I suppose I would define them in terms of their most common usage.  I'm only commenting because of some of your previous posts regarding "ego" "bigotry""pacifism" etc, which seemed to perhaps indicate a more esoteric worldview on your part.  Nothing that absolutely mandates adherence to Buddhism but being that you're an atheist I would assume that would be a religion / philosophy that could most easily accommodate you.

  Incidentally, I used to work with a master plumber who was a former Marine and a practicing Buddhist but he was certainly not a pacifist.  We shared similar temperments and a love of weapons, martial arts, similar politics, etc.  Too bad he passed away a few years ago.

The transition ended a long time ago. I was reading a book called "Being nobody, going nowhere" and I realized "hey, this is how I feel, this is how I think". It was at that time I knew I was a buddhist (14 years ago).

As for my previous posts, I float around a lot so I'll cover the three words you put up: "ego", "bigotry" and "pacifism".

Ego = Fear

Bigotry = Brian37 (lol)

Pacifism = Me

The older I get, the more ridiculous pacifism appears. Life is war. War is life. If you aren't fighting, you're dead.

I find that most of the people I meet are constantly at war in their minds.

  Coincidentally, "LIFE IS A WAR" was inked onto my upper back in August of '07.

Guess I must be dead. I haven't fought for years. Life is much more pleasant being dead.

Must avoid Godwin's Law... MUST!

Being dead has its pros and cons.

Funny, I find most people delude themselves into thinking they can live without killing.

"Guess I must be dead. I haven't fought for years. Life is much more pleasant being dead."

You've never not been at war. Your body has been at war with microscopic organisms since you were conceived. You take part in the subjugation and slaughter of all manner of plants and animals so you can consume them. Even if you never kill them directly or intentionally, you pay those who do to do so.

You don't have to march in an army with a rifle against people to be in a war.

WAR:
2:
a :  a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b :  a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
c :  variance, odds 3

I agree with that observation. I have told "vegans" that they directly contribute to the slaughter of millions of animals every year by just living.

the jains were some of the earliest thinkers who posited the existence of microorganisms, mainly with the aim of avoiding killing them.  that's why many of them wear the face masks.  of course, their microorganisms were mythical and in reality their crude measures never prevented them from killing trillions of bacteria by just breathing, but still, at least they tried.

Nice point if all pacifistic philosophies adopted the concept of ahisma as strictly as Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. But they don't, especially those found in the West. From what I recall, most forms of modern Buddhism believe that a killing only creates negative karma if you are aware of the being and have intent to cause harm, so it is hardly the strict form of pacifism your argument is valid against.

ahimsa is hardly black and white, and even the jains are divided.  in fact, for being of the smallest religions in the world, they are extremely divided, into two main branches and various sects that are all vociferously opposed to each other.

It really becomes rather difficult to unravel all of the divisions if one wants to really gain some knowledge about Eastern religions.

While I flirted around with it for a bit, I found that I simply did not have the interest to pursue it any further than the JC Penney/Sears version.

At that time though, I had stopped putting too much credence into much of anything, so that probably had more to do with it than anything else.

I will say this, it somewhat irritates me (why I do not know because it really does not matter) when someone wants to claim :"I am a Buddhist" and it consists of a few Lama quotes and some feel good stuff.

I remember a French comedy/action one time (and I thought the scene was funny) but this druglord's house is getting blown to bits and explosives are going off.

In the scene, one of the thugs bursts into the druglord's living room and pauses with a rifle in his hand. He says : "Fuck man, I didn't know you were a Buddhist ?."

Druglord replies : "Are you fucking kidding me ? Just look at all of these expensive statues, books and incense. Of course I am a fucking Buddhist !.

They then resume shooting at one another and the gunfire continues

yeah, one of the books on my amazon wishlist was written by a Tibetan monk and it's called something like what makes you not a Buddhist.

Now that might be one that I would actually be willing to read.

Just in the interest of another's opinion.

Half of the time, when it comes to a lot of subjects, I would rather have at least some sort of fundamental understanding of the said subject before I say something too much about it.

I have learned the hard way that entering into some sort of debate with half-assed information can totally make you look stupid. Unless of course, your debate is in some raunchy biker bar like a few of mine have been and consists of beer fuled individuals that are really going to throw a punch sooner or later anyway. Somehow, the effectiveness of what the truth is in those kind of situations seems to go right out the window. Along with reason and facts of course.

i think that's a wise position, but i also think conversing and/or even debating about things with which you're not terribly familiar can be beneficial to everyone involved.  what i can't stand are those who refuse to admit they're poorly informed even when it's been clearly demonstrated multiple times that they are.  i also can't stand those whose erroneous ideas of a subject have been corrected, sometimes multiple times, yet a couple months later they spew the same bullshit no less decisively than they did before.

it's my firm belief that attention to detail in everything is an indispensible part of rationality.

That's a ridiculous and flawed ideal. It is conceivable that one could harm or kill all life on the planet without being aware of it.
It is inconceiveable that one could survive without being aware of being a constant cause of violent death. It is currently completely impossible to survive without consuming life, hence causing the extinguishment of life in order to consume it. If you have the mental capacity to understand the idea behind pacifism, then you understand that if you want to live then you must kill. Causing harm is part of existing.