?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

01/30/2009 01:34:37 PM · #476

Originally posted by dahkota:

Nirvana is salvation in Buddhism. I would argue, with regard to Taoism, that the entire purpose of the religion is a form of salvation (as defined above) - being one with Tao, which is essentially God.

So I'll admit my knowledge of Taoism comes from comparative religion classes, a little reading, and wiki, but I'm going to disagree here. Taoists are polytheistic and don't have a concept of God (capital G) like we do. Wiki will contradict your statement with, "Being one with the Tao does not indicate a union with an eternal spirit in the Hindu sense, but rather living in accordance with nature."

This is part of why I would consider Taoism to be more philosophical than religious. Its precepts are considered the best way to live life on Earth and have no consideration for anything beyond this life. They certainly can contain moral precepts, but that doesn't, to me, denote religion.

Confucianism, even more so, is a philosophy. It has no pantheon of gods and does not consider the afterlife at all.

A further bit to support these two as philosophies is their comfort in blending with true religions. Many asians feel perfectly at home practicing both Taoism AND Buddhism or even Taoism AND Christianity. I don't think two true religions would be so compatible.

01/30/2009 01:38:48 PM · #477

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What you are talking about is the fact religion plays a role to a greater degree in the lives of Americans than many other countries. These things apparently matter to more Americans than, say, Canadians. That is why these issues come up, not because of a lack of separation.

I completely disagree with the above statement. I think the only reason it has gotten so much play is because, over the last 8 years, we have had a leader that pushes that agenda. Look back, and you will see religion had a much smaller influence during the Clinton Administration. During the Reagan administration it wasn't nearly as strong as it is now but it was greater than the Carter Admin.

Now without Bush in the White House, religious attitudes and control will relax again, and we can go back to being normal, for what thats worth...

01/30/2009 01:42:40 PM · #478

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would put it under religion and to be specific (since he was talking about my non-belief in Zeus), Christianity. It's not an exclusive non-belief though. Lots of other people hold it as well and they may fall in many of the other categories.

So your non-belief is religion, but the non-belief of others (per your earlier post) is philosophy. You're attempting to dodge the very definition of disbeliefâ�� claiming that non-belief of Zeus is actually belief in something else. You're effectively working from a given that everybody has to believe in something, but that's begging the question, a logical fallacy. Practically no one on the planet believes in Zeus, NOT because they believe in something else (whether monotheist, polytheist or atheist), but simply because they don't believe in Zeus. Period. It's not a religion OR a philosophy any more than not believing in bigfoot or Green Lantern would fall under those categories.

I really think our differences probably mount to the perspective. All those non-beliefs up above, to me, are secondary to another worldview. I don't believe in Bigfoot because I only believe in things that can be proven or I don't believe in Zeus because I only believe in one God (those are just examples of what people might say). Perhaps I have gained a little insight into your position about atheism. To me, you have to understand my faith in God is the central tenant of my life. Everything revolves around it to some degree. It's natural for me, then, to consider a non-belief in God to likewise be central because that's the order of my life. I can now appreciate your non-belief in God, rather than being central, is secondardy to a belief in Materialism. However, in my defense, we are often having a conversation about religion or religious topics on these threads. In that regard, it is probably fair to consider the belief or non-belief in gods to be a central, defining descriptor of our positions.

01/30/2009 01:54:14 PM · #479

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
Nirvana is salvation in Buddhism. I would argue, with regard to Taoism, that the entire purpose of the religion is a form of salvation (as defined above) - being one with Tao, which is essentially God.

So I'll admit my knowledge of Taoism comes from comparative religion classes, a little reading, and wiki, but I'm going to disagree here. Taoists are polytheistic and don't have a concept of God (capital G) like we do. Wiki will contradict your statement with, "Being one with the Tao does not indicate a union with an eternal spirit in the Hindu sense, but rather living in accordance with nature."

Um. No. Taoists are not in any way polytheistic. What you call God is what they call the Tao. It is difficult, maybe, for you to understand, because to you, God is a thing in itself. In Taoism, Tao is everything and then some. One cannot relate the two religions in each other's grammar very well. Just as you are hung up on salvation, christian form of salvation, Taoism has its own form of salvation that doesn't mesh, or equate, nor is defined by Christian salvation. Stop trying to equate the two and it may be easier to understand. Anyway, regardless of what Wiki says (it being the ultimate source on everything) Taoism isn't polytheistic - it is impossible to be polytheistic if everything is the same thing, yes?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is part of why I would consider Taoism to be more philosophical than religious. Its precepts are considered the best way to live life on Earth and have no consideration for anything beyond this life. They certainly can contain moral precepts, but that doesn't, to me, denote religion.

But you are looking at it from a western point of view. According to Taoism, there is nothing after this life because this life is forever. If you don't understand that basic principle and insist that religion requires birth, death, afterlife, then you will never understand the Tao. Don't look at it from your christian point of view - it just won't work.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Confucianism, even more so, is a philosophy. It has no pantheon of gods and does not consider the afterlife at all.

A further bit to support these two as philosophies is their comfort in blending with true religions. Many asians feel perfectly at home practicing both Taoism AND Buddhism or even Taoism AND Christianity. I don't think two true religions would be so compatible.

You are trying to westernize religions that don't follow your method of thinking. I'm kind of put off your statement about TRUE religions. I'm wondering what they are, since you so easily discount ones you clearly don't really understand.

01/30/2009 01:59:58 PM · #480

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I can now appreciate your non-belief in God, rather than being central, is secondardy to a belief in Materialism.

No, you still don't get it. At all. I don't disbelieve in Bigfoot because I instead believe in Yeti. I simply see no more evidence for it than any other fairy tale. You don't have to believe in a single god or materialism to disbelieve in Zeus. Likewise, there is no need to believe in Materialism (or anything else) to disbelieve in gods- it's a separate issue.

01/30/2009 02:08:06 PM · #481

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can now appreciate your non-belief in God, rather than being central, is secondardy to a belief in Materialism.

No, you still don't get it. At all. I don't disbelieve in Bigfoot because I instead believe in Yeti. I simply see no more evidence for it than any other fairy tale. You don't have to believe in a single god or materialism to disbelieve in Zeus. Likewise, there is no need to believe in Materialism (or anything else) to disbelieve in gods- it's a separate issue.

Man, two posts in a row saying I don't get it. Ouch.

I wouldn't say Materialism is necessary for a disbelief in gods, but I'd contend it was the basis for your own personal disbelief. Your "no evidence" example for Bigfoot is very Materialistic in nature (although this isn't perfect because Bigfoot could easily exist within a Materialistic framework).

If someone asked you why you didn't believe in God, I'm assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you would say "because I have no evidence for his existence". Isn't that fair? I would consider that under the Materialism framework. I'm not saying that holds for everybody though.

01/30/2009 02:11:02 PM · #482

I'm not going to quote your post Dahkota because it's too long, but you are going to have to support your notions because wiki directly contradicts you.

"The traditional Chinese religion is polytheistic." (from wiki)

It sounds like you are claiming that Taoism is pantheistic. You'd have to show some evidence of support though and further you'd have to show some evidence that the object of Tao's "to become one with Tao" is some deity (even in a Buddhist sense rather than Western). You can't just say it isn't so. ;) Especially when Wiki claims you are wrong.

EDIT: There seems to be some contradictory information. Under "Pantheism" there is a single line, "Taoism holds a pantheistic view. The "Tao" could easily be equated with Spinoza's "God-or-Nature." Perhaps we need another source and it's possible Taoism is flexible enough that some are polytheistic and some are pantheistic.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 14:14:47.

01/30/2009 02:20:02 PM · #483

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Man, two posts in a row saying I don't get it. Ouch.

Make it three. One can disbelieve in gods regardless of whether the only thing that can be proven to exist is matter. Even if I think other things can exist besides matter, gods needn't be among them any more than you must believe Thor must exist because supernatural entities are possible. It does not follow.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/30/2009 02:24:20 PM · #484

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, two posts in a row saying I don't get it. Ouch.

Make it three. One can disbelieve in gods regardless of whether the only thing that can be proven to exist is matter. Even if I think other things can exist besides matter, gods needn't be among them any more than you must believe Thor must exist because supernatural entities are possible. It does not follow.

Listen to me! :) I don't disagree. I'm talking about you personally now. Shannon does not believe God exists because Shannon does not feel there is evidence for him. I'm further speculating (and you can correct me), but of all the philosophies or worldviews you have, this line of thinking would fall best into what we can call Materialism.

milo655321

Nikon D70

01/30/2009 02:35:33 PM · #485

Shannon, you don't actually believe that the material universe exists do you?

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 14:37:32.

01/30/2009 02:35:52 PM · #486

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Shannon does not believe God exists because Shannon does not feel there is evidence for him. I'm further speculating (and you can correct me), but of all the philosophies or worldviews you have, this line of thinking would fall best into what we can call Materialism.

Four. I don't think there's any evidence (material or otherwise) for current major deities. This "worldview" is completely independent of whether everything can be explained by matter and energy.

01/30/2009 02:38:35 PM · #487

Originally posted by milo655321:

Shannon, you don't actually believe that the material universe exists do you?

Knock on wood... ;-)

01/30/2009 02:46:41 PM · #488

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"The traditional Chinese religion is polytheistic." (from wiki)

Wow. I'm usually told that wiki is not an allowable source rather than it being the be-all end-all source.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It sounds like you are claiming that Taoism is pantheistic. You'd have to show some evidence of support though and further you'd have to show some evidence that the object of Tao's "to become one with Tao" is some deity (even in a Buddhist sense rather than Western). You can't just say it isn't so. ;) Especially when Wiki claims you are wrong.

Here. Rather than have me translate, why don't you try reading Tao Te Ching for yourself?

"Some Taoists believed that spirits pervaded nature (both the natural world and the internal world within the human body). Theologically, these myriad spirits were simply many manifestations of the one Dao, which could not be represented as an image or a particular thing. As the Taoist pantheon developed, it came to mirror the imperial bureaucracy in heaven and hell."

And, just as an aside, I found this in Wiki: "In the Tao religion, fortune cookies are often worshiped as Gods." Please don't believe everything you read. Earlier, I found a reference to Godzilla under another entry - I haven't gone in and edited it out yet.

That page goes on further:
"In Taoism, Tao both precedes and encompasses the universe" which would make Taoism panentheistic rather than pantheistic. Which I think some would argue with.

01/30/2009 03:25:53 PM · #489

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon does not believe God exists because Shannon does not feel there is evidence for him. I'm further speculating (and you can correct me), but of all the philosophies or worldviews you have, this line of thinking would fall best into what we can call Materialism.

Four. I don't think there's any evidence (material or otherwise) for current major deities. This "worldview" is completely independent of whether everything can be explained by matter and energy.

You know, I'm actually really curious why you are so insistent on keeping your disbelief in God separate from all your other beliefs or disbeliefs like it's toxic or radioactive or something.

When you believed in God, was that a likewise separate thing?

01/30/2009 03:36:33 PM · #490

You are winning me over to the pantheism idea of Taoism. Let's change tack a little. (And let me say at this point this is purely a discussion of interest, I doubt if either of us "wins" the argument it will mean anything.) The discussion at hand is whether Taoism represents a religion. You quickly defined religion as "A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, (really basic definition according to wiki)" Under that definition does Taoism possess those qualities? and does it possess them to a different extent than say a national culture (say the culture of the American South or the Inuit)?

01/30/2009 03:37:06 PM · #491

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Oy, five. Disbelief is *NOT* a belief, no matter how much you'd like it to be so, and I do not separate one disbelief from another. Whether it's dragons, demons, Bugs Bunny or Horus, you can go right ahead and lump them into the same category of manmade literary fiction. If and when you chose to believe in God, did you give any thought to your disbelief in Aphrodite or smurfs? I'm betting they played no role whatsoever in what you chose TO believe. As non-existent things, they simply merit no consideration.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 15:38:46.

01/30/2009 03:45:45 PM · #492

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You know, I'm actually really curious why you are so insistent on keeping your disbelief in God separate from all your other beliefs or disbeliefs like it's toxic or radioactive or something.

When you believed in God, was that a likewise separate thing?

Oy, five. Disbelief is *NOT* a belief, no matter how much you'd like it to be so, and I do not separate one disbelief from another. Whether it's dragons, demons, Bugs Bunny or Horus, you can go right ahead and lump them into the same category of manmade literary fiction. If and when you chose to believe in God, did you give any thought to your disbelief in Aphrodite or smurfs? I'm betting they played no role whatsoever in what you chose TO believe. As non-existent things, they simply merit no consideration.

Yes, their consideration was discarded en masse when I chose to believe "There is only one God" (well, smurfs aren't a deity so I guess they would be separate and I would consider them not to exist because I don't have scientific evidence for them like bigfoot and the loch ness monster).

With a little humor I have to say talking to you about this is like banging against a stone wall. But you didn't answer my question about when you believed in God.

Another way at possibly getting at some fruitful conversation is to ask you to elucidate why you do not believe in God and then to ask why you hold the axiom this disbelief is based on (assuming it's "no evidence"). Eventually we will get to a point where you will say, "Because I do." Whatever the last statement was, THAT is the philosophy or worldview you can place your disbelief in. In other words, I do not think the answer for you to "Why do you not believe in God?" is simply "Because I don't."

We can work it back if you want? I think we have step 1 and 2.

Why do you not believe in God?
There is no evidence to support his existence.
Why do you require evidence to support something's existence?
(you fill in the blank here)

EDIT: I'll add my own backward progression for Richard's Zeus question.

Why do you not believe in Zeuss?
Because I only believe there is one God.
Why do you only believe in one God
Because I believe in Christianity
Why do you believe in Christianity?
Because I do.

Therefore, my not believing in Zeuss falls under my worldvivew of Christianity.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 15:48:34.

01/30/2009 04:00:01 PM · #493

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes, their consideration was discarded en masse when I chose to believe "There is only one God"

The implication is that until then, you DID believe in Horus, Thor, Apollo and every other possible deity. Riiiight. Add one more disbelief to my list. I can totally accept that the reason YOU believe in God is because you do (it's essentially the only reason you could).

As for my own reasons, I've given dozens over the course of many threads, many of which have little to do with the possibility of existence itself, including fundamental contradictions, inconsistencies and absurdities... similar to the reasons I wouldn't believe in Superman even if his literary origins weren't well known.

01/30/2009 04:02:40 PM · #494

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There is no argument to win. My goal is to broaden my view. For example, this evening I will be delving into Confucianism (I've actually written an essay on it, but that was years ago and the essay was more about its social impact than its religious nature). This 'question and answer' session really helps that because I wouldn't ordinarily look at things the way others such as you do.

At any rate, my response would depend on if you are narrowing your definition of religion to include only the theological definition, or if you want to be so bold as to enlarge it to include secular activities/philosophies/beliefs, etc. For example, Baseball can be a religion.

01/30/2009 04:07:25 PM · #495

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Another way at possibly getting at some fruitful conversation is to ask you to elucidate why you do not believe in God and then to ask why you hold the axiom this disbelief is based on (assuming it's "no evidence"). Eventually we will get to a point where you will say, "Because I do." Whatever the last statement was, THAT is the philosophy or worldview you can place your disbelief in. In other words, I do not think the answer for you to "Why do you not believe in God?" is simply "Because I don't."

Therefore, my not believing in Zeuss falls under my worldvivew of Christianity.

But Achoo, what does your non-belief in the Loch Ness Monster fall under?
What does your non-belief in unicorns fall under?

You are still thinking of this backwards. You start from a belief point - that of the existence of God. Scalvert doesn't have that - it doesn't exist. As I stated before, his dis-belief is a by-product, not a view or a philosophy. A completely different way to look at it. I'm trying to think of an apt example - maybe on my drive home it will come to me.

01/30/2009 04:09:20 PM · #496

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are winning me over to the pantheism idea of Taoism. Let's change tack a little. (And let me say at this point this is purely a discussion of interest, I doubt if either of us "wins" the argument it will mean anything.) The discussion at hand is whether Taoism represents a religion. You quickly defined religion as "A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, (really basic definition according to wiki)" Under that definition does Taoism possess those qualities? and does it possess them to a different extent than say a national culture (say the culture of the American South or the Inuit)?
There is no argument to win. My goal is to broaden my view. For example, this evening I will be delving into Confucianism (I've actually written an essay on it, but that was years ago and the essay was more about its social impact than its religious nature). This 'question and answer' session really helps that because I wouldn't ordinarily look at things the way others such as you do.

At any rate, my response would depend on if you are narrowing your definition of religion to include only the theological definition, or if you want to be so bold as to enlarge it to include secular activities/philosophies/beliefs, etc. For example, Baseball can be a religion.

Well, if you consider baseball a religion it would be important to raise that fact before embarking on a religious discussion because I'm guessing it would affect the discussion. I'm just going back to the contention that many disagreements come from basic definitions. So in future discussions it's nice for me to understand your view of what "religion" is.

01/30/2009 04:11:00 PM · #497

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Another way at possibly getting at some fruitful conversation is to ask you to elucidate why you do not believe in God and then to ask why you hold the axiom this disbelief is based on (assuming it's "no evidence"). Eventually we will get to a point where you will say, "Because I do." Whatever the last statement was, THAT is the philosophy or worldview you can place your disbelief in. In other words, I do not think the answer for you to "Why do you not believe in God?" is simply "Because I don't."

Therefore, my not believing in Zeuss falls under my worldvivew of Christianity.

But Achoo, what does your non-belief in the Loch Ness Monster fall under?
What does your non-belief in unicorns fall under?

The Loch Ness Monster and unicorns are physical animals that supposedly exist in the real world.

I disbelieve in those because I have no evidence for them?
Why do I require evidence for them?
The scientific method requires evidence to support an assertion.
Why do I believe in the scientific method?
Because I do.

01/30/2009 04:14:53 PM · #498

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, their consideration was discarded en masse when I chose to believe "There is only one God"

The implication is that until then, you DID believe in Horus, Thor, Apollo and every other possible deity. Riiiight.

You are wrong here. Personally because we're literally going back to say age 4 or 5 I would probably say I was agnostic about those guys because I likely didn't know about them. However, your implication isn't necessary for others. One could jump from an atheist or agnostic position to a monotheist position with the other possible deities never falling within one's worldview.

I will also point out some of the reasons you post about disbelief in God (the contradictions, etc) would more precisely be concerning the attributes of God not his existence.

Humor me and follow the questions back. Pretty please?

Why do you require evidence to support something's existence?

01/30/2009 04:15:29 PM · #499

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You mis-understood my point. I believe Taoism is a religion. I believe it has practices, beliefs, symbols, and stories. I believe its point of existence is spiritual enlightment (to add from wiki, "that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality").

However, you asked about a national culture. If you want to consider a national culture a religion, then you are broadening the definition. In that case, baseball would be a religion. You made the jump, not I.