Susan's Place Transgender Resources

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo

As much as I am a considerate atheist to many who are religious, many who are my friends online and offline, I still find the fanatics, the soothsayers, and the hypocrites to be often too much to keep silent about. This clip is one such example of these times where I won't remain silent. When I came out atheist to my mom, it was probably one of the easier things even though my mother just converted to Catholicism, because she knew how it was to be persecuted and hated. My dad, not so much, but he knew he had no place to tell me what I will do with my own person since I was an adult and was living outside of his home by now. Still, it's kids like this one that my heart goes out to, because I've heard of such persecutions, even leading to physical abuse, directly as beatings or indirectly as starvation, and deprivation of personal liberties. Sometimes even death in the rarest of cases. Granted, this is not the norm of most religious parents who find out their children are swinging toward or are atheists, but it should be noted that in America, and among other heavily religious nations, this still happens, possibly more so in theocratic nations like Iran and Budon (Buddhist Theocracy).

Ayn Rand once noted that religion was the first attempt by humans to form proto-philosophies to explain the world around them and their place in it, but that such religions were insufficient with more true philosophies that have come to replace them; Objectivism, Naturalism, and Aristotleanism included. Perhaps this is the signal for the great movement away from fear of the dark to the love of the 'Sun' and our personal power(s). Or perhaps this will continue on as a perpetual dance between those that seek faith and those that seek Nature. Who knows.

-- Brede

I saw that on a video sifting site I monitor. All I can say is 

QuoteI LOVE that she brings up christmas. After all, what is god but Santa for adults?

That's stolen from the discussion on this video site...

and lastly:

Freaks are freaks, be they Christian, Muslim, other religions, or Athiests. It's the individual, not the group as a whole.... Every group of individuals that you can name, has it's own share of freaks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leYp24x_0Uo

Speaking of which, here's one of the responses that I found most elegant on the issue.

-- Brede

Pardon me, but a correction is in order:

Quote from: Attis on April 11, 2007, 08:47:29 AM
...theocratic nations like Iran and Budon (Buddhist Theocracy).

You are seriously confused.
A theocracy is a government which is inextricably tied to a Theistic religion, practically always a Monotheistic one.
No Buddhist even believes in a Deity, much less anything like Theism. If you are going to make such an assertion, maybe you should provide some examples on how this works.

NB: (transliterated from the Sanskrit)
BUDH, "awaken, communicate" (BUDDHA; BODHISATVA, "a saint, apostle"; BID < O.E. BUDON, "communicate")

Now, consider "freedom from, etc etc" in the context of this:

A Boddhisattva defers her own Nirvana (see: Moksha. Final Liberation from the wheel of Samsara, birth/rebirth, the whole round and round she goes rhythm) until all sentient creatures are able to get there from here, too.

IRONICALLY, I found this, trying to locate this Budon Nation deal (from The Anglo Saxon Dictionary):
-budon; pp. -boden To do wrong to, to offend, abuse, ill-use... (A Buddhist won't do these things, IE: is considerate.)

NJC

Um how does this refute my points? I need some citations, not hearsay.

-- Brede

Quote from: Susan on April 11, 2007, 11:01:47 AM
I saw that on a video sifting site I monitor. All I can say is 

QuoteI LOVE that she brings up christmas. After all, what is god but Santa for adults?

That's stolen from the discussion on this video site...

and lastly:

Freaks are freaks, be they Christian, Muslim, other religions, or Athiests. It's the individual, not the group as a whole.... Every group of individuals that you can name, has it's own share of freaks.

Bravo Susan, that's excellent!

Post-script errors. Budon was meant to be spelled Bhutan or Bhootun (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-crossette25apr25,0,112876.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail) depending on your dialect. None the less, my point still stands.

-- Brede

That was very disturbing.  What was most disturbing is that I can easily believe that kind of thing goes on -- a LOT!

-K

Sadly, fundamentalism rears its ugly head in several religions and philosophies. It's basically an attitide of "if you don't belive like me, then you're beneath me."

Great thread, folks.

Brede,

I would wonder why you would air a private message publicly? Why was that necessary? Could you not play in the sandbox without an audience?

I find this sort of thing divisive.  And apparently so did Nancy.  You have driven her away with this response. 

We need not argue here. We need all the friends we can get.

Cindi

I'm sorry, but I won't let someone snipe at me in PM. If they want to air an honest grievance against my post, I'm more than happy to see it out. I'm glad she pointed out the spelling error, which I put a post-script notice in this thread, but her aggressive talk is unacceptable. I apologize for seemingly coming off harsh, but I could have said something much worse considering this is the typical response I get from folks of the 'eastern' slant on religion. It's strange to note that consider you expect such responses from fundies, but right there is the proof that fundies are fairly universal.

-- Brede

P.S. I removed the PM reply in question only because I think it now as rash, but I doesn't change my view that if someone wants reply to me, it's best to reply in the thread related, and not play games. Argumentation is great, it helps us all learn, but to make snipes as I've said before, is unacceptable. I'm sorry again for even doing what I did.

Quote from: Attis on May 13, 2007, 11:54:11 PM
I'm sorry, but I won't let someone snipe at me in PM. If they want to air an honest grievance against my post, I'm more than happy to see it out. I'm glad she pointed out the spelling error, which I put a post-script notice in this thread, but her aggressive talk is unacceptable. I apologize for seemingly coming off harsh, but I could have said something much worse considering this is the typical response I get from folks of the 'eastern' slant on religion. It's strange to note that consider you expect such responses from fundies, but right there is the proof that fundies are fairly universal.

-- Brede

P.S. I removed the PM reply in question only because I think it now as rash, but I doesn't change my view that if someone wants reply to me, it's best to reply in the thread related, and not play games. Argumentation is great, it helps us all learn, but to make snipes as I've said before, is unacceptable. I'm sorry again for even doing what I did.

Brede,

A PM is a *private* message with emphasis on Private. They are here for a purpose. Snarky sniping between members should be left off the public forums and taken into PM. That is typical board protocal anywhere and as far as I am concerned it is really bad form to post PM's in the public forums.
Obviously the other member had more class then to disrupt the board as a whole and take to private any issue she had with you. Your disagreements with another member are not the boards business and if you had an issue with receiving the PM or its contents you should have taken it up with a moderator or admin of Susan's.

Please refrain from posting PM's in the future. Thanks.

Note by Susan:

If you feel a pm is excessive then use the report this pm to the moderators option at the bottom right of the message.

Quote from: Attis on May 12, 2007, 11:35:07 PM
Um how does this refute my points? I need some citations, not hearsay.

-- Brede

(Wikipedia may be "hearsay" to you, as much as anything that refutes your POV, I don't know)
Here, from that source, very briefly:

Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion and a philosophy.[1] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts.

So, "Buddhist Theocracy" is linguistically not correct, in the first place.

Now, tell us where this Budon place is, it does not appear to be on any map, or available in the context of any search criteria that meets 'Civil Rights Violations' or corresponds with any of these attempts at constructing the Lie that has been disseminated via the World Wide Web in at least two locations thus far.

Buddhism has been perceived as a threat by totalitarianist systems and the like almost since its inception over 2500 years ago, and the systems that don't like the awakening it might indicate have spread this sort of lie all throughout this history.

The Middle Way.
(That which lies between Materialism and Nihilism, btw.)

Quote from: Attis on May 12, 2007, 11:53:25 PM
Post-script errors. Budon was meant to be spelled Bhutan or Bhootun (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-crossette25apr25,0,112876.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail) depending on your dialect. None the less, my point still stands.

-- Brede

Speaking of needing citations, what goes on there, exactly. Any member is free of course to do their own research on the history. It is unlikely they will find what this person is trying to argue here, in the name of "freedom of" her religion.

FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:

No invading armies or sectarian violence in Bhutan, however. No grass-roots groundswell for change. It was the king himself, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who ordered democracy by royal prerogative. Nice touch.
...
Bhutan, while not perfect as it is, has much to lose*. It is a poster child for environmental protection. (Mountain climbing is banned because the peaks are sacred.) Its living standards are rising steadily, outpacing those of some other nations in the neighborhood, especially in health and education. Development decisions are made locally. Women have considerable equality. The entire country has more or less been declared a no-smoking zone.

(* by going "democratic" as opposed to the monarchy that is, by most accounts not doing so badly.
(No tourism, though, gosh that's SO harsh.  ;)) By CONTRAST, A. Hitler rose to power in a democracy...)

You appear to refute yourself. It also would appear that you are in A Big Hurry to grind your axe here, and elsewhere.

In my view this is a sort of political fight, anyway. IE: is this fair territory for a spirituality thread in the first place? I have generally, from the Atheists I have spoken with, inferred that there is no such thing as spirit, to an "Atheist"... ???

* * *
"No invading armies or sectarian violence in Bhutan", Note Well. The original post in this thread confounds Bhutan with Iran, which is strictly Shiite-ruled, and as many of us are well aware, the whole mess in Iraq is about the differences between the Shia and the Sunni. By marked contrast, the 'sects' of Buddhism, EG: Hinayana (the Smaller Vehicle) and Mahayana (the Greater Vehicle) have been so civil about their differences, I'd bet that few here outside myself even know they exist.



additionally:
"Before this [Buddhist] monarchy, Bhutan was a theocracy with warlords."

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 14, 2007, 03:28:55 PM
(Wikipedia may be "hearsay" to you, as much as anything that refutes your POV, I don't know)
Here, from that source, very briefly:

Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion and a philosophy.[1] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts.

So, "Buddhist Theocracy" is linguistically not correct, in the first place.
...
You appear to refute yourself. It also would appear that you are in A Big Hurry to grind your axe here, and elsewhere.

Theocracies are governments based in religions. Buddhism is a religion, therefore Bhutan is a theocracy. [ ]

And you too, think I have an ax to grind.

1) Prove it by substantiating the means by which you know my mental states. If you can read minds. I got a friend that's a close friend to James Randi, and he would love to give you a million dollars for a scientific reproduction of that ability. ;)

2) If you cannot prove my mental states nor intentions, will you retract said claims as to know my mental states?

3) If not that, then you have concluded a state of which we cannot communicate any further.

I do not guess the mental states of others, nor do I wish in kind for that to be done to me. It is unethical and unacceptable in any forum for that matter. You cannot suppose the mental states of others what so ever, you don't know me. You don't know what I do on my idle time. You don't know what my favorite food is. You don't know my pet's name. You don't know how many relatives I have. And so on, so you cannot under any logical constraints can claim with ethical authority to know what I am thinking in regards to my statements as they stand. What I have stated was that all religions are fundamentally evil in the respect that fundamentalism in such institutions is the causative issuance of evil for them. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every adherent of such religions as to oppose and remove such evils, not me, not the other non-believers and so on. And if you find that to be a problem, okay, then explain why it's a problem. This may come off as rude, or terse, or whatever, but I am not going to be silent as long as evil marches on this Earth, claiming sainthood and goodness when its acts are otherwise. And that is what I have said, period and end of story. No more snipes, no more gossip as to what me or others are thinking on the issue. Take what we all here say as it is for what is and no more. And please, stop playing mind reader.

Quote from: togetherwecan on May 14, 2007, 12:15:14 PM
A PM is a *private* message with emphasis on Private. They are here for a purpose. Snarky sniping between members should be left off the public forums and taken into PM. That is typical board protocal anywhere and as far as I am concerned it is really bad form to post PM's in the public forums.

Not when it extends to the point of being a matter of a debate on the topic of that said thread in said forum. Every post in regards to that thread should remain in public domain unless it is a request by the moderators as to either ceasing posting on said thread or rectification in regards to forum rules. I do not think it is excessive as to be honest and open in a debate. I do not understand the logic of trying to "private" debates when they are started in public, it is not acceptable, and in many regards, especially on forums I've frequented, it is unethical for good reasons.

Quote
If you feel a pm is excessive then use the report this pm to the moderators option at the bottom right of the message.

There should be the option to extend ignore to PMs.

-- Brede

Quote from: Attis on April 11, 2007, 08:47:29 AM
Ayn Rand once noted that religion was the first attempt by humans to form proto-philosophies to explain the world around them and their place in it, but that such religions were insufficient with more true philosophies that have come to replace them; Objectivism, Naturalism, and Aristotleanism included. Perhaps this is the signal for the great movement away from fear of the dark to the love of the 'Sun' and our personal power(s). Or perhaps this will continue on as a perpetual dance between those that seek faith and those that seek Nature. Who knows.

-- Brede

My vote goes to perpetual dance

Quote from: Attis on May 14, 2007, 06:34:25 PM
There should be the option to extend ignore to PMs.

-- Brede

There is. It's called the delete button. Let's all take a deep breath and relax. It's really easy to take offense when someone cuts a little close to us... Like Susan said: If someone sends a PM that's inappropriate, let the mods know. We'll address it accordingly. This forum is NOT the place to air dirty laudry.

So smile, already!   ;D

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 14, 2007, 07:49:17 PM
My vote goes to perpetual dance

Rats. And I can't dance worth a hoot!

Quote from: David W. Shelton on May 14, 2007, 07:54:23 PM

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 14, 2007, 07:49:17 PM
My vote goes to perpetual dance

Rats. And I can't dance worth a hoot!

Me neither, but I'm learning from Hidrix that maybe it doesn't matter.

Quote from: Attis on May 14, 2007, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 14, 2007, 03:28:55 PM

Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion and a philosophy. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts.

So, "Buddhist Theocracy" is linguistically not correct, in the first place.

Theocracies are governments based in religions. Buddhism is a religion, therefore Bhutan is a theocracy.

Linguistically as I have shown, Theocracy contains Theism, that is the word's root. If you actually want to do the reading you may. You have, in a spirituality forum, misrepresented an entire religion as Evil. I think that it can be easily demonstrated in a civil argument that you know nothing at all about that religion. If you can demonstrate its actual similarity in practice to other religions, namely how it correlates with Islam at large in Iran (the canard which I took exception to) in a coherent fashion, you are welcome to demonstrate that 'proof'. You haven't shown, in the first place, any evidence whatsoever that there are any persons in Bhutan that have a difficulty per their civil rights.

You appear to have combined these prejudices:

Non-Western Religion, connoting Otherness;
Non-Democratic system (Absolute Monarchy) of governance

and summed that to = Wrongness

And expanded a Dogmatic idea to indicate to us in this forum that you believe that system ought to be corrected according to your belief system. Which, it might be as easily demonstrated is based on a set of fallacies. (Also without comparing how that Wrong System works badly in comparison with systems that do fit into your schemata, that arguably work substantially better.)

This is a political argument and, I would prefer not to, but will, argue that in the proper forum.

TMW

for instance:

Quote
Theocracies are governments based in religions. Buddhism is a religion, therefore Bhutan is a theocracy.

"All religions I have any info about might be Theistic. A Theistic Religion in correlation with a governmental system is called a Theocracy. Therefore all religions in correlation with a government are Theocracies."

Is about as easily demonstrated an example of a fallacy in logic as there can be found. It's Logic 101 material.

Why are there entire posts in these threads where I have no idea of what the people are discussing?

Feel free to answer to answer truthfully.

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 15, 2007, 08:50:10 PM
Why are there entire posts in these threads where I have no idea of what the people are discussing?

Feel free to answer to answer truthfully.

Feel free to do the research if what I say is Greek To You.

TMW

I have a long page of links and extracts on the history here, I ain't just whistling an imaginary Dixie in the fade out. The Last Imaginary Guitar Solo is ineffably beautiful, but it takes Big Ears to hear it.

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 15, 2007, 09:02:37 PM

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 15, 2007, 08:59:13 PM
No thank you. I like to wallow in my ignorance.  Good answer, though.

Snarky answer, and I am sincerely sorry if somehow I have been too opaque, too passionate in my argument, or what-have-you to offend.

Oh, no no no no no. You didn't offend me. I asked because I was wondering when people stopped reading comic books. That's where I got my education from. I enjoy the complexities of your arguments/discussions. I could never find anyone to challenge me like that when I was growing up.
  Also, to be honest, I tend to argue/discuss from an intuitive/emotional perspective. I have no desire to dampen your enthusiasm or to have you dullen your reasoning in order to accommodate me. I do understand the substance, if not the particulars, of the posts.

  It is an honor for me. I am serious.

Love,

Rebecca

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 15, 2007, 09:09:32 PM

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 15, 2007, 09:02:37 PM

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 15, 2007, 08:59:13 PM
No thank you. I like to wallow in my ignorance.  Good answer, though.

Snarky answer, and I am sincerely sorry if somehow I have been too opaque, too passionate in my argument, or what-have-you to offend.

Oh, no no no no no. You didn't offend me. I asked because I was wondering when people stopped reading comic books. That's where I got my education from. I enjoy the complexities of your arguments/discussions. I could never find anyone to challenge me like that when I was growing up.
  Also, to be honest, I tend to argue/discuss from an intuitive/emotional perspective. I have no desire to dampen your enthusiasm or to have you dullen your reasoning in order to accommodate me. I do understand the substance, if not the particulars, of the posts.

  It is an honor for me. I am serious.

Love,

Rebecca

I still glean a lot of "wisdom", if not, erm, "truth" from comic books. I didn't actually go to school.

& Thank you for your kind response.

TMW

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 15, 2007, 08:39:29 PM
Linguistically as I have shown, Theocracy contains Theism, that is the word's root. If you actually want to do the reading you may.

That's being overly pedantic, the fact remains that any use of any religion as the foundation of a government is fundamentally flawed at best, and will probably be malevolent in the end.

QuoteYou have, in a spirituality forum, misrepresented an entire religion as Evil. I think that it can be easily demonstrated in a civil argument that you know nothing at all about that religion.

All religions due to their stance of being anti-material are fundamentally evil. And I can explain further.

If you deny the real world, the material things we depend on, and the material components that make up our bodies and allow our minds to exist, you cannot logically say you are for existence. Existence implies an existence of something, not mental states without bounds, but something invariant and permanent. Something that no ties to a spiritual or purely mental domain. We call this matter. Whatever matter comes out to be (knots in spacetime, or packets of some sort of energy), it still matter, and to play it down or to say it's evil, such as Buddhism does teach that the desire for anything in the material world [and even desire for mental things like complex knowledge] is suffering. How can one derive this conclusion and not suppose itself to be in antithesis to those who enjoy life, enjoy the material world?

And why is this considered evil by me? Well, again, if you deny the material world, and your need of it to make you what you are in that it is the domain of rational agents to seek their highest values, then you cannot say you are for good things. Because good things improve our lives, improve our existence. Denying matter does not improve our lives. We need the world, and we want it too. It's natural and it's good. Our love of our material goods for what they do allow for us to seek happiness. I love my bicycle because it allows me to travel farther than on foot. I love my computer because of all the knowledge and entertainment I can acquire. And I love matter because it allows me to exist to do what I wish [within reason].

Buddhism, like the rest of the religions on Earth, deny matter, and deny any enjoyment of it. Islam and the other western/middle-eastern religions also teach the denial of matter. Jesus taught you should give your own clothes to a stranger if he asks you for it. He taught that if you are hit on your left cheek, you should give you right so it can be struck as well. He taught you must hate yourself, and all those you love, to enter the kingdom of heaven. Muhammad taught that you must pray to absolve yourself of sins. And what sins were these? The love of matter. The love of wealth. The love of capitalism [aka usury], and so on. You can't have a real society without material gain. You can't have happiness without a tangible means to achieve it. And a tangible means to sustain it. You can't feed your body on nothing. And you can't fill your mind with void. You must have something to have something, thus inversely, nothing begets nothing.

So, when you can demonstrate to me, how anti-materialism [aka anti-life], is valid as a world view and a means to sustain a growing population of human animals on Earth, then I'll listen, until then the rest of your argument I will ignore and I will ignore you as well. Do not expect any further replies. Do not expect me as an atheist to deny the facts of the evils of religion. And do not expect me to apologize for it. Whether it's a religion of a leader [like that Julius Caesar, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot], or whether it's a religion of an ideal [Platonism, Existentialism, Cynicism, and Buddhism], or even a religion of a God [Christianity, Islam, and etc], they're all evil for the same fact that they deny the need of matter and the love of it for the sake of its use for all human beings and rational agents.

-- Brede

Okay guys, it's time to let this thread take a break for a 24 hour period. There are a lot of heavy emotions regarding this topic, and I draw the line when people call faith "evil."

Thread locked for 24 hours.
Okay, I've unlocked the thread.

Please refrain from attacking whole religions. Thanks.

Man, with all the ink just dripping from the walls here, you'd think we'd be greased up and making progress.

But we're not.  Amazing!  Hence, I prefer to have discussions with the self-righteous and depraved in person.  That's another issue, though, so we'll just work with what we've got.

All I've ever believed is that most religions teach that you do not need material things to be a good person.  You do not need material things to be happy.  They are right, despite what Attis is saying.  There is not a piece of matter on this Earth that can give me internal peace.  The only place I can find that is within my mind.  I will not deny the validity of "earthly pleasures" of course, for I love my gadgets and goodies much like an itchy bear loves a tree with bark that is extra coarse.

However, this is that "balance" I spoke to you of earlier, Brede (the thing you deny exists.)  To deny your intuition and your soul is to deny half of your potential.  Do deny reality is to deny the other half.  I exercise rational decision making and a love for the bounty of the Earth, in addition to maintaining a healthy respect for my spiritual, intuitive, emotional side.  That which is spiritual is that which science cannot explain just yet, and I have found that when both adapt to one another as time passes and awareness increases at both a scientific and introspective level, we see the best results.

And indeed, you can fill your mind with nothing.  In meditation, which I have only loosely practiced, the whole idea is to empty the mind (as it is constantly cluttered.)  Nothing is something. 

~ Blair

Quote from: Attis on May 16, 2007, 12:06:50 AM
Buddhism, like the rest of the religions on Earth, deny matter, and deny any enjoyment of it. Islam and the other western/middle-eastern religions also teach the denial of matter. Jesus taught you should give your own clothes to a stranger if he asks you for it. He taught that if you are hit on your left cheek, you should give you right so it can be struck as well. He taught you must hate yourself, and all those you love, to enter the kingdom of heaven. Muhammad taught that you must pray to absolve yourself of sins. And what sins were these? The love of matter. The love of wealth. The love of capitalism [aka usury], and so on. You can't have a real society without material gain. You can't have happiness without a tangible means to achieve it. And a tangible means to sustain it. You can't feed your body on nothing. And you can't fill your mind with void. You must have something to have something, thus inversely, nothing begets nothing.

So, when you can demonstrate to me, how anti-materialism [aka anti-life], is valid as a world view and a means to sustain a growing population of human animals on Earth, then I'll listen, until then the rest of your argument I will ignore and I will ignore you as well. Do not expect any further replies. Do not expect me as an atheist to deny the facts of the evils of religion. And do not expect me to apologize for it. Whether it's a religion of a leader [like that Julius Caesar, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot], or whether it's a religion of an ideal [Platonism, Existentialism, Cynicism, and Buddhism], or even a religion of a God [Christianity, Islam, and etc], they're all evil for the same fact that they deny the need of matter and the love of it for the sake of its use for all human beings and rational agents.

-- Brede

   I'm not so sure that these religions are denying the material world to the extent that you suggest they do.

   For instance, Jesus said something to the effect of "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's." Many understand this to mean that you have a life which you must live within the material world. How else could you eat or clothe yourself, never mind a family or others who depend upon you? You must, in fact, work or perform some sort of service which will help to accomplish this. If the state asks you for money, you give it to them. Obviously, the state, especially ROME, is going to use this money to build roads, boats, sewers, and other necessities to ensure that trade is successful and that people and some of their needs are cared for.
   To me, this is a straight out declaration that recognizes the need for material things in order for the people to achieve their physical comfort and safety. I will admit that I am extrapolating a little bit about the extent to which this one sentence covers the material world, however, considering that Jesus human father and Jesus himself were tradesmen, I believe that I am not far off with this.
   I mean Jesus did have a family. The guy was a rabbi and worked with stone or wood in his carpentry. He had to be very aware of the importance of material things in relation to living safely in a desert environment. I don't recall him denouncing the entire civilization in which he lived.

  I would think the same thing about the others you mentioned, Buddha and Muhammad. Buddhist Monks live severely material deficient lives, however, they are not entirely deficient. They have shelter and clothing and gardens and artwork. I'm sure they are not decrying the fact that there are material things in the world.

  Having said that, I can move onto this. I believe that these ultra spiritual people live their lives with the purpose of understanding themselves because it is their personal calling. They are doing what you said people must do. They are living their lives for themselves and they are not living the lives of others.
  It seems to me that they appear to have no problem with the world around them when it is at its' best. What they propose is that while you are living your life in the material world, you must not forgot to nurture your own spirit. They ask that one be caring toward other people who are not as fortunate for whatever reason. They ask that one be charitable towards others. They suggest that one not become obsessed with material things at the expense of one's soul.
  If you replace the word 'spirit' with 'self' and the word 'soul' with happiness (or vice versa) you will happen upon a simple psychiatric truth; a person must be well rounded in order to live to their fullest potential.

   I believe that this is 85% of my best effort in explaining a principle without resorting to pure intuition. I understand that I have no proof of my interpretation of the spiritual edicts set forth here, but I think I can present my point pretty well by asking you: What is the point in building a beautifully constructed civilization if the designers and the working class gain no joy or satisfaction in building it?

   It is truly as important that we have individuals who take it upon themselves to deny themselves of the comforts that are common or desired by society in general as it is to have people who throw themselves completely into designing better medicines or flying devices. It is important that all aspects of human nature are paid their due.

   The only problem I have with some spiritual leaders is that they wrap their message in riddles rather than just coming out and saying what I've said. That may not be their fault, though, when you consider that they were working without the vast history of these concepts which we now have. To me, Carl Jung nails these concepts in the field of psychology. Those old timers just didn't have the point of view that he had.


I had meant to address the idea of evil in religion, but I'll let someone else do that. Just quickly, I think it's not religion that causes evil, but the people who hijack it to achieve selfish goals. Nobody should forget evil. It should be remembered in order to learn to catch it before it gets too far.

[First of all, my take on this "spirituality versus materialism" jazz is that the differences you will often find posited between them tend to add up to a false dichotomy, or what a Buddhist will call a false duality, and that, just like a lot of things, there might be a middle way. Example Given:

Middle Way:

The primary guiding principle of Buddhist practice is the Middle Way which was discovered by the Buddha prior to his enlightenment (bodhi). The Middle Way or Middle Path has several definitions:

   1. It is often described as the practice of non-extremism; a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and opposing self-mortification.
  2. It also refers to taking a middle ground between certain metaphysical views, e.g. that things ultimately either exist or do not exist.
   3. An explanation of the state of nirvana and perfect enlightenment where all dualities fuse and cease to exist as separate entities (see Seongcheol).]

* *

Now, on to the heart of the 'argument':

Quote from: Attis on May 16, 2007, 12:06:50 AM
Buddhism, like the rest of the religions on Earth", deny matter...

According to what text do you derive that notion? It isn't correct, I can tell you that much, and point you in the direction of some more in-depth readings on the matter, but arguing directly against such rampant reductivism is a fool's game. I will however try and show you how that doesn't work.

How in the world does a person come up with a formulation like: "anti-materialism [aka anti-life]", in the first place? ("also known as", no less... erm, that's not what I *know* about it...)

Have you defined, in context, either of these terms with any rigor, or even referred to anything that might point to a definition?

And compare: "like the rest of the religions on Earth":
(if you want to actually do some reading or talk to some people about it, you might find that, Christianity for one, somewhat well-known religion, does NOT 'deny matter'. IE: you'd be hard-pressed to find adherents that would proffer that view.)

Again, just like with your 'definition' of Theocracy earlier in this amazing thread, we get this little problem (along with a good dose of begging the question anyway*):

(One of the types of Faulty Generalization is)
Hasty Generalization (also known as ... fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction...), is the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence.

* (petitio: seeking, petition, request; principii, genitive of principium: beginning, basis, premise of an argument) :

    "Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown...".

also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition

These are mechanisms, materially, which no tortured skewing of schema or dodging facts in evidence will ever get you around.


Maybe this is helpful:

*Materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology.*

Now, another Monistic School of Thought (Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that All is One, that there are no fundamental divisions and a unified set of laws underlie nature.) would be Buddhism, so we have at least a partial definition that might imply a false dichotomy, there...

see how that works?

TMW