Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's right robbie. I don't need "empirical evidence" to read your story and conclude that you deliberately interfered with the trappings of someone else's faith, and I am perfectly within my rights to interpret that story and your subsequent comments to mean that the whole incident was a manifestation of your contempt for those people.
FMF has never produced empirical evidence for any of his assertions and deals in the currency of opinion, usually his own, which he seems to think has more validity than empirical evidence. 'i dont need empirical evidence. . .' - FMF
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't sense that anyone's "religious sensibilities" were "incensed", robbie. I think some people just took a dim view of what you did - as described in a story about yourself that you offered unsolicited - and they then questioned you about why you did it.
2. The hypocrisy of atheists who time and again blaspheme and demonstrate contempt for religious values and teaching should suddenly have their religious sensibilities incensed by the placing of a small Bible tract in the middle of an occult pentangle! (google fudge, twithead)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou told the story - presumably - to the best of your ability. And yet it raised questions from several fellow posters. Questions you seem to take great exception to being asked. Do you now regret that the story as you told it, left readers with a lack of "details of a situation", left them "[drawing] conclusions" that you don't like, and that your storytelling left your readers feeling as if they had "not [..] been present nor of observing any of the incident", and that your readers read your story and then expressed their "opinions"? Do you regret your clumsy effort to entertain us all with your story of your brush with "Satan Worship" at all?
3. The folly of assuming one knows details of a situation, when one was neither present nor observed anything in connection with the incident and drawing conclusions on the basis of not having been present nor of observing any of the incident, filling in the missing details with opinions and insinuations.
Originally posted by mikelomThe four largest religious groups by population, estimated to account for between 5 and 7 billion people, are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism (with the relative numbers for Buddhism and Hinduism dependent on the extent of syncretism).
Buddhism IS NOT a religion, thus you FAIL.
-m. 😉
Four largest religions
Adherents
% of world population
Article[circular reference]
World population
6.99 billion[23]
Figures taken from individual articles:
Christianity
2.1 billion – 2.2 billion
33% – 34%
Christianity by country
Islam
1.5 billion – 1.6 billion[24]
22% – 23%
Islam by country
Buddhism
500 million – 1.9 billion[25]
7% – 29%[25]
Buddhism by country
Hinduism
1.0 billion – 1.1 billion
15.2% – 16.2%
Hinduism by country
Total
5.1 billion – 6.8 billion[25]
77% – 99%[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFor me this has always been the crux of the matter, robbie. No one is debating the value that the other people are placing on something. The value I place on it - or the value I think they place on it - is a red herring. The point blank question you were trying to move the goalposts away from for a few pages back there was 'why do you feel justified in demonstrating your contempt towards someone else's religious stuff by actually interfering with it, merely because you do not value what they value or do not understand why they value it'? That has been the issue all along and I certainly do not require "empirical evidence" to ask you about it, in response to a story about yourself that you offered.
When I asked for evidence of the validity of satanic worship they provided nothing and to this day have still provided nothing, which is in itself is an irony, for if there is no validity and they have provided nothing, how can one demonstrate contempt for something which has no demonstrable value?
Is it a religion?
It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."
Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.
A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.
The starting point of Buddhism is reasoning or understanding, or, in the Pali words, samma-ditthi.
To the seekers of truth the Buddha says:
"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm
I can quote websites too! Unfortunately for you, your intrinsic understanding of Buddhism leaves a great deal to be desired..
-m.
This has been a strange thread.
It started out innocently enough. One poster observed that the witches would probably not be bothered much and simply throw the tract away. The usual reaction would be mild annoyance at worst.
Then, in that same post, the fake outrage machine kicked into gear. It started with the word desecrate which conjures up images such as vandals spray painting graffiti on churches.
It's not even their house. Robbie has as much right to put tracts in it as they have to draw pentagrams on the floor. Fine him for litter if you must, but let's wind down the fake outrage...
Originally posted by SwissGambitHad I stood in the middle of the pentagram, cracked up my amp, called upon the forces
This has been a strange thread.
It started out innocently enough. One poster observed that the witches would probably not be bothered much and simply throw the tract away. The usual reaction would be mild annoyance at worst.
Then, in that same post, the fake outrage machine kicked into gear. It started with the word desecrate which conjures tagrams on the floor. Fine him for litter if you must, but let's wind down the fake outrage...
of darkness and blasted out the battle of evermore followed by black dog while
someone ate the afterbirth of a horse, no one would have batted an eyelid, those lads
having some fun with all that black metal! they are so naive!
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Had I stood in the middle of the pentagram, cracked up my amp, called upon the forces of darkness and blasted out the battle of evermore followed by black dog while someone ate the afterbirth of a horse"
Had I stood in the middle of the pentagram, cracked up my amp, called upon the forces
of darkness and blasted out the battle of evermore followed by black dog while
someone ate the afterbirth of a horse, no one would have batted an eyelid, those lads
having some fun with all that black metal! they are so naive!
Hahahahahaha! Funniest thing I've read on here in a while. I can't imagine what must go on inside the Kingdom Hall to nurture such an imagination?
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is this about Buddhism: Like Mike said, it is not a religion
The four largest religious groups by population, estimated to account for between 5 and 7 billion people, are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism (with the relative numbers for Buddhism and Hinduism dependent on the extent of syncretism).
Four largest religions
Adherents
% of world population
Article[circular reference]
W ...[text shortened]... tal
5.1 billion – 6.8 billion[25]
77% – 99%[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dzogchen-ponlop-rinpoche/is-buddhism-a-religion_b_669740.html
Originally posted by UllrBefore i was a Witness i was involved to an extent with the occult, I even read
"Had I stood in the middle of the pentagram, cracked up my amp, called upon the forces of darkness and blasted out the battle of evermore followed by black dog while someone ate the afterbirth of a horse"
Hahahahahaha! Funniest thing I've read on here in a while. I can't imagine what must go on inside the Kingdom Hall to nurture such an imagination?
Crowleys book and practised some of the meditation techniques, but the stance that he
recommended was too painful, so I gave it up, he claimed that after a while it would be
like getting into a hot bath! In the little village next to me, called Twechar, it had the
reputation for ages of having a practising coven, for there were not a few derelict
farmhouses where the witches could practice.
Originally posted by sonhouseI just gave a link proving it is a religion. In fact one of the top four religions.
There is this about Buddhism: Like Mike said, it is not a religion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dzogchen-ponlop-rinpoche/is-buddhism-a-religion_b_669740.html
Buddhism is a religion and philosophy indigenous to the Indian subcontinent and encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
Originally posted by RJHindsIn Buddhism, believing in a god is optional, not essential, not fundamental to the philosophy.
I just gave a link proving it is a religion. In fact one of the top four religions.
Buddhism is a religion and philosophy indigenous to the Indian subcontinent and encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism