muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 4:18pm:



The time scale matters because what is now looks like a genocide was acceptable modus operandi  in previous days.
For example the genocide activities of atheists like Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc. were not acceptable in 20th century while in this century they may become common place because of environmental worries.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:


So given that genocide is anathema to 20th century mores, the question is - should we allow uncensored access to this kind of material by children?

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:


I knew you'd see reason eventually. Mao Zedong was indeed an atheist.  I knew you'd come around to my definition of the word eventually. Freediver probably still thinks he was an Agnostic though.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:47pm:


I didn't think you'd appreciate the meaning. You see I've always said that an atheist doesn't believe in Gods. Some of you made the argument that an atheist denies the existence of God.

I maintained that a person on a remote island or a Buddhist who had never come in contact with Christian mythology and didn't believe in other deities could be defined as atheist, and in fact even a fish is atheist.

By your inclusion of Mao Zedong, you are accepting my generic definition of atheist, since in fact Mao Zedong was an example of a person brought up in a Buddhist tradition with no exposure to Christian Mythology. FD would probably still regard him as an Agnostic.  

So as I said before, I'm pleased that you eventually saw reason and abandoned the original unworkable definition.

So now that we are agreed that this inclusive definition of an atheist as a person who doesn't believe in gods, it is much simpler to realise that an atheist may actually have a religion, such as Buddhism, but that the mere fact of being atheist (adj) does not necessarily imply that he belongs to a religion of any description.  

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 7:45am:


Read my last post again until you understand my point. It obviously went over your head.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:40am:

Some Buddhist sects accept the existence of gods but not the concept of a singular all powerful deity who created the universe, through whom all things were made and to whom all things belong and will return. Buddhist gods in the Tibetan expression are simply higher beings who themselves are very unlikely to attain Nirvana because they are too attached to the comforts of their existence to seek Buddhism's ultimate reality.

That aside, it would be more accurate to refer to Buddhism as non-theistic, as opposed to atheistic, which has come to mean rejection of the existence of god(s) including the need for dogmatic religion to define a mystic super-reality.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:11am:


I'm glad that you recognise that atheism is different form of religion.