dust

I get it. And agree, I think. At least, I like the parallels you've drawn. Words are tricky. A term like "mystery" will inevitably conjure up hocus pocus and woo-woo to many (Western scientific) people, even though by it one means something as Western-scientific as "potential"

You make a good point. Not breathless, then. Perhaps stick to inexhaustible. edit: I had thought, "Empty but never emptied" ...?

Aha! Yes, I remembered having read it, but couldn't think where. Thanks. As far as I understand anything, the physical world is what there is. Something that isn't "of the physical world" doesn't exist. So to me, Tzujan as defined above doesn't mean much. Aren't you of a similar persuasion MH? Thanks to Protector, I no longer know what "spiritual" even means, but to me the idea of "spiritual" naturalness has very little meaning without considering the physical. That would be my version .... or just "self-so"

Could you point me towards a topic/post where your, and perhaps others', views on the concept of 自然 / tzujan have been elaborated on?

This goes towards confirming my fear that he hasn't been quite as thorough as he might have. It's an easy thing to miss, but once picked up on, it's a hard thing to dismiss. Yeah, something like that. I really don't get it...

天地之間亓猷囤籥與 The space between Heaven and Earth is like a bellows, 虛而不屈動而愈出 Empty but never breathless, increasing as it goes (my GD..) One point: "breathless" is a bit of a stretch linguistically -- others have used "inexhaustible" -- but I think it works. We're talking about air, and about the bellows never releasing or losing or giving up all the air... never running out. But as it's an organic, almost living process that we're talking about, I think the idea of breath adds some poetic-ness edit: and oh, what a lovely short chapter. Just right for today.

Democracy at work I'll happily take money for my vote, or to vote for someone else. No less than $50,000 though. Man gots to live.

Well, leaving out the king bit, because I think most of us agree that it was put in out of necessity rather than desire.. 人法地 Man is of the Earth, 地法天 The Earth is of the Heavens, 天法道 The Heavens are of the Way, 道法自然 The Way is of itself I'd like to note the last bit: 自然 is made up of 自, self, and 然, which is (was) a pictograph of meat roasting over a fire, and came to mean, among other things, "correct", "reasonable", and "like so". 自然 meaning, then, in any original, literal senses, self-cooking, self-correcting, or self-so It's now translated as "nature", and in modern Chinese used in almost exactly the same way as we use the word "nature" in English. For example, 自然界 -- nature, the natural world http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=nature&searchmode=none The Proto-Indo-European root of our English "nature" meant "to give birth", and later in Latin (natura) "course of things; natural character, constitution, quality; the universe" With one of the meanings of 法 being "method" (originally, a method of hunting), I think it's fair to translate as 人法地 Man is (a method) of the Earth, 地法天 The Earth is (a method) of the Heavens, 天法道 The Heavens are (a method) of the Way, 道法自然 The Way is (a method) of itself (self-so, self-correcting)

Beautiful. Cave paintings are very cool. I'd love to see Lascaux: http://www.lascaux.culture.fr/?lng=en#/fr/00.xml http://artetempo.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/gruta-de-lascaux-franca.html I don't believe I've seen a painting in my life that surpasses the beauty of some of these images, or a mural that surpasses the beauty of the whole

I'm not sure about the question, exactly ..well, I don't know if I understand. But if we ask: "If one stops learning, does one forget?" "If one stops lifting weights, does one become weaker?" The answer is yes. A friend of mine came to England when he was 13. In his teens, he gradually forgot alot of his mother tongue. Going back there to work, he picked it up again. He's now losing it again.

Yes, though I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, really. It's not the stupidest thing government has allowed to happen! As well as using my own vote, I'm quite sure that I could walk into any polling station at the next election (in England), claim to be someone else, and use their vote too. In my experience, ID isn't checked beyond asking for your name and address when you show up. If you knew someone wasn't going to vote, it seems that you could quite easily step in and steal it.

Yeah... my intention was to use it as an example of the subjectivity at play in personal definitions of words...though I realize it turned quite quickly back into a discussion of that topic itself. Sorry everyone. To sum up my view as succinctly as I can: the majority of disagreements among people are not caused by general subjective perceptions, but more specifically subjective (individual) definitions -- people's attachment to certain words, and inability/unwillingness to see beyond the fairly limiting language that we have at our disposal. For example, A: I'm not a big fan of sandwiches B: But you love burgers A: Well, I like some burgers, but anyway a burger's not a sandwich B: A burger is just a round sandwich with ketchup A: A burger doesn't require ketchup! And a sandwich may still contain ketchup! B: [blah blah blah arguing about the definitions of sandwiches & burgers...............] If what we want to argue about is whether or not a sandwich is a burger, that's OK. But we shouldn't confuse defining these things with the original point: [A] likes certain foods, and not certain others. His perception of whether or not he likes a particular dish might even be coloured by what that dish is named. He is so hung up on words that flavours become irrelevant.

A break has done my brain some good, I think. Scanning the slips just now, I've noticed a few things I didn't pick up on before. I'd like to figure out why, in the first line of this chapter in the GD, there are 2 distinctly different characters for what we usually translate as "beauty". It's been transcribed as 美之为美 微之为微 But in the GD, the 美 / 微 character is not the same twice. Both of them have the same left-hand radical, but the right-hand is very much different in each. They are, respectively, 攴 and 女, as you can see below. It seems quite unlikely that this is by accident. The characters look less alike in the Chu script than they would in modern Chinese, and the radicals have very different meanings. Is there something else that the writer was trying to communicate here? Or is it really just a very silly "typo" ?

Words words words! Words are important.. What I see a lot of here is people trying to define a word, rather than actually talk about what's happening in the world. Me included. One's personal definition of "atheism" or "religion" or "spirituality" is, I think, pretty much irrelevant to the intended question of the thread. It's worded as "atheism as a religion", but if we can move past those specific words, I think what we're asking is "Are there people whose disbelief in God goes past passive non-belief into the realms of obsession / fanaticism?" Removing the word "religious" for the moment, these other words can often be applied, as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to make one assumption: many who disavow religion and "hocus pocus" sooner or later end up looking to "science" for answers. As Sagan says, Well, I like his definition -- noting that science can be misused, and that authority has no authority. As defined above it is a great tool...but for what, exactly? What's the purpose? Does science ever examine its own assumption that constant probing and searching and "improving" is beneficial or useful? And are we really to believe that there is no scientific authority that people follow? The vast majority of people who claim atheism and follow science have a very limited understanding of physics, chemistry, or anything else. Just look here: https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience Scrolling through a page that's closing in on 19 million likes (quite a number for something that isn't a celebrity - a major influencer like Jay-Z has 22 million) one sees that, though people who "Like" the page surely profess a love of science, there's a distinct lack of interest for any actual scientific information. From the first few articles on the page (as I write): Pope Endorses Evolution etc: 160,000 Likes Hydrating beer: 156,000 Jaguar getting high: 42,000 Star necklace: 35,000 Squirrel eating a pumpkin: 23,000 Telescope image: 11,000 Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: 10,000 DNA electronics: 9,000 Stomachs in petri dishes: 7,000 Brain virus: 4,000 Likes Notice a trend? It seems to me that articles with a novelty/comedy factor or, notably, an anti-religious element, are the most-Liked, whereas the more actual scientific information to be found in an article.... far fewer people "Liking". As I see it, there is undeniably a fanaticism around some people's disbelief and subsequent "belief in science", coupled with an absolute lack of understanding of "real science". It worries me a little. But no more than anything else.

Without trying too hard to understand the process, I'm amazed that it is even possible for a non-citizen to register as a voter.

A thought, only vaguely related: It often seems that many non-religious people blame "religion" as a cause of things as if it had been cast down to Earth by a malevolent God. I used to do this. As a capital-A Atheist for many years, I blamed religion for so many of the world's evils. But that's pure nonsense. If the idea is to realize that there is no God, we must equally realize that all "evils" in the world are created by people. For me, it's important to realize that religion is nothing more than a tool. Whatever ends it serves, good or bad, are purely those of the people who use it. Just like "the economy", or "politics", it is something based entirely in the (collective) human mind, to which we ascribe some outside power. And even if we accept that any theistic religion has taken on a life of its own, becoming something separate from the people who created it, without people's acceptance of it, it would have no power.

I don't think it's unfair to note facts. Religious people have killed a lot, yes, but there are as many different religions as there are political and cultural and economic groups causing death and sadness every day. To talk about one, do we have to mention all the others?

Well I feel like I must break character for a moment just to say: wow! I'm not as far gone as Don Quixote himself, but a knighthood from the King of Spain (or the Queen of England, I guess) would certainly be something to write home about!

ATHEISM: 2 definitions (quick Google) RELIGION: 3 definitions (quick Google) Clearly, an atheist who either disbelieves or has a lack of belief in the possibility of God or gods cannot possibly be said to be religious if we use the first definition of religion as it relates to God or gods. However, personality cults such as that around Mao Zedong and other leaders have had many of the trappings of religion without a belief in an actual God. Millions of Chinese were taught to worship Mao, and some even went as far as believing that he was superhuman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution_in_Communist_Romania This is a more succinct example: 400 priests killed, churches seized, population "indoctrinated" with atheism, all with the intention to "propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies." So... worship in superhuman controlling power? Check. Particular system of faith? Check. Pursuit to which one ascribes supreme importance? Check. There have indeed been religious atheists, by any of the above definitions. The question that is most relevant is whether or not modern atheists in countries such as the USA, UK, Germany, Japan, etc can be described as religious. I would say that, by and large, atheism does not coincide with any of the above 3 definitions of religion. For the most part, a modern atheist is simply content to not believe in God. What I would suggest is that, rather than atheism itself, there are certain modern pursuits which a majority of atheists adhere to that can be described as religious in many cases, at least with regard to the 3rd and possibly 2nd definitions of religion above. Without a doubt there are people who ascribe supreme importance to science & technology, a certain type of education, a specific place in the workforce, etc, and though we can't map traditional religious ceremony exactly with modern cultural patterns, there is, at least to me, a distinct similarity in behaviour. That's what I think, anyway.

Yeah sorry I didn't intend for it to turn back into that discussion..it was just the easiest example that came to mind Yeah. But I bet there are more that I/we simply don't know about? Freemasonry? And what ZYD mentions above.. Well, see, this is the definition thing. I don't think a religion needs a church any more than a man needs a house. It helps, but without it one can still exist. And anyway, I'd suggest that the laboratory is the worshipping ground for many atheists. Yes, even in my small classes at uni there were different "races", religions, and cultural backgrounds generally. (My main class consisted of a Catholic Asian from Portugal, a gay Buddhist, a Jehovah's Witness, an atheist pole dancer, a couple of apathetics, and me -- by then just getting turned onto Taoism.) I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone who goes to uni is an atheist with an agenda! I am trying to suggest...well, I'm not sure. It is very clear to me, at least, that there are some dangerous atheists in the world. That's enough for me to realise. As far as trying to convince you or anyone that any form of atheism is potentially a religion, my heart's not really in it. I guess I don't think it's all that important.

Very cool. And a beautiful site. I hadn't heard of it, or anything similar in Europe... other than Stonehenge! (and another I recently visited) I recently had the pleasure of visiting Bodmin Moor. The moors are odd places! There, there is a "natural formation" called the Cheesewring, and stone circles called The Hurlers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheesewring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hurlers_%28stone_circles%29 I got a couple of shots of the Cheesewring, though not the Hurlers unfortunately. I'm convinced that the Cheesewring is actually man-made, as it would have to be an incredible freak of "natural geology", and there are (as you'll see below) at least one or two rocks that have been carved..

Sorry I don't follow..no less valid than what?

“As for Doing-good, that is one of the professions which are full. Moreover, I have tried it fairly, and, strange as it may seem, am satisfied that it does not agree with my constitution. Probably I should not consciously and deliberately forsake my particular calling to do the good which society demands of me, to save the universe from annihilation; and I believe that a like but infinitely greater steadfastness elsewhere is all that now preserves it.” (Henry David Thoreau)

Couple more. I was searching for these. Reading it last week, it seemed that every page held 2 or 3 sentences that I wanted to quote to someone. “No man ever stood the lower in my estimation for having a patch in his clothes: yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience.” “It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow, mere smoke of opinion, which some had trusted for a cloud that would sprinkle fertilizing rain on their fields.” “Here is life, an experiment to a great extent untried by me; but it does not avail me that they have tried it.” “As for the Pyramids, there is nothing to wonder at in them so much as the fact that so many men could be found degraded enough to spend their lives constructing a tomb for some ambitious booby, whom it would have been wiser and manlier to have drowned in the Nile, and then given his body to the dogs.” --ouch!!

It surely depends on the person, and the type of ritual we're talking about. And let's be clear again, we might be talking about people who don't believe but don't preach about it, people who vehemently deny the possibility of God, people who preach and rave about the ludicrousness of religion... there are many types of atheist. Many people who profess disbelief still take part in "non-religious" versions of traditional ritual. For example, Humanist funerals, civil partnerships, naming ceremonies. I know many atheists who celebrate things like Easter, Independence Day, Hallowe'en, Christmas, New Year, etc, many of which have a basis in religion but are no longer celebrated as such. Nevertheless, rituals are observed every year by theists and atheists alike, with many atheists adapting religious holidays to show how atheists can be giving and familial too. The one I'd focus on, though, is the graduation ceremony. Though most universities are not specifically atheist, the prevalence of non-belief in God, strong belief in the goodness of education, and the passing down of knowledge from teacher to student with a final ceremony certifying that that person is now qualified to spread their knowledge... this is a rite of passage for the modern atheist. A degree is no longer a special achievement reserved for the superior intellect, but a required achievement for acceptance into society. This is my point, yes. Without recognizing that our definition of both atheist and ritual might be different, we might end up debating for some time whether or not atheists take part in rituals. From what I've said above, I'll admit that it's unlikely that there are any rituals designed specifically to profess a love of atheism, but it seems clear to me that many atheists do adhere to certain rituals, and that -- when it comes to education -- there is most certainly a rite of passage in this day and age for the disbeliever. A form of worship of knowledge. What I should've said is that, for me, whether or not we define atheism/Atheism as a religion is unimportant. What is important to me is that we recognize certain possibilites -- for example, that just because people aren't traditionally "religious" any more, it doesn't mean that society or the world at large is any better off; or that there is a risk of too much faith in science taking the place of traditional religion, to the detriment of many people. So, whether or not we put it in these exact terms -- "atheism is a religion" -- is not really relevant. What is relevant is that we understand each other, and that we use language that helps us to come to an understanding rather than causing disagreement for the sake of a word... right?