T,  I will not dispute my observations on atheists, as I have qualified them as personal and thusly not really debateable. You mentioned a personal observation of sorts as regards your personal AA experience, I mention my personal observation. Neither are by nature of being personal are able to be qualified.

As regards dieties and what is taught, it has been my experience in Tibetan Buddhism Lamas will quite often tailor their teachings to the wants and applicability of the students they are interacting with. If a Lama perceives a student being culturally adapted to a theistic frame of mind, they will teach with such under consideration. That is my observation. To drive such theistically affirmed students from Buddhism by stateing things which are contradictory to their beliefs may pose a problem for the student, and lead them away from compassion. So for one firmly grounded in theism, dieties may seem by teaching to be inherantly existant beings, but only to ones so inclined. This in our culture is in the far far majority but that does not suggest that is the only way such things are taught, nor that it is the way things are generally understood to be. 

This however does not suggest that one known to be a atheist by the teacher will receive a similiar teaching. In Tibetan Buddhism the Buddha tailored his teachings to the group to which they were given and as differing levels of understanding were present, differing levels of teaching were given; basically conventional and ultimate. Lamas to my experience teach in the same manner. So what one receives may not be what another receives.   

As per example my practice though a very small one of little understanding is not Dzogchen but Mahamudra. In such I find stated things as....."All one's mental clinging to the concept of malicious spirits is but the manifestation of one's own mind. Apparent figures of gods or spirits that might appear before one are purely an inner sensation that has arisen from the minds clinging to the very thought of them." written by Takpo Tashi Namgyal in the forteen hundreds I think. A book used as a core teaching of sorts by some for the practice of Mahamudra.

He goes on to equate that ignorance is the source of the deluded apearances of serpent-gods and earth protectors. The presence of hatred, desire and other defilements in the practicioner, being the source of such delusions.

As regards diety yoga the Dali Lama states in part in his book Dzochen..."Taking the divine being as the focus of meditation, they then reflect again upon its empty nature. So here within ones meditative state of mind you find meditation on the deity's body, combined with the apprehension of its empty nature. Both deity yoga and understanding of emptiness are complete and present within a single cognitive event of the mind."

Which affirms my statement; dieties, the concept of such, are used as a means to a end, understanding of mind. Nothing suggests they are inherantly existant beings. They are in fact stated to be empty; like us.  As are any gods or demons.

Much was adopted from theistic cultural derivitives into Buddhism, as Bon in Tibetan Buddhism and Brahamism into Indian Buddhism initially. The context or how they are present or refered to, and utilized, is way way differing from their inceptive derivitives.   

So I reaffirm a atheist could very well find Tibetan Buddhism a fit. But I do not state Tibetan Buddhism is in any manner superior to other forms of Buddhism. It is my choice but may well others find other Buddhism or other religion a better fit.
Theists generally should stay with theistic religions is my belief, but that is not applicable to this person.

I nowhere do suggest your recommendations of books is not a good one.

This all to my limited understanding.

About your last line.....
Oh don't worry about the monitor....Ren...he's easy. Occasionally quite confuseing but.....easy.

[QUOTE=trishnajewelry;214051]I have found athiests to be as logical and illogical as theists.  Rationality and emotionality seem to coexist equally in both![/QUOTE]

Agree.

[QUOTE=ronnewmexico;214246]Oh don't worry about the monitor....Ren[/QUOTE]

BrBurl is the moderator. On this board, I'm just an ordinary poster. :)

The moderators for a board are listed beneath the list of threads for the board, on the right. They're also listed under the individual board names in the Buddhism index.
Beliefnet Forums > FAITHS & PRACTICES > Faith Communities > Buddhism

BrBurl is the sole moderator for most of the boards in the Buddhism area. He and I are co-moderators on the Buddhism Discussion board, although I'm more active there.

BTW, Wendy made the same post in the Buddhism board (Beliefnet Forums > FAITHS & PRACTICES > Faith Communities > Buddhism > Buddhism), and got a different set of responses.

And it appears the response to the question here are.....way way way superior.

Well I'll be.

And all these years I thought they were repellent because of their obtuse senses of humor.

But as they say you learn something new every day.

I am a good two thousand miles away from the nearest moderator, and thusly not directly subjected to their offensive odors. So I stand corrected.

I'll chalk this one up to experience, or lack of such.

And in the interest of such, I will hope we remain quite distant admirers of each others thoughtful introspective prose.

Well T, the Buddhist board is not a debate board, this board is a debate board. That board in theory should have less of the debate and more of the dialogue than this board, if that is what you want. Most boards have a descriptive thread at the begining explaining the purpose of the board.

The boards have several explicit rules which may not be violated, but jokeing if both parties are ok with it, does not seem to be one of them. It does deviate from topic, but it seems a relatively minor issue in light of the fact the initial poster has not posted anywhere since her initial post, and these particular jokes were not extensive but short and simple.

I did assume that the third post on this thread may have been her, who had forgotton her password and thusly created another identity but that is just a presumption on my part. 

Actually my comments to Ren were in jest, not in debate.  Serious personal comments are of course not allowed. Ren despite my jokeing assertations does have a very well developed sense of humor. Which is why I took liberty to joke with him. He seems to have accepted it as jest and not in seriousness, which is as it is intended. My comments on the superiority of this thread and the general superiority of atheists were also in jest, and not to be taken seriously.

I do agree with the validity of his serious assertation, that atheists are like everyone else. My observation was a personal one and offered as a contrast to your personal observation derived from your personal experience. I qualify my observation as personal and not debateable as personal observations are generally of that catagory. They are not able to be qualified as valid due to the nature of the observation. That I may observe myself many times adding 2 plus 2 and find that equaling 5 does not make it valid. Hence my comment on the personal.
That they are equal reinforces my contention that atheists may find Tibetan Buddhism equally of interest. This was a round about way of assertation; but to express the opposite,   led to the middle. The middle being atheists are the same as everyone else. Hence it (the middle position) affirms my total position though the initial secondary position(the personal observation) is defeated. Hence my central contention is advanced, though the specific point is lost. Like looseing a pawn to take a queen.  If atheists are like everyone else any choice of Buddhist belief is like anyone elses.
   
Post 13  was not totally off topic; paragraphs one and three were spoken in seriousness. I do believe Tibetan Buddhism is able to be utilized by atheists despite it having diety yoga in its practices, and believing in the other realms as existant though empty in final nature.   Though it  is certainly  not suited for everyone, nor should it be considered in any manner better than any other forms of Buddhism; it is simply equal to others. As atheistics are equal to others.

Buddhist as the very small minority on  belief net boards probably do have more necessity to not deviate from topic. To some extent it distracts from the discussion and that is important. But perhaps  to another larger extent these boards by my observation often become the focus of differing religious people  who though well intentioned, want to lead Buddhist if not to their particular religion, to a religious belief that modifies Buddhism to fit their idea of how Buddhist should believe. Which due to the nature of our culture is often within a theistic framework. So to a extent it is necessary that what we discuss here is Buddhist or centered upon Buddhist thought. Internet boards evolve to what they are presently from past circumstance. These present Buddhist boards have undergone long periods of past history which have proven negative to communication of Buddhism and Buddhist ideals. Thusly some established perameters are more importantly followed than others. It serves little purpose if all the posters on a Buddhist board are of other religion and all  the Buddhist feel thusly unwelcome and feel they cannot express their views. That the conversations be related to Buddhism thusly is of importance. And not to state those of differing religions are not completely equal in their beliefs to those that hold Buddhist belief. It is simply a reflection of a predominance of belief holders and predominance of cultural context. Meaning it is in no manner a negative reflection on those that hold the beliefs but just a matter more of numbers than anything else.

Another perhaps important perameter is the necessity for others not to lodge personal attack or comment in response to debate or discussion. This quickly evolves a site into a free for all no holds barred knock down drag out, which very rapidly leads to no one visiting the site. And perhaps though a remote consideration a potential of liability for a site that allows such atmosphere to exist. There has been recent litigation which extends liability from the individual to the site upon which things have occured which led to a negative outcome.  Only a very relative few  may prefer such a environment. Generally it is a good conduct and traffic issue. So thusly personal attacking is very frowned upon and will lead to posts being removed and possibly posters being denied ability to post. This is very common by my experience on political boards even here on Belief net. 

That as a known, my comments to Ren and to Burl were jests not in seriousness.  I really did not debate any issue with Ren on this thread. I have debated him in some fashion on  at least one other thread.

However Ren doesn't like long posts so we may debate shortly, (but that is another personal jest directed to Ren).

There are occasionally some serious contentions stated here. One poster stated not to long ago that the Dali Lama was a dictator and a believer in theism. To a Tibetan Buddhist those are issues of serious contention which bear if possible, reasoned discussion or debate to display the validness or invalidity of such. Another poster stated Tibetan monks take various drugs; that also bears explaination and discussion. To others perhaps these are of little issue, to a Tibetan Buddhist these are issues directed at our religion. From the outside it seems little, from the inside it holds import. Of course nothing on the internet is very very important, but such contention bears discussion and debate.  For which this forum is present to debate and discuss. To devolve into personal attack on such would of course just be compounding error. But if known of, and means are present, to allow such without challenge is also a error of sorts. A Tibetan Buddhist may of course be wrong, as I certainly many times are, but I personally must be proven wrong by rational reasoned discourse. I personally do not arbitrarily enter into discussion. The circumstance that allows participation here may not be long, so suchly I will respond with vigor, and choose the response.
And again not to state Tibetan Buddhism is any better than any other religion, but if any religion is challenged its believers will generally defend the religion, unless the challenge is sustainable. Tibetan Buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy or psychology or exotic pastime.


This all to my limted understanding, and with hope that it may explain in some slight manner.