• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

atheism is a (religious position)

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
And Taoism, I believe
There is an interesting write-up in Wikipedia about Tao:

"Victor H. Mair proposes a connection with Proto-Indo-European drogh, supported by numerous cognates in Indo-European languages, as well as semantically similar Semitic Arabic and Hebrew words.

The archaic pronunciation of Tao sounded approximately like drog or dorg. This links it to the Proto-Indo-European root drogh (to run along) and Indo-European dhorg (way, movement). Related words in a few modern Indo-European languages are Russian doroga (way, road), Polish droga (way, road), Czech dráha (way, track), Serbo-Croatian draga (path through a valley), and Norwegian dialect drog (trail of animals; valley). .... The nearest Sanskrit (Old Indian) cognates to Tao (drog) are dhrajas (course, motion) and dhraj (course). The most closely related English words are "track" and "trek", while "trail" and "tract" are derived from other cognate Indo-European roots. Following the Way, then, is like going on a cosmic trek. Even more unexpected than the panoply of Indo-European cognates for Tao (drog) is the Hebrew root d-r-g for the same word and Arabic t-r-q, which yields words meaning "track, path, way, way of doing things" and is important in Islamic philosophical discourse.*[48]"
*48 Mair (1990), p. 132. Mair, Victor H. (1990). Tao Te Ching: The Classic Book of Integrity and the Way, by Lao Tzu; an entirely new translation based on the recently discovered Ma-wang-tui manuscripts. Bantam Books.

Right?

Regards
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
O yes. Especially the one you can't speak of.
Actually in ancient Judaism the Source called _____ was the One you cannot speak of. Taoism did not assume a 'Source' did not exist, but undefinable from the human perspective, which is what some religions indeed do.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
And Taoism, I believe
Wikipedia has a very interesting write-up under Taoism and has noted a treatise:

"Wang, Wei (16 August 2022). "On the Historical Background and Ideological Resources of the Confluence of Islam and Confucianism". Religions. 13 (8): 13. doi:10.3390/rel13080748. ISSN 2077-1444 – via MDPI."

I just quote two short paragraphs from the above treatise:

" 2. The Sinicization of the People of Huihui and Changes in the Understanding of
Islam by Confucian Scholars since the Yuan Period
Islam was introduced to China in the seventh century. Muslims who came to China
through the “Silk Road” and the “Maritime Silk Road” were mainly merchants, envoys,
and travelers. Official contacts between the Tang Dynasty and the Arab Empire began in
the second year of Yong Hui (永徽二年, 651 A.D.), during the reign of the caliph Othman
(Li et al. 2007, p. 29). In the subsequent hundred years, there were 39 official exchanges
recorded in Chinese historical books. In the Tang period, foreign Muslims lived in Xi’an,
Yangzhou, Guangzhou, Quanzhou, Hainan, Sichuan, Yunnan, and other places. "

" Following the Yuan period, Confucian intellectuals knew more about Islam than their
predecessors. There were many Huihui Muslims who were officials or businessmen in
the Yuan Dynasty, and they interacted frequently with Confucian intellectuals to improve
their understanding. Before the mid-Ming period, the Chinese inscriptions in mosques
were mainly written by Confucian scholars. It is noteworthy that these authors generally
understood Islam in a Confucian way, believing that Islam was different from Buddhism
and Taoism but very similar to the Tao of Confucius and Mencius
(孔孟之道). "

Right?

Regards
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There is an interesting write-up in Wikipedia about Tao:

"Victor H. Mair proposes a connection with Proto-Indo-European drogh, supported by numerous cognates in Indo-European languages, as well as semantically similar Semitic Arabic and Hebrew words.


*48 Mair (1990), p. 132. Mair, Victor H. (1990). Tao Te Ching: The Classic Book of Integrity and the Way, by Lao Tzu; an entirely new translation based on the recently discovered Ma-wang-tui manuscripts. Bantam Books.

Right?

Regards
The concept of the Tao may be considered in harmony wui the Islamic and Baha'i view of God as unknowable from the human perspective.

One comment is that the Tao of Taoism is not associated with the writings of Confucius or Mencius.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
As far as I know the belief in all the diverse and conflicting beliefs in God or Gods are supernatural.
New approaches to indigenous religions has brought this idea into question. Marshal Sahlins in his book The New Science of the Enchanted Universe argues differently. Many cultures see the numinous beings as very immanent in their world and not supernatural at all. The Kami in Shinto religion is similar in that the Kame are not located out of the natural world but rather intimately integrated. I do not see the Celtic or Norse gods as supernatural either.
 
I agree which raised the question of whether atheist have a religious position difficult. There is a clear tendency for religion to be equated with a supernatural "God" and in particular the Abrahamic "God" and to not consider all of the other religious positions.

There is no meaningful and and consistent way to differentiate religions from irreligious ideologies and belief systems.

All attempts to do this basically benchmark religion against Christianity when deciding what is a religion and what is not.

Imo the idea that “religious” and “secular” belief systems are somehow fundamentally different is an error that leads to folk misunderstanding human cognition.

All people have “religious type” beliefs, sacred values etc whether they couch these in theistic terms or purportedly rationalistic ones.

An example would be the common belief that if only we could get rid of “religions” then humans would suddenly start behaving a lot more rationally and reasonably. That’s very religious.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The concept of the Tao may be considered in harmony wui the Islamic and Baha'i view of God as unknowable from the human perspective.

One comment is that the Tao of Taoism is not associated with the writings of Confucius or Mencius.
The two Taoist classics are the Tao Te Ching, reputed to have been written by Lao Tze, and the Inner Chapters written by Chuang Tze.

I like quoting from the Tao Te Ching, #25:

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name.
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it [God]
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
How would anyone come to know that a thing is unknowable? The very act of knowing it unknowable would negate itself.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
You have to become comfortable with paradox, for certain perspectives to make sense.

I'm very comfortable with paradoxical language, which was a big driver of 20th century linguistic philosophy, so that is not a problem for me. My question was rhetorical. What makes something a paradox is that it involves an expression that is inherently self-contradictory--a linguistic parlor trick. There is nothing profound about that, although it led to a lot of discussion and puzzlement amongst philosophers for a very long time. Mysticism dotes on such linguistic trickery. My point was that people who claim to know about the unknowable just don't know what they are talking about. Literally and figuratively.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I'm very comfortable with paradoxical language, which was a big driver of 20th century linguistic philosophy, so that is not a problem for me. My question was rhetorical. What makes something a paradox is that it involves an expression that is inherently self-contradictory--a linguistic parlor trick. There is nothing profound about that, although it led to a lot of discussion and puzzlement amongst philosophers for a very long time. Mysticism dotes on such linguistic trickery. My point was that people who claim to know about the unknowable just don't know what they are talking about. Literally and figuratively.

Well by definition, any attempt to talk about the ineffable leaves us open to the observation that we don’t know what we are talking about. That doesn’t necessarily imply that we have nothing of value to say.

The essence of mysticism is experiential btw. You have to have the experience first, in order to understand why some things are so hard to put into words. And why certain truths are best expressed in poetry, and others in very precise prose.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Well by definition, any attempt to talk about the ineffable leaves us open to the observation that we don’t know what we are talking about. That doesn’t necessarily imply that we have nothing of value to say.

If people will pay money for what people say about the ineffable, then it has value. Personally, I wouldn't pay a cent for what they have to say, but I don't respond to spam mail either. :)


The essence of mysticism is experiential btw. You have to have the experience first, in order to understand why some things are so hard to put into words. And why certain truths are best expressed in poetry, and others in very precise prose.

Everything we know or believe is based on experiences, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Putting things into words only makes sense if we have shared experiences to talk about, and people quite often express poppycock in poetry and precise prose. So it is worth getting to the substance of what is being communicated to determine its value. If there is nothing of substance to get to, then we are just left with empty words, however pretty-sounding they may be.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
If people will pay money for what people say about the ineffable, then it has value. Personally, I wouldn't pay a cent for what they have to say, but I don't respond to spam mail either. :)




Everything we know or believe is based on experiences, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Putting things into words only makes sense if we have shared experiences to talk about, and people quite often express poppycock in poetry and precise prose. So it is worth getting to the substance of what is being communicated to determine its value. If there is nothing of substance to get to, then we are just left with empty words, however pretty-sounding they may be.

We don’t all share the same experiences, is the point I’m making. Nor the same perceptions.

If you will acknowledge as real, only those experiences which can be readily apprehended and easily communicated, then I think you are mistaking the limitations of the cartographer’s art with the limitless nature of the territory.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
We don’t all share the same experiences, is the point I’m making. Nor the same perceptions.

If you will acknowledge as real, only those experiences which can be readily apprehended and easily communicated, then I think you are mistaking the limitations of the cartographer’s art with the limitless nature of the territory.

I know that we all have different experiences and ideas, but we are all prone to misunderstanding our experiences, too. If someone is having a wonderful experience that they just can't describe coherently to the rest of us and that maybe I am incapable of having, then I'm happy for that person. Or maybe that person is just having a brain fart. The problem is that I have no way of telling the difference unless we have some connection that makes their effort to explain worth my effort to understand.
 
Last edited:

DNB

Christian
Well, ah . . . most often the one who does not believe as others do will call others charlatan, hypocrites or maybe evii. Sort of the vocabulary theists often use to describe atheists.

An exemplar is the egocentric view of the self.
But you force me to ask the question: if there is such a thing as a charlatan, and what point does one qualify - not every opinion can be construed as a sincere conviction - there's comes a point where nonsense indicts one's sentiments
 

DNB

Christian
I do not consider faith is wisdom. There are too many contradictory and conflicting claims based on "faith" for faith itself to be equated with wisdom

My sort of satorie (awakening) concerning faith: "Regardless of how strong and convinced of my faith. anything I could believe is most likely wrong in some way if not totally wrong."
May the wisest man in the room, have the most efficacious faith.
Faith is wisdom - if you are wise, your faith will reveal to be true. If you are fool, your faith will continuously prove you wrong.
One has faith in a particular child to succeed at school, the other does not - the outcome will prove who the wisest was between the optimist and pessimist.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
May the wisest man in the room, have the most efficacious faith.
Faith is wisdom - if you are wise, your faith will reveal to be true. If you are fool, your faith will continuously prove you wrong.
This was difficult to respond to . . . Faith is wasdom is a highly subjective egocentric claim.IF one is wise . . . Who determines the one who is the most efficacious (?) in the room where everyone in the room believes their faith is true and wise wisdom? Each one accuses the others to be wrong and fools. If faith is the standard of wisdom what standard proves the others wrong?

Subjective faiths do not have an objective standard.

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.”
― Confucius


One has faith in a particular child to succeed at school, the other does not - the outcome will prove who the wisest was between the optimist and pessimist.

No one had faith in Einstein in school.

“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
― Albert Einstein
 
Top