Stop lecturing us!

Originally posted by FMF
If you think I have trouble expressing myself in writing, then just say so. Please don't ask me if you can cast me as an example of something just because you still want to ingratiate yourself with Dasa despite his ludicrous absolutism and abusive demeanour.

I have already mentioned that I have been a vegetarian at certain times in my life for health and 'po ...[text shortened]... my beliefs. If Dasa doesn't understand me, I can live with that. I can speak for myself.

I can see you can speak for yourself. You also have an uncanny knack for making any positive suggestion from me sound mute and silly, (amongst other NEGATIVE adjectives)
I dont want to integrate myself with Dasa. I want to intergrate myslef with Hindus, who have integrated the bhudda into their belief system as one of their avatars.
I dont want to become a hindu, I just like theiir belief system as SOME of it reflects upon my own beliefs.

Anyway , I certainly didn't "factor in any problem" that I percieved in your "erudition" or ability to account for yourself.
Where the hell did you get that from? and how many more times are you going to tell us that you believe we are being "sincere" in our belief systems?
It's like apologizing- the more you do it, the less effective it becomes.


Fine. Dont be an example of someone who recognizes the connection between food and where it comes from. Thats all I was saying .

Originally posted by FMF
I oppose animal cruelty. I have said this many times. Had you forgotten? You have even said that you accept the fact that I oppose animal cruelty. Have you forgotten saying that?

Your insincere statement that you oppose animal cruelty is not accepted, because I wanted you to admit that causing suffering to animals is wrong.........and that you wont do.

Originally posted by Dasa
Your insincere statement that you oppose animal cruelty is not accepted, because I wanted you to admit that causing suffering to animals is wrong.........and that you wont do.

So if you kill animals without causing suffering is that ok? And if you let a suffering animal live is that ok?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So if you kill animals without causing suffering is that ok? And if you let a suffering animal live is that ok?

You have to understand this point....

Persons on the spiritual path have raised their consciousness to the transcendental platform and they do not want to eat meat, and they have no desire to eat meat because they have a different consciousness to the materialist.

If someone who is not on the spiritual path and they want to eat meat, but are concerned with the suffering of the animals then that is commendable, but if they kill the animal in a humane way....they still have to take re-birth at the end of their life for remaining ignorant of their spiritual identity.

Spiritual life is real and returning back home to Godhead is the purpose of our existence in this world.....so killing animals with suffering or without suffering has no bearing on the fact that if you are not living a spiritual life....then you will return to this world of suffering again and again.

Originally posted by Dasa
You have to understand this point....

Persons on the spiritual path have raised their consciousness to the transcendental platform and they do not want to eat meat, and they have no desire to eat meat because they have a different consciousness to the materialist.

If someone who is not on the spiritual path and they want to eat meat, but are concerned wi ...[text shortened]... not living a spiritual life....then you will return to this world of suffering again and again.

how is killing an animal in a humane way keeping someone ignorant of their spiritual identity?

I would've thought that the ones, who just get their meat daily served to them and give no thought to how it got to their plates ,would be more ignorant of their spiritual identities than the ones who gave consideration to the animal they are eating and decide to kill it in a humane way?

Originally posted by Dasa
Your insincere statement that you oppose animal cruelty is not accepted, because I wanted you to admit that causing suffering to animals is wrong.........and that you wont do.

I am against animal cruelty. So I oppose causing unnecessary suffering. I approve of slaughtering animals, of course, because they are a source of food for humans. How can stating my belief in this concise, straightforward way be "insincere". Can you not handle disagreement without hurling an insult? Are you unable to post without being abusive?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
how many more times are you going to tell us that you believe we are being "sincere" in our belief systems?

How long will I go on telling you or Dasa or anyone else that I believe they are being "sincere"? Don't know for sure. Maybe for as long as I am being told that I am being "dishonest" and "insincere" about my belief system or for as long as they go on making unsubstantiated subjective assertions about the reality of my life.

If you want to, karoly, you can put the onus on me to your neutral heart's desire about how I haven't expressed myself clearly enough for Dasa to understand. I think I've stated my position with sufficient clarity as it happens. You want to make excuses for him so that you can continue to get some sort of 'wisdom' or 'knowledge' out of him, that's fine.

Just leave me out of it. If, as you say, Dasa doesn't understand me, then it's ok, Dasa doesn't understand me.

Originally posted by Dasa
Persons on the spiritual path have raised their consciousness to the transcendental platform and they do not want to eat meat, and they have no desire to eat meat because they have a different consciousness to the materialist.

Spiritual people don't eat meat? This assertion is clearly incorrect. There are thousands of millions of people who eat meat and yet are on their diverse spiritual paths. Your claims about "transcendental platforms" and "different consciousnesses" with regard to eating meat or being a vegetarian are only credible or relevant to people who happen to subscribe to the same [or a similar] religionist doctrine as you do.

Originally posted by Doward
as said above, Stalin and Pol Pot

I looked them up and, to my surprise, they are BOTH theists!

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-birmingham/refuting-the-myth-that-hitler-stalin-and-pol-pot-were-atheists

“...Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism.  It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country....”


also

“...Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery and then at a Catholic school for 8 years.  Cambodia's communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism.
Prince Norodom Sihanouk said, "Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler."
So, while Pol Pot was definitely not a Christian, he was also definitely not an Atheist.

….”


in addition, this website expresses the whole premise of my thread very well indeed with:


“...there is no such thing as state-imposed atheism.  A state can ban religion, but it cannot ban atheism because it is not a belief, a faith, a set of doctrines or dogmas and cannot be imposed on anybody.  Atheism is an absence of belief, and you cannot ban something that does not exist.  I have heard the argument so many times from believers who think that atheism is a belief. They compare it to a religion.  They say it takes faith.  They accuse us of hating god.  Believers really need to find another line of fire, as all of these arguments only serve to make them look like complete idiots, which is unnecessary, as many believers are otherwise intelligent individuals. ...”

and to ram home that point:

“...Add up the deaths that were attributed to Hitler, Stalin and Pot.  Then round up for good measure.  You can safely say that the number is staggering.  Probably upwards of fifteen million.  However, consider the following conflicts where the only differences between the opposing factions were and are religion:
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon 1860 / 1975-92
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms 1905-06 / 1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s
If you add up all of the lives that were lost in the name of one religion or another, you come up with a staggering figure that is in excess of eight-hundred-million. That's eight-hundred-million.  An eight, followed by eight zeros.  So, even if the believers who are uneducated enough to think that Hitler, Stalin and Pot were psychotic mass murderers because they thought these men were atheists, it is horrifically clear that religious murder wins out.

...”

so what about "Stalin and Pol Pot"?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I looked them up and, to my surprise, they are BOTH theists!

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-birmingham/refuting-the-myth-that-hitler-stalin-and-pol-pot-were-atheists

“...Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around ...[text shortened]... lly clear that religious murder wins out.

...”

so what about "Stalin and Pol Pot"?

you need to check the accuracy of your sources,


...there is no such thing as state-imposed atheism

what about Albania?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you need to check the accuracy of your sources,


...there is no such thing as state-imposed atheism

what about Albania?

What about Albania?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania

“...The most common religions practised in Albania include Islam and Christianity.[1]
The country does not have a history of religious extremism and takes pride in the harmony that exists across religious traditions and practices. ...”

http://atheism.about.com/library/Balkans/blalbania.htm

“...In 1967 the Albanian government abolished all religious institutions. In 1990, however, the prohibition was revoked and mosques and churches began to reopen....”

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What about Albania?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania

“...The most common religions practised in Albania include Islam and Christianity.[1]
The country does not have a history of religious extremism and takes pride in the harmony that exists across religious traditions and practices. ...”

sigh, poor little scientist, such a big brain in such a wee boob!

State atheism has been defined as the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. State atheism may include active opposition to religion, and persecution of religious institutions, leaders and believers. However, whether such persecution was truly motivated by atheism is disputed by others.[2][3]

The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[4] in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism and stay away from churches; this attitude was especially militant under Joseph Stalin.[5][6][7] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion over wide areas of its influence, including places like central Asia.[8] The Socialist People's Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

no such thing as state imposed atheism, really ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, poor little scientist, such a big brain in such a wee boob!

State atheism has been defined as the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

no such thing as state imposed atheism, really ?

Are any of them supporting state-imposed atheism today?
I took the meaning of “no such thing as state imposed atheism “ as meaning in the present tense.

Also, and much more to the point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

“...
However, whether such persecution was truly motivated by atheism is disputed by others ...”

therefore, we can claim this “State atheism” to be a misnomer.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I looked them up and, to my surprise, they are BOTH theists!

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-birmingham/refuting-the-myth-that-hitler-stalin-and-pol-pot-were-atheists

“...Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around ...[text shortened]... lly clear that religious murder wins out.

...”

so what about "Stalin and Pol Pot"?

your nonsense aside, they were both avowed atheists. Atheism is responsible for far more deaths than sincere religous wars.

Also lets remember that people have used religion as an excuse for war, but rarely has the real reason been religous. Your's is a rediculous argument at best, and one that often ignorantly repeated by people with a bias against religion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no such thing as state imposed atheism, really ?

Do you seriously believe that if the state you lived in "went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion" that this would "impose" atheism on you, robbie, cause you to stop being a Christian, and make you be an atheist?