Atheists... Your life is pointless

@MattDavis,

I don't believe that's a fair comparison; humans in general, no matter which religion, will have bad and good people in them. It's more realistic to look at the individual to determine good and bad. Even then, it's subjective to the observer.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

bump

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

There certainly is plenty of that stuff going around...especially, it seems, on the Internet.

All one can do is to try to be as aware of it as possible...and not to over-react.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I am not comparing Buddhist to each other.
I am comparing Igm's mental treatment of 2 different Buddhists.
The one he views to be in his "tribe" and the other he views to be out of his "tribe".
Apparently when the Dalai Lama organizes people he is a saint.
When Ken Wilber organizes information he is a "cult leader".
I have animosity toward neither of these people and I am quite certain those two people have no animosity toward each other either.
The reason being they are both highly intelligent and compassionate people.
They are on different paths.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Igm I respect your defense of the Dalai Lama.
However it becomes hard to stomach, seeing how just yesterday you were making implications that another Buddhist was a "failed cult leader" and implied he was involved in sex crimes. Perhaps you would like to return to that, assuming you still hold that position to be true.

Those were 'not' my views... he himself says he is not a Buddhist he is influenced by Buddhism but has his 'own' ideas based on many paths culminating in his way. Here is the article which accuses him of those things:

http://postmasculine.com/ken-wilber

There are over 20.000 other articles about him being a cult leader and defending those accused of sex crimes that were in his 'inner circle' on the internet.

You use his language and have promoted his views especially when you first appeared on A2k. I am suspicious of the 'teachings' of Ken Wilbur. I believe the evidence if you can call these articles evidence warrants my caution.

2 Replies

@igm,

You are referenced a pseudo-science pop-psychology magazine as your reference
Here's Postmasculine's tag line "Badass Ideas That Will Immediately Change Your Life."
I hardly find it surprising that they would take offense with Ken Wilber who doesn't think that pop-psychology "Badass Ideas" are the way to create a more compassionate world.
Next.
-----------------------------------------------
Just as an FYI igm:
I have read several of Ken Wilber's books. We actually disagree on much.
The fact however is that you suggested him a "failed cult leader". This is simply not an accurate portrayal.
The fact that you couched it in the terminology of
Well some people say "..........."
Is simply a cowardly backhanded way of saying something without "saying something". This a tactic much prized on Fox News and other punditry outlets.

Did you know?
Some people say that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Including many scientists! Yes sir. Actual honest to goodness scientists say that.

0 Replies

@igm,

Additionally, your error in labeling cults. Is not merely offensive to Ken Wilber and other "Buddhists" is is severely offensive to victims of actual cults.
You might venture into the [Groups] section of A2K and read some of the experiences of ex-Children of God members.

Or... [gasp]... research the defining characteristics of a cult.
Healing from Experiences with Unhealthy Spiritual Groups and Cults

Leland E. Shields & F. Jeri Carter, Ph.D. wrote:

•Authoritarian in their power structure
•Totalitarian in their control of the behavior of their members
•Pyramidal structure
•Uses thought reform techniques
•Isolation of members (physical and/or psychological isolation) from society
•Uses deception in recruiting and/or fund raising
•Promotes dependence of the members on the group
•Totalitarian in their world view
•Uses mind altering techniques (chanting, meditation, hypnosis and various forms of repetitive actions) to stop normal critical thinking
•Appear exclusive and innovative
•Charismatic or messianic leader who is self-appointed and has a special mission in life
•Controls the flow of information
•Instills a fear of leaving the group.

Any of that sound familiar igm?

0 Replies

Could we all keep on with atheism and ontology or do we have to go on about hungry broken Mitsubishi's and good gang bad gang soap opera logic guys ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Could we all keep on with atheism and ontology or do we have to go on about hungry broken Mitsubishi's and good gang bad gang soap opera logic guys ?

We certainly could.

If history in A2K is any indication, though, I doubt we will.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

It's hard to believe!! I go out for a bit and when I come back Setanta has informed the readers that I am unimportant, as if anybody doesn't know, that I write drivel in my posts and that he has me ignored as if that is witty or original or intelligent or something. Some mark of superior attainment. Again. For the upmteenth time. And that he has invented a special pejorative name for me which, without further argument, justifies me being persecuted. (A Goebbels trick.) He calls me Spurious and, hey-presto, I'm spurious. Just like that. Word magic which must assume members are all thick. Nobody would try such a cheap trick on an audience which is not held in contempt.

I think he must be obsessed with me. He's like a dog returning to its vomit for another sniff at it.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I don't find you spurious Spendius.
I enjoy your writing and your perspective.
Well if not your perspective, at least the method by which you convey it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I think he must be obsessed with me. He's like a dog returning to its vomit for another sniff at it.

Was it long ago that I asked if one of you were the mentor and you replied that you two just agree with each other? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

I have read a little about American psychologists, rl, and the list you provide from your guidebook is obviously them getting their denial in first in the hope nobody will accuse them of such things..

I'll accuse the lot of them of showing plenty of signs of the full range and a few other things besides. Like making money by frightening people.

If some people have those traits more than others, as you say, and which is obvious anyway, have you got cut off points below which their exhibition is normal, and have you considered different levels of provocation which might cause them to be exhibited at certain times?

The geezers who wrote that tripe, all the traits are quite normal for anybody who thinks like La Mettrie or the Divine Marquis de Sade, two martyrs to the atheist cause, don't need to want the best of everything because their Moms had trained them to do so so well that they never even think about it just as they don't think about the air they are breathing or that the availability of Charmin De Luxe is not a normal human condition in respect of arse-wiping.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I have read a little about American psychologists, rl, and the list you provide from your guidebook is obviously them getting their denial in first in the hope nobody will accuse them of such things..

What is it that you think that they are in denial about? Is it somewhat similar to how you and setanta agree?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

I don't find you spurious Spendius.

Spendi, whatever you may think of him, is original. Setanta is repetitive and completely lacking in imagination. Call him a prick, he'll call you a prick back.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I certainly agree that psychological research has focused too much on disorders rather than health and well being. The medical philosophical predisposition to find an illness, rather than treat a person. The DSM is one of the most flagrant abusers in the cause of this philosophy.
This perpetuated a great many misunderstandings of sexuality. The APA did not even suggest that it was possible for a homosexual to be "disease free" until 1973 http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf

Homosexuality as a disorder did not leave the DSM until 1986, despite mounting evidence demonstrating the ridiculousness of the notion. The diagnosis created the "disease". Tell someone they are mentally sick, and surprise surprise this has a negative effect on that someone.
Who would have known?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Call him a prick, he'll call you a prick back.

He will also add that You're a sad case, Bubba.

Quote:

Setanta is repetitive and completely lacking in imagination

I would think that statements like that come from someone who is very imaginative in the sense that reality does not always hold value.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Evolution is slow and often it so slow that we can not even see every transitional point but I would think that they have evolved pretty quick being you were able to notice. Wink

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

I don't want this thread to turn into a burn Setanta witch hunt.
Setanta and I frequently have disagreements.
I don't think ad hominem attacks about ad hominem attacks are very clever.
Ironic perhaps, but not clever. Not clever and probably not helpful.
If Setanta proposes an argument I disagree with I will address the argument.
My argument is that attacking Setanta ad hominem is cheap and unhelpful.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I "enjoy" the way you seem to cover both ends of the same issue. Evolution is slow, but you think they have evolved pretty quick. Yup, both ends of the spectrum.

0 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know