1. Harper says new mosque shows 'the true and benevolent face of Islam'

Comment #205337 by Acitta on July 7, 2008 at 5:54 am

Mitchell Gilks wrote "I'd vote green if they were more than a one issue party". Mitchell, the Green Party of Canada is not a one issue party. They have a comprehensive set of policies. See http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy.

2. Karma comedians

Comment #186865 by Acitta on May 31, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Karma is not punishment. The word simply means "action". One is not punished for one's karma any more than an apple is "punished" by gravity for falling from the tree. Here is an article discussing the real meaning of Karma in the context of Sharon Stone's comment.

Stoned: What is karma?
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,6556,0,0,1,

3. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184915 by Acitta on May 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm

The Australian constitution provides for freedom of religion (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/641/0/PA001400.htm), so if the town prohibited this school because of it's religious nature, it would seem that they would open themselves up to a legal challenge. If we are to live in free societies, we cannot prevent people from choosing to freely organize themselves around ideas and beliefs that we disagree with or see as irrational.

4. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181205 by Acitta on May 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm

This was originally broadcast on Thursday, May 10 2007, part of a series of programs called "Five Days of Faith." link

5. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179704 by Acitta on May 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm

The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships.

Two of the major doctrines of Buddhism are "anatta" (soullessness or selflessness") and "dependent origination" which states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect.

6. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167697 by Acitta on April 24, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #167591 by epeeist

I don't know whether you realise it but you are guilty of equivocation. Are you classifying Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy?

Take your pick. Buddhism is usually classified as a religion. However, it has a strong philosophical component, and is generally non-theistic. Some schools, such as the Madhyamika, are known as "philosophical schools". That is not to say that there is any shortage of irrationality in Buddhism as it is practiced in many countries.

Are (or were) you a Buddhist? Either way you are welcome, when we do get religionists here they are mostly Christians. A new point of view is always nice to have.

I am not and have never been a Buddhist, but I find the central tenets of Buddhism to be philosophically compelling, and I believe them to be compatible with a rational, scientific outlook on life. I cannot in any way call myself an expert on Buddhism, though. I find that the level of discourse between the theists and the anti-theists in forums like this to be often distressingly shallow, philosophically.

7. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167578 by Acitta on April 24, 2008 at 7:15 am

While the arguments of Lord Winston are not in any way convincing, I am bothered by Dennet's insistence that all religion is impervious to reason. He obviously hasn't read the writings of Nagarjuna. Rational inquiry is central to the Madhyamika school of Buddhism and Madhyamika philosophy is central to the Tibetan Buddhism of the Dalai Lama.

8. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153820 by Acitta on April 2, 2008 at 6:02 am

I find it curious that China has voted in favour of this resolution, considering their violent suppression of Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims.

9. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127559 by Acitta on February 15, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Canadians like to make fun of American ignorance too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuyfmvnwoG8

10. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126888 by Acitta on February 14, 2008 at 12:34 pm

The HRW letter is here: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/13/saudia18046.htm

Maybe we can all ask our favorite "jinn" to make the judges impotent. :-)

11. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #126593 by Acitta on February 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm

It seems to me, from reading this article, that Britain has a different definition of the word multiculturalism than Canada does. To me, multiculturalism means that immigrants bring the best of their cultures to add to Canadian society. To me, multiculturalism means that I have the choice to eat in an Italian restaurant, or a Greek one, or an Indian one, or an Ethiopian one or one from any number of other cultures that have enriched Canadian society. To me, multiculturalism means that I can go to a summer festival an listen to Latin music and Reggae and Arabic music and Russian music and many other kinds of music and see the traditional dances from many countries. Multiculturalism means the dozens of languages I hear spoken when I ride the Toronto subway. Multiculturalism means people from multiple cultures sharing with one another. Multiculturalism does not mean that someone can immigrate and then demand that all of the other cultures conform to the cultural ideas that they bring. Multiculturalism means that people from different backgrounds agree to get along and build a peaceful society. Certainly, it will not always be without conflict, but conflicts can be resolved in democratic societies. There may be those who, rather than bringing the best of their culture, bring the worst. But those seem to me to be in the minority, at least in my country they are.

12. God the psycho

Comment #121390 by Acitta on February 3, 2008 at 10:54 am

A good rant, but he speaks about Abraham as if he was a real historical figure rather than a mythological one. The Jewish religion was not the sole origin of monotheism.

13. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #120485 by Acitta on February 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Spinoza said "Gilbert Ryle's seminal "The Concept of Mind" (1949) debunked this view [Ghost in the Machine] 59 years ago :)

(and technically, Spinoza debunked it 350 years ago... but no one listened to him)."

Actually, the Buddha Shakyamuni did it 2500 years ago (doctrine of Anatta).

14. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118133 by Acitta on January 30, 2008 at 11:49 am

It is amazing that theists repeatedly make the argument that non-belief in a god results in a lack of morality, when one of the major religions in the world, Buddhism, manages to transmit moral teaching to its followers without the need of belief in, or devotion to a god. Buddhists have not shown themselves to be any less moral than any other religion and in fact have not as a whole been inclined to forcibly convert others at the point of the sword, unlike the semitic religions.

15. Blind Faiths

Comment #108736 by Acitta on January 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm

It seems from this review that the author treats Islam as a monolithic entity rather than a religion that is expressed differently in different countries. This kind of blanket condemnation is the kind of thing that has been used to excuse great evil. A lot of innocent people died in the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, who were not responsible for the evil perpetrated by the despotic governments that happened to rule over them. None of the Muslim believers that I see every day in multicultural Canada have tried to blow me up with a suicide bombs. In fact, the only major terrorist act originating in Canada was perpetrated by Sikh extremists and not Muslim, and their beef was with the government of India, not Canada or the west. It seems to me that civilizations have always clashed and that modern advances in mobility and telecommunications have simply brought cultural differences into sharper relief. While cultural conflict can be traumatic, new cultures arise from the interaction of older ones. From my point of view as a Canadian, multiculturalism has greatly enriched Canadian society. The various immigrant communities, for the most part, live in peace and respect one another. If the rest of the planet was like Canada, it would be a much better place, IMO. Condemning multiculturalism is misplaced. It is those groups, like the Muslim extremists, who don't accept multiculturalism that are the problem.

16. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99676 by Acitta on December 17, 2007 at 9:43 am

As a Canadian, I must say that, on balance, multiculturalism in Canada has been a great success and very beneficial to the country, notwithstanding the kind of conflicts that are illustrated by this story. The cities of Canada have become wonderful places to live because of the cultural diversity that has been infused into them by immigration. Exposure to the music, dance and cuisine of many cultures has enriched me as an individual and Canadian society as a whole. When I attend the annual multicultural festival in my city, I find that rather than trying to kill me with suicide bombs, the people from these many cultures are simply trying to get me to buy their good tasting food and watch their entertaining dances. This cultural conflict between first generation immigrants and their Canadian born children is an old story that has occurred in immigrant families from Europe just as much as it has occurred in more recent immigrant families from Islamic countries. Just ask, for instance, the children of Italian immigrants. Of course, this conflict doesn't usually result in murder. However, just because some immigrants have difficulty integrating into a multicultural society is no reason to dismiss the idea of multiculturalism. Tolerance is not a one way street. New immigrants must also learn to be tolerant of the other cultures in the midst of which they find themselves. I don't believe that culture is the proper domain of science. While science and rationalism may help us distinguish the real from the unreal, I don't believe that it can tell us what type of clothing or dance or cuisine is more correct or true than any other. While it is clear that some traditional cultural practices are incompatible with a modern secular and democratic society, it is inappropriate and impossible to expect new immigrants to divest themselves of every bit of the traditional cultures in which they arose. The dominant culture in our society is no more true or correct than any other culture but arose in the same haphazard and creative process over centuries.

17. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #99018 by Acitta on December 15, 2007 at 8:34 am

Like other religions, Buddhism has both good and bad points. I think that any thinking person can only benefit by understanding the sophisticated philosophy of Nagarjuna's Madhyamika (Middle Way) school of Buddhism. Buddhism began as a criticism of the prevailing religions extent in India at the time. Sakyamuni Buddha instructed that nothing that he teaches should be accepted on his word alone but that everything should be questioned, and that each individual is responsible for discovering the truth on his or her own. It seems to me that the central doctrines of Buddhism, anatta (soullessness), impermanence, dependent origination and non-attachment are compatible with a modern rational world view.


On the other hand, the way Buddhism is practiced by the masses in many countries involves a lot of superstition and syncretism with other religions with a multiplicity of Buddhas, Bodhisattva's and other celestial beings that are prayed to and propitiated in similar ways to deistic religions. I don't think that the majority of cultural Buddhists would want to engage in the religion of renunciation taught by Sakyamuni.

18. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90490 by acitta on November 25, 2007 at 10:15 am

I went to Paul Davies' organizations website, Beyond: the Cener for Fundamental Concepts in Science (http://beyond.asu.edu/home.html) and I found a reference to another of his articles titled "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111345,00.html) in which he states "The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better."

He suggests that the idea of physical laws has its origin in theology.