Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932

[T'ai Chi]

I came across this interesting book recently:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875802575/qid=1070122418/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7786894-7861415?v=glance&s=books

It is interesting to note that for a society that attempted to weed religion out, their leader's funeral still had religious overtones. :D

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I came across this interesting book recently:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875802575/qid=1070122418/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7786894-7861415?v=glance&s=books

It is interesting to note that for a society that attempted to weed religion out, their leader's funeral still had religious overtones. :D

T'ai Chi why so angry people do not believe as you do?

Why post only this book above and not post the many books of Religious based wars, holy wars, crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions under a penalty of death for ones not converting just to name a few. Of course there is the fact that of the 500 hate groups like the KKK etc watched by the FBI are of God based beliefs.

Also you have failed to mention the many beliefs/religions that do not believe in a God or Gods, these being the most peaceful beliefs know to man.

The Russian story and that of Stalin, China Pol Pot etc have more to do with ego , desires, greed then not believing in a God and such is the case to a great extent also fueled by ego , desires and greed. The belief that if someone is different they are less, evil, lost, bad etc. This has been the cause of all wars and hate.

The truth is my friend it is you and your increasing anger that is the perhaps most hateful on the board, it seems your belief in God does not bring you a true sense of peace and happiness.


This is just me and I may be wrong, I often am but I see a great change in the tone of your post from the first day you came to this site.

Do you need all here to believe as you do to validate your belief, to make you feel better about yourself and beliefs?

Be well my great friend, relax and be happy with what you believe and who you are and let people believe what they will and be what they are.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Why post only this book above and not post the many books of Religious based wars, holy wars, crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions under a penalty of death for ones not converting just to name a few.

You left out jihads, fatwas and suicide bombers.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


You left out jihads, fatwas and suicide bombers.

Not to mention the PTL network. Oh the Humanity!!

[Yahweh]

Atheists are not Communists, although many Communists are atheists.

Communism is a political and economic belief system. Atheism is a religious belief system.

The two are unrelated.


See ReligiousTolerance.org - What is Atheism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist1.htm).

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Atheists are not Communists, although many Communists are atheists.

Communism is a political and economic belief system. Atheism is a religious belief system.

The two are unrelated.


See ReligiousTolerance.org - What is Atheism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist1.htm).
BINGO

[DanishDynamite]

Yahweh:Atheism is a religious belief system. Atheism isn't a religious belief system, it is the lack of a religious belief system.

[Yahweh]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... whatever...

[Paladin]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Yahweh: Atheism isn't a religious belief system, it is the lack of a religious belief system.
Yes, you can't classify unbelief as a belief system. It's like saying that zero isn't zero.

[RebeccaBradley]

Atheism is not a religion; but Communism, as practised in Russia, China, Cambodia and so forth, could be described structurally as a religion.

The main thing that sets communism apart from other religious cults is in not claiming to have some kind of supernatural validation. But it still has (or had) saints, prophets and holy scriptures, a core of dedicated fanatics, a demand for unquestioning faith in Marxist dogma, a claim to have a monopoly on the truth, an inability to accept falsification, and a tendency to demonize nonbelievers as heretics and apostates – including those who held slightly different Communist beliefs. I would think that Christians at a hellfire revival meeting have a lot in common with the kids of the Cultural Revolution, brandishing their little red books of Saint Mao; or with Hitler Youth on parade, for that matter, or fans at a rock concert or a hockey game or a party political convention. All these, to some extent, involve expressions of the same “religious” impulse.

I’d say, any ideology that demands you shut up, turn your brain off and believe whatever you’re told is a form of religion, whether or not it involves a supernatural being. So as for the issue at the beginning of this thread: it is hardly surprising that Lenin’s “burial” (and later Mao’s) had religious overtones. The Russian communists were attempting to stamp out Orthodox Christianity, not because the commies were godless, but because they were competing with the priests for the same commodity, the souls of Russians.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

T'ai Chi why so angry people do not believe as you do?


With your mind reading powers you should be a shoe-in to win the million dollars. ;)


Why post only this book above and not post the many books of Religious based wars, holy wars, crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions under a penalty of death for ones not converting just to name a few.


I wanted to discuss this book/topic I was interested in and not other books/topics. If you want to discuss other topics, you can start your own threads or derail this one. Why don't you talk about Buddhist holy wars for that matter?


The Russian story and that of Stalin, China Pol Pot etc have more to do with ego , desires, greed then not believing in a God and such is the case to a great extent also fueled by ego , desires and greed.


Perhaps. There is good evidence for many views.


The truth is my friend it is you and your increasing anger that is the perhaps most hateful on the board, it seems your belief in God does not bring you a true sense of peace and happiness.


:rolleyes: Done yet? I am starting to believe that you are angry. Yes, quite angry. :D


Be well my great friend, relax and be happy with what you believe and who you are and let people believe what they will and be what they are.

I'm not disallowing people to believe what they do by posting a link to an interesting book. Do you think I am or something?

[Yahweh]

Rebecca, Ohrryp, and DanishDynamite,

I already know atheism is not a religion. I included a link at the bottom, the quote came from ReligiousTolerance.org. I broke up the quote, but kept the original context intact. As a literary device to keep the fluency in the post, I decided to keep quote as "Communism is a... Atheism is a...".

(I broke up the quote in segments to get each point across individually and I revised the last sentence, that's why it wasnt in little "[quote]...[/quote]" thingies.)

I'll be more specific when citing my quotes next time.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Ohrryp

Yes, you can't classify unbelief as a belief system. It's like saying that zero isn't zero.
To use your own analogy:
You can categorize Zero with other integers. You can classify Zero as a number.

Atheism is a position that is based on *beliefs*, therefore it can be compartmentalized along with 'belief systems'.

P

[geni]

Agnostersism (spelling) is not a belief system as it makes no claims one way or the other. Atheism is making a statement that cannot be proven (there is no God) and as such has at least one belief. Atheism is the opium of those who want to cliam that other people are irrational (streching that to breaking point but you get my drift).

[Mendor]

Originally posted by geni
Atheism is making a statement that cannot be proven (there is no God) and as such has at least one belief.No; only strong atheism does that. A "weak atheist" claims "I do not believe that there is a god". A "strong atheist" claims "I believe that there is no god".

To my mind, weak atheism is tenable, whereas strong atheism isn't, not necessarily (certainly bearing in mind the many definitions of "god"). I would venture to suggest that the majority of those who call themselves atheists are weak atheists. I haven't come across any strong atheists.

Agnosticism is a position regarding knowledge: if you are agnostic, you claim "I believe that knowledge about god is not possible". (or maybe "I don't believe that knowledge about god is possible"... hmm... I feel a semantic gap needing plugged here)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Mendor
I haven't come across any strong atheists.


You should hang out in some of the wierdo atheist rooms on Paltalk and observe the irrational behavior of the "strong" atheists.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings T'ai Chi.

With your mind reading powers you should be a shoe-in to win the million dollars.

Now my friend your anger is showing again. :mad: :p

Please read what I said. I expressed an opinion using the available data ( your post and their tone as I read it) as I said I, for me found that the tome of your post has changed over time seemingly more angry or put off that others just will not believe as you do or want them to.

i was not reading your mind just what I saw was the tone of your post of late.


As I said and perhaps you missed in reading it was my opinion, perhaps as I have pointed out it seems others opinions cause you discomfort?

I may be wrong. ;)



Your title of the thread was the book Re: Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932

I asked

quote:
Why post only this book above and not post the many books of Religious based wars, holy wars, crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions under a penalty of death for ones not converting just to name a few. Of course there is the fact that of the 500 hate groups like the KKK etc watched by the FBI are of God based beliefs.

Also you have failed to mention the many beliefs/religions that do not believe in a God or Gods, these being the most peaceful beliefs know to man.


You responded.

I wanted to discuss this book/topic I was interested in and not other books/topics.


OK I respect that, I did not see in your post that you wished to discuss it. What would you like to discuss about it?


If you want to discuss other topics, you can start your own threads or derail this one.

I really do not start many threads and what I posted was relative to what you posted or are your threads used just for you saying what you believe and others agreeing with you?

Why don't you talk about Buddhist holy wars for that matter?

Well that would be difficult as you see and I already demonstrated there have never been any Buddhist holy wars.

I believe also in the past I demonstrated that Pali/ Buddhist Canon ( the Tipitaka) is 11 times larger then the OT and Nt and unlike the holy books of any God based religion does not in all the entire massive text have one act of violence, the call for it or condoning of it or acts of it by a God. It does not condone slavery, incest, stealing, human or animal scarifies etc.


I believe the saying “ my belief is better then yours” is silly but as you did bring this up with a statement that was wrong I just thought I would help you learn something new. It is knowledge of what others believe and respect or the rights of others that will end hate and war.


I wrotequote:
The Russian story and that of Stalin, China Pol Pot etc have more to do with ego , desires, greed then not believing in a God and such is the case to a great extent also fueled by ego , desires and greed.


You responded Perhaps. There is good evidence for many views.

I am not sure what you mean?

I wrotequote:
The truth is my friend it is you and your increasing anger that is the perhaps most hateful on the board, it seems your belief in God does not bring you a true sense of peace and happiness.



Done yet? I am starting to believe that you are angry. Yes, quite angry.

lol, when I read this statement by you the very first thing I though of, the first thing that came to mind was a mental image of Pee Wee Herman saying “ I know you are but what am I, I know you are but what am I , I know you are but what am I .” lol

My friend I very seldom get angry and never at what someone may choose to believe and never at the fact that others may not believe as I do, that would be childish.

But I respect if you choose to believe I am angry. Yes, quite angry. that is fine what people believe me is irrelevant and I am not bothered by it if bad nor impressed it if good. What someone thinks of me good or bad does not make or define me good or bad as only I have such power over me.


Again just my opinion but I really do not think you believe I am mad and believe that Pee Wee Herman was right…


But as to the first question in your statement, yes I was done with that statement indicated by the period at the end of the last word..


Pahansiri quote:
Be well my great friend, relax and be happy with what you believe and who you are and let people believe what they will and be what they are.

I'm not disallowing people to believe what they do by posting a link to an interesting book. Do you think I am or something?

Did I say you were? Relax and again read my words..

Be well my friend.

[hammegk]

Pahansiri, do you believe you are following the Path? If yes, why would you think so?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
Pahansiri, do you believe you are following the Path? If yes, why would you think so?


I many times use sarcastic humor and in reality should not, I do seek to be kind always and honest and never attack another person or say hurtful things. I do not lie, take what is not given, kill etc.

I believe I try to do the best I can but clearly make mistakes such is walking the path and not being there already is it not?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Now my friend your anger is showing again.


That's news to me. If you keep repeating your belief that I am angry, it still won't be true.


Well that would be difficult as you see and I already demonstrated there have never been any Buddhist holy wars.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0834804050/103-1838818-7969449?v=glance Zen at War.

http://www.easternstudiesdatabase.com/Japanese-History-6-10.cfm

http://www.cfr.org/pdf/correspondence/xFaure.php

What about the Buddhist-Hindu civil war on Sri Lanka?

Sarin gas attack by a Buddhist sect?

All of these examples must not involve the true Buddhists.


..religion does not in all the entire massive text have one act of violence, the call for it or condoning of it or acts of it by a God. It does not condone slavery, incest, stealing, human or animal scarifies etc.


It might not be in the Buddhist stories and myths (although in imagery and word usage, it might be), but that doesn't mean that some Buddhists weren't violent.

There was certainly Buddhist human self sacrifice in Vietnam protests.

In Tibetan Buddhism, there certainly were (are?) animal sacrifices.


I believe the saying “ my belief is better then yours” is silly


I have never been able to find one act of Daoist violence, and that is a huge motivating factor for me in selecting my belief.

I don't think I've ever said that my belief is better than anyone elses though.


The truth is my friend it is you and your increasing anger that is the perhaps most hateful on the board, it seems your belief in God does not bring you a true sense of peace and happiness.

I believe in God? Uh, oooookkkk. Which one? Which religion? :D

I know, I know, I'm angry, very angry.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again my friend T'ai Chi




That's news to me. If you keep repeating your belief that I am angry, it still won't be true.

That is very true. As I said I only offer my opinion on what I read as the tone and substance and topics of your post. I hope my opinion is not bothering you at all.






I wrote: bquote:
Well that would be difficult as you see and I already demonstrated there have never been any Buddhist holy wars.


First again allow me to before I address your sites post your statement as to which I responded to above.

You said Why don't you talk about Buddhist holy wars for that matter?


Again to post what I said in response Well that would be difficult as you see and I already demonstrated there have never been any Buddhist holy wars.

I believe also in the past I demonstrated that Pali/ Buddhist Canon ( the Tipitaka) is 11 times larger then the OT and Nt and unlike the holy books of any God based religion does not in all the entire massive text have one act of violence, the call for it or condoning of it or acts of it by a God. It does not condone slavery, incest, stealing, human or animal scarifies etc.


I believe the saying “ my belief is better then yours” is silly but as you did bring this up with a statement that was wrong I just thought I would help you learn something new. It is knowledge of what others believe and respect or the rights of others that will end hate and war.

We will see when I address each of your sites below, your perhaps in haste google that none of these are Buddhist holy wars
none are Buddhist forcing conversions
no Buddhist crusades,
No Buddhist inquisitions,
No Buddhist based hate groups and again to point out which I will again below that Pali/ Buddhist Canon ( the Tipitaka) is 11 times larger then the OT and Nt and unlike the holy books of any God based religion does not in all the entire massive text have one act of violence, the call for it or condoning of it or acts of it by a God. It does not condone slavery, incest, stealing, human or animal scarifies etc.


Buddhism the teachings of Buddha, Buddhism does not allow for or condone any act of violence against another, war of aggression or conquest. Buddhism does condone protecting oneself and others from aggression and conquest if it is logical.

This brings to mind the old joke Christians kill Muslims, Muslims kill Jews, Jews kill Muslims, Muslims kill Christians, Jews Kill Christians, Christians kill Jews, Buddhist, well everyone kills Buddhist.



I will speak more of this later.

As to Buddhist people doing stupid things YES of course all people at times do stupid things, I sure do all some people in all groups have done some very stupid and evil things.

I have said this MANY times in this board.

PLEASE remember before we go on your statement was You said Why don't you talk about Buddhist holy wars for that matter?



You said this rather then address my point and or question but I will give you the respect you have not given to me.



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...969449?v=glance Zen at War.

Have you really read this book or just found it during your google??? Come on be honest????


Allow me to post a line from this book.

Brian Victoria's great sensitivity to [b]the perversion and betrayal of Buddhism's teachings about compassion and non-violence makes his indictment of the role played by Imperial Way Buddhists in promoting ultranationalism and aggression all the more striking and all the more saddening.

Some Buddhist playing against the very core of the teachings of compassion and non-violence and more so as to their actions their PERSONAL ego and desires both what Buddhism says is the core of suffering.

These people, not all Buddhist in Japan allowed the government and their greed fuel this.

This was a Japanese war not a Religious based holy war.

Please if you will show me in the Tipitaka which I will again say is huge, even ONE statement condoning war or one act of violence.

I can show you them in every single god based holy book. That is my point. Does this make all people who believe in Gods killers, clearly not.




http://www.easternstudiesdatabase.c...istory-6-10.cfm

Again the example of what was Japanese culture and perversion of the teachings of Buddhism and also what changed what was Buddhism then to what it became when people who did follow what was the teachings made it. In Japan at that time and it happened in China also and was what brought about Zen Buddhism was the very rich and powerful came to believe Buddhism was just for them and did not apply to others, the poor etc. That is again of course not Buddhism that said for the first time in history ALL living things were equal.

Again you would be right in saying people who said they were Buddhist acted very badly and filled with self desires.

But I will ask you again to show me in the Tipitaka which I will again say is huge, even ONE statement condoning war or one act of violence.


http://www.cfr.org/pdf/correspondence/xFaure.php

Allow me some quotes from this site.


Murder, on the other hand, is clearly condemned. As the Buddha states in the Brahma Net Sutra: "If a child of Buddha himself kills, or goads someone else to kill, or provides with or suggests means for killing, or praises the act of killing or, on seeing someone commit the act, expresses approval for what that person has done, or kills by way of incantations, or is the cause, occasion, means, or instrument of the act of inducing a death, he will be shut out of the community."


The Buddha's sermons seem, however, to condemn all violence, toward oneself and toward others.


Buddhist compassion extends to all beings.


Even though Buddhism has no concept of a "holy war," it doesn't mean its doctrine does not at times legitimize the recourse to violence and the just war.

Not here self protection to a limit. Look at Tibet and China, Tibet fought back to just a point then stopped and from that time 1/3 of all Tibetan people have been executed.

This is seen also in many Buddhist or once Buddhist countries where Muslims and Christians took over by force.

Back to your “article”

The Buddha's sermons seem, however, to condemn all violence, toward oneself and toward others. Suicide, it is true, is not formally forbidden.

Indian Buddhism distinguished itself from Brahmanism by its rejection of animal sacrifice

Thus, Japanese militarism blended Buddhist doctrine with the imperial sauce, reducing it to its simplest expression, to bend it to official propaganda. The Buddhist theory of selflessness served, for instance, to justify giving one's life for the Emperor, while the notion of the Two Truths (conventional and ultimate) served to explain the contradiction between the principle of respect for human life and patriotic duty. However, these ideas are not merely belated deviations in the necessary adaptation of Buddhism to Japanese culture. They have a long history.



What about the Buddhist-Hindu civil war on Sri Lanka?

This is far more Muslim Hindu civil war, in some cases Buddhist ( and Muslims and Hindus protecting themselves and families) and in some cases Buddhist acting poorly.



Sarin gas attack by a Buddhist sect?


Do you read on any of these topics or just google and post without first doing research?
The leader of that cult said or declared himself the new Buddha and said he had new teachings. He was clearly a nut but if you believe he did this using true Buddhist teachings please provide the facts to support it. What teachings of the Buddha did he use to condone killing others? What sutra was it he used?


All of these examples must not involve the true Buddhists.


Depends if they said they were Buddhist or believed themselves to be then I guess you could also call them Buddhist. If you mean a “real” Buddhist as one who follows the teachings of Buddhism, I would say well, no.

I know many people who tell me they are athletes in this sport or that sport when asked who they play for what titles, do they practice, train they say “ well know but I could if I want” does this make them an NFL star?

I said quote:
..religion does not in all the entire massive text have one act of violence, the call for it or condoning of it or acts of it by a God. It does not condone slavery, incest, stealing, human or animal scarifies etc.


You write back: It might not be in the Buddhist stories and myths (although in imagery and word usage, it might be), but that doesn't mean that some Buddhists weren't violent.

That is for SURE as I have said here and several times at this site in other threads.



There was certainly Buddhist human self sacrifice in Vietnam protests.

Again another example of not knowing the story of what happened and why they believe they did it. PLEASE read of the life of Thich Quang Duc the monk, read his letter to the government asking they stop killing and harming. He did what he did to help bring peace to his people and all.

This was NOT as you seek to say Buddhist human self sacrifice, no where in Buddhism is human sacrifice/offerings condoned. You are being very dishonest here.

Human sacrifice in all God based religions was taking an innocent being and killing them to please a god, they harmed others, stole the life of another and killed another.


Agree or disagree with Thich Quang Duc he did it out of love to himself not another he harmed no one. PLEASE gain knowledge of what you speak of when it concerns others it is this kind of reckless baseless false statements that harms so many in all beliefs and groups.


By the war after you read about these events you will find after Thich Quang Duc did this so did Roman Catholics and Quakers. Knowledge is power.




In Tibetan Buddhism, there certainly were (are?) animal sacrifices.

Again false.

NO where in Tibetan Buddhism is that allowed. Before Buddhism really took hold in Tibet it was w very wild place Buddhism slowly brought peace. There was before Buddhism animal sacrifices but had nothing to do with Buddhism and Buddhism started to slowly end it. Do old cultural things happen I guess yes but you are VERY wrong in saying In Tibetan Buddhism, there certainly were (are?) animal sacrifices.


If you believe you are right post for me from Tibetan Buddhism text where it is condoned.


So as you can see you are certainly wrong on many points.


I have never been able to find one act of Daoist violence, and that is a huge motivating factor for me in selecting my belief.

Look to China it is there, people who are Daoist acting poorly. It is the nature of man, ego not of Buddhism or Daoist thought or Jain or Atheism etc.


Your post /thread “Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932 “ and the “story” of the old woman that back fired on you while not admitting it are “against” atheist. You are a Daoist that believes in a God and I respect that and you but remember Taoism does not believe in a God it is an atheist belief like Buddhism or Jain.


I don't think I've ever said that my belief is better than anyone elses though.

As I said I personal believe for what it is worth and I could go back and post your post and threads it seems to bother you that people do not believe in a God or gods.


I believe in God? Uh, oooookkkk.

I could play this game and go back and find all post defending a God and posting against people who will not believe in one.

Are you saying ( and I could care less as I respect you and all and what ever anyone wishes to believe that is of peace) you do not believe in a God or Gods? Yes or no. Be honest. I may be all wrong. Yes or no?



Which one? Which religion?

You will have to tell us.

May you be well and happy and give always the same respect you seek. If I was at all rude I am very sorry.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

That is very true. As I said I only offer my opinion on what I read as the tone and substance and topics of your post. I hope my opinion is not bothering you at all.


Great! Then I hope my opinions aren't bothering you.

You keep talking about what was written in some "holy" books. I, on the other hand, am talking about what a fraction of some real life followers of Buddhism did/do.


Buddhism the teachings of Buddha, Buddhism does not allow for or condone any act of violence against another, war of aggression or conquest. Buddhism does condone protecting oneself and others from aggression and conquest if it is logical.


What exactly is logical about violence?


Thus, Japanese militarism blended Buddhist doctrine with the imperial sauce, reducing it to its simplest expression, to bend it to official propaganda. The Buddhist theory of selflessness served, for instance, to justify giving one's life for the Emperor, while the notion of the Two Truths (conventional and ultimate) served to explain the contradiction between the principle of respect for human life and patriotic duty.


Seems like it did have a lot to do with Buddhism.


This is far more Muslim Hindu civil war, in some cases Buddhist ( and Muslims and Hindus protecting themselves and families) and in some cases Buddhist acting poorly.


Fine, so its a Buddhist civil war, but not a Buddhist holy war, and it is Buddhists acting poorly but not a war that is directly because of Buddhism. Whatever. :) We'll respectively agree to disagree here.


Your post /thread “Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932 “ and the “story” of the old woman that back fired on you while not admitting it are “against” atheist. You are a Daoist that believes in a God and I respect that and you but remember Taoism does not believe in a God it is an atheist belief like Buddhism or Jain.


I am against atheism? I believe in God? Wrong on both counts, try again.


You will have to tell us.


You'll have to tell us since you are the one who made the claim.

[jimmygun]

Though they will not admit it Communist countries as well as Fascist countries do have their mystical beings to worship. They have replaced god with Fatherland or Motherland. The goal of the people is to bow down to some etherial force, to submit to the will of that force and to chant the praises of that essence. Totally the same as religion if you ask me.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Though they will not admit it Communist countries as well as Fascist countries do have their mystical beings to worship. They have replaced god with Fatherland or Motherland. The goal of the people is to bow down to some etherial force, to submit to the will of that force and to chant the praises of that essence. Totally the same as religion if you ask me.
Er, if you say so. Which theists worship "god" and The Fatherland or Motherland. Those "worshippers" sound exactly like atheists to me.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings my friend T'ai Chi.


Great! Then I hope my opinions aren't bothering you.

No my friend as I have said several times what others say about me or what I believe etc can not bother me unless I allow them to. I respect your right to your opinion and beliefs but you seem bothered I offer an opinion on them? This is a discussion board, right?


You keep talking about what was written in some "holy" books. I, on the other hand, am talking about what a fraction of some real life followers of Buddhism did/do.



No I keep talking about the fact that the Buddhist “holy book the Pali/ Buddhist Canon ( the Tipitaka) is 11 times larger then the OT and Nt and unlike the holy books of any God based religion does not in all the entire massive text have one act of violence, the call for it or condoning of it or acts of it by a God. It does not condone slavery, incest, stealing, human or animal scarifies etc.


And that not one God based religion holy book can say the same. But you keep ignoring that as with many other points etc.

May I ask why you put "holy" in such a way? Just asking being that you seem bothered by it being called that yet you have many threads like Why religion matters etc and defend many God based religions and ones you thought were until I pointed out they were not.

It does not matter to me just wondering why the "holy" when it came to the Buddhist books?

You do know a holy book or such book is the base of a belief, the game plan, the rule book the blue print, right? :confused:

I, on the other hand, am talking about what a fraction of some real life followers of Buddhism did/do.

No that is not actually true.

This whole line of conversation is based on your “book”( Funny you did not answer among many things from my last post if you even really read that book) Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932

I pointed out as others did Atheism and Communism are not mutually exclusive. I offered that there have been countless and countless wars, killings etc in the “name of God” and that great violence is found in the books of these religions and used for fuel and also that that does NOT in anyway mean all people who believe in God are killers.

You choose to like with many facts ignore that and say I wanted to discuss this book/topic I was interested in and not other books/topics. If you want to discuss other topics, you can start your own threads or derail this one. Why don't you talk about Buddhist holy wars for that matter?

I pointed out that
1- you have not discussed this book at all.
2- That this is a discussion board and to discuss this books position that “godless = evil” we need to look also at Godful and it’s actions.
3- Next I pointed out clearly there have never been any Buddhist holy wars, crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions under a penalty of death for ones not converting just to name a few.

You offered up several web sites but I with facts and many times found on the sites which it seemed you did not really read dismissed your assertions as wrong. You choose to ignore that.



But yes again as I have said many times people in all beliefs, groups cultures have done very bad things and this does not condemn the whole, unlike the leading title of that book.


What exactly is logical about violence?



You really must read what is written it would help you greatly understand things.


I said to defend oneself and others to a point where it is logical meaning if say like China crushing Tibet it was not logical to keep trying to fight them as only in the end all Tibetans would be killed. Please do read what is written.

May I ask do you not think it is logical to do what you can to save or help a defensive person? Would you not try to save your family???

I do not expect you will answer.




Seems like it did have a lot to do with Buddhism.


Really? OK I respect you believe that and have made a statement of belief now please offer your facts to support this belief.

I could again ask you to find in Buddhist text where war or any killing or hate is condoned even one time but I have offered you this over and over and you choose not to except.


You said
Fine, so its a Buddhist civil war, but not a Buddhist holy war, and it is Buddhists acting poorly but not a war that is directly because of Buddhism. Whatever. We'll respectively agree to disagree here.

in response to my saying

This is far more Muslim Hindu civil war, in some cases Buddhist ( and Muslims and Hindus protecting themselves and families) and in some cases Buddhist acting poorly.


These are Buddhist people in what is a Buddhist country being pushed out and seemingly losing their rights to live and believe as they have for 2000+ years by Muslims, Christians and to an extent Hindus.

They have watched this happen in India, Tibet and other countries etc should they not at all defend themselves? And seek to live free?

Allow me to offer some definitions .

Holy war a Holy war is a war used to control, convert and conquer another belief/people. Take their lives, land etc and force them to believe as the people waging the war want them to. To kill others or seek to own or control them in the name of God

Buddhism has never had one as Buddhism do not convert or seek to convert. As I have pointed out Buddhism does not allow wars of conquest or aggression. But does speak of protection oneself and innocents.



civil war, still war and so sad. But may I ask how many slaves do you own or wish you could?

Lastly I am against atheism? I believe in God? Wrong on both counts, try again.


Being that you could not be honest and simply say yes or no ( ?) I will again say as I have said I look at the available evidence that being YOUR threads and post/statements and from these I start to draw conclusions.

and
First I would look to the title of the treads


Is God: bad, good, or neutral? (or..)
Was the Spanish Inquisition as bad as it is commonly portrayed?
Probability of Universe Being Here
Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932
Jesus Box May Be Genuine
How to decide: Literal vs. Interpret
What Religion you would choose
Why Religion Matters
Is there a God?
Agnostics vs. Atheits: Which is more Rational?

To name a few.



From these I tend to lean you Believe in a God or God and are defending the belief of a God or Gods greatly so perhaps with a title like “Was the Spanish Inquisition as bad as it is commonly portrayed?”

Next we move on to things you have said to see if there can be found any indication of your beliefs.

Now I could go back to every thread and read all your post to compile a complete list but did only a quick look and found these to offer as a clue.


In your thread , pole “what religion would you choose” you write.

For me, it would have to be some type of Buddhism, Taoism, or Jainism, I think because of their views of what "God" is like. That is, they don't tend to personalize it.

Here you seem to indacate you believe in a God but not in the way a say Christian would with a personal God.

Of course in this thread I pointed out to you your misunderstanding of Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism, as none of these beliefs believe in a God, personal or other wise.

So if you were to pick one and it was Buddhism, Taoism, or Jainism, what you mean to say was For me, it would have to be some type of Buddhism, Taoism, or Jainism, I think because of their views of what "God" is like. They do not believe in any and believe it is irrelevant.


Next we find you say in another thread.

Personally when I see the word "God" I think of it as a mix of a whole bunch of views of God.


If you did not believe in a God you would not believe it is a mix of a whole bunch of views of God, you would believe it was a myth, not true, right?

Next I offer one that to ME seems rather damming as to your new claim you are an atheist or that you do not believe in Gods;

Or how about that: 'bad' (and for that matter, 'good') are artificial human concepts, mere constructs. 'Good' and 'bad' are meaningless to God.


Note if you do not believe in a God why and how do you know or believe what is or can be meaningless to it?
As to words or concepts being artificial human concepts, mere constructs that is fine but we know humans exists you clearly say God thinks, believes etc and things are meaningless to “him”.

Here Faithkills said God never stopped anyone from doing evil.

And you defended “God” saying
Except all those people who don't commit evil acts, that is.

So you believe in God it seems and believe he stops some people from doing evil but not others?

As I said I could go looking deeper at all your post but that would be silly and I believe these 3 are what I need to support my assertion at least to my believe on this topic. I can not know your thoughts and it seems you will not share them so we will just have to take your word, the only problem is your word changes.

As to I am against atheism? I believe in God? Wrong on both counts, try again.

First of course I looked back to see where I used these words I /you am/are against atheism? and as I remembered I did not. But regardless.

Let us look at a few statements of yours.

Here you say I've noticed that atheist rants usually consist in pointing out all the bad in the world, and then asking why God would do all of that bad stuff.

So you are now saying you an atheist so are you talking about yourself as to these rants?

Here you ask Where do skeptics consider things like:

ideas
information
emotion
thoughts
feelings
sensory input
(can't think of any more) and in the same thread which you started this I just addressed it to skeptics because most of the people on this board are skeptics I assume.

So if you are a skeptic are you asking yourself this question? In many threads you say skeptics are this or that and Atheist are this or that seems strange that if you are one these things you would be so often making theses self disparaging statements?

If you skeptics/atheists call others deluded, irrational, etc., that implies, either directly or indirectly, that you believe yourselves are not deluded and not irrational, and that science is the best we've got and we should follow it. That much is obvious. Why should others believe your beliefs?


Here you say If you skeptics/atheists call

If you did not believe in a God or Gods as you now say and were a skeptic as you now say would you not have said If US/WE skeptics/atheists call


????


Be well and happy my friend.

Time for me to take a discussion board break. Have a great holidays and as I have said I respect you and what ever you choose to believe.

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I came across this interesting book recently:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875802575/qid=1070122418/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7786894-7861415?v=glance&s=books

It is interesting to note that for a society that attempted to weed religion out, their leader's funeral still had religious overtones. :D

Can you recommend this as a good read? $38.00 is a bit much too much to risk on a punt.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings my friend T'ai Chi.
(snip)


Hi,

Here are some more for you to look at:

http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/dalitism/dal000/budsinbk.html
http://www.trimondi.de/EN/deba03.html

No I keep talking about the fact that the Buddhist “holy book the Pali/ Buddhist Canon ( the Tipitaka) is 11 times larger then the OT and Nt and unlike the holy books of any God based religion ...


I fail to see what the length of a text or texts has to do with anything at all. The Daodejing is the smallest "holy" book out there. The number of pages that comprise the Daoist "Canon" is another story. :) None of this means much. What matters is if the practicioners can practice what they read.


It does not matter to me just wondering why the "holy" when it came to the Buddhist books?


Atheists don't believe in things being holy.


This whole line of conversation is based on your “book”( Funny you did not answer among many things from my last post if you even really read that book) Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932


You are obviously bothered by the title of the book still because you still have not addressed any points contained in the book. In fact, you call it silly based on the cover.


I pointed out as others did Atheism and Communism are not mutually exclusive.


Yes, I agree. I also specifically said, as written on the book cover, that it is talking about Communists (who were atheists) from a specific time and place.


3- Next I pointed out clearly there have never been any Buddhist holy wars, crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions under a penalty of death for ones not converting just to name a few.


You might be a little nieve here.


May I ask do you not think it is logical to do what you can to save or help a defensive person? Would you not try to save your family???


Sure, I agree, but a lot of battles/wars, etc., are not simply defending, especially when religion and politics are involved.


I do not expect you will answer.


Why would you expect that?


I could again ask you to find in Buddhist text where war or any killing or hate is condoned even one time but I have offered you this over and over and you choose not to except.


Again, you're talking about text. I'm talking about real life.


Holy war a Holy war is a war used to control, convert and conquer another belief/people. Take their lives, land etc and force them to believe as the people waging the war want them to. To kill others or seek to own or control them in the name of God


I agree.


Buddhism has never had one as Buddhism do not ....


I disagree.
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm


First I would look to the title of the treads
From these I tend to lean you Believe in a God or God and are defending the belief of a God or Gods greatly...


That's just silly. I start threads for discussion on various topics that involve belief/disbelief. That doesn't show I believe in a God or that I disbelieve.


Of course in this thread I pointed out to you your misunderstanding of Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism, as none of these beliefs believe in a God, personal or other wise.


I understand those quite well.


So you are now saying you an atheist so are you talking about yourself as to these rants?


Yes. :)


So if you are a skeptic are you asking yourself this question?


Obviosuly I am asking other skeptics.


In many threads you say skeptics are this or that and Atheist are this or that seems strange that if you are one these things you would be so often making theses self disparaging statements?


I don't know about you, but I find it worthwhile to critically look at my own beliefs every now and then.

And this thread is officially done. :)

[Charlie in Dayton]

The conflict between Communism and religion was fought on the battlefields of fertile young minds...as evidence, the lowly comic book was pressed into service in the early 60's to show us tender young Catholic chirrun the dangers of "This Godless Communism":

"Treasure Chest was a monthly comic book published by the Catholic Guild from 1946 to 1972. Each issue featured several different stories intended to inspire citizenship, morality, and patriotism. In the 1961, volume 17 number 2 issue, the story "This Godless Communism" began. It continued in the even numbered issues through number 20. The entire story is presented here. (http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/cover_01.html)"

Hey Skinny...remember "Treasure Chest"? How many other comic books of the time had the approval of both the Catholic Church and the FBI? ...Frumson Wooters, aka 'The Champ'...Chuck White...and who was the kid who had the enchanted Model T that could fly?