm for many centuries can now embrace Tao, or Confucianism? note, I do not have anything against Eastern beliefs. Again, where is the evidence that it is somehow "better"? And creating a study saying that men like large breasts does not denote a hidden agenda? lol.. I find some people are offended at what some men like, big deal. Perhaps these people need to develop better confidence and see a psychologist. The innuendo here is to try and "convince" men not to like large breasts.

1 - Yes, it follows from how psychologists cite meditation and spirituality as the optimum, when very few Westerners perform these things. 2 - So you speak for all psychologists? 3 - OK, so explain this, which the "profession" at large did not condemn - http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-204_162-57574369-3.html?assetTypeId=41&blogId= yeah, so go defend your practice lol..

Er.. no noted paleoanthropologist I've ever heard of has said that hominids were not social animals. Not Orrorin, the australopithecenes, homo habilis, homo erectus or archaic homo sapiens. This is like saying "water is not a compound, I have my OWN definition, damnit!" So animal is a socially constructed label? And? Did the label come from God himself?

As said, people contradict. I value science, but think science is the beliefs of scientists alone.

Really? I think doctors largely select who is entitled to this.

yes, I am interested in paleoanthropology. However, people often contradict, whether in word or deed. Hence, I can believe in an anthropological sub-discipline and not believe in the rationale for social structures. Comprende?

There are not many people who actually adhere to rules. It's a popular fiction that people actually do. I don't live in the Amur. And?

I'm British, and I don't give a royal (pun intended) shit about this baby. So in 50 years or so, we'll have a King George. big deal. i don't think the monarchy should be abolished, but i hope the wanker baby is King only of England, not the UK. The sooner Scotland gets independence, the better.

i don't care again. the beliefs of scientists mean little to me.

Yes. And?