Am I a Taoist or a Zen Buddhist?

[Stosh]

Reading through all the above arguments and counter-arguments as to whether or not God exists,.... reminds me of a saying my Dad used to come out with whenever, as a teenager, I'd use what I thought of as the 'armoured power fof logic', to try to get him to accept as true some current theory I happened to be holding. He'd listen patiently, then whenever he could get a few words in edgeways he'd say :

 

A man convinced

Against his will

Is of his own

Opinion still.

 

T'was very frustrating at the time, but as I've got older I finally began to see what he was saying to me. I was a very slow learner.

 

Applying that idea to the above Taobum renderings of that ancient 'theism versus atheism' chestnut,... is there anyone involved here who can put there hand on their heart and say that, as a result of engaging in this discussion, their stance on the question has altered by so much as a millimeter ?

 

It does seem to lead one into a rather interesting 'follow-on' question about the actual reasons each one of us engages in debates of this nature.

Heck No , nobody changes their mind so abruptly about such things willingly (unless they will it independent of the argument at hand). But what may be offered is a basis for adjusting ones attitudes about both the subject and the mindsets of people who we dont agree with. Maybe someone can learn that atheists have morals and conscience, and that theists can be reasonable OR someone may see a flaw-inconsistency in their own mindset which has set one against himself . Most of the draw for debates of this type is that they offer an opportunity to hover around subjects we find interesting ourselves, the fact that the audience is usually uncooperative is not under the speakers control. "like leading a horse to water etc"

[ThisLife]

Well said. I believe that both the points you've made are valid and interesting takes that I hadn't considered. That I should have so quickly forgotten the first point, ("what may be offered is a basis for adjusting ones attitudes about both the subject and the mindsets of people who we dont agree with"), does surprise me a bit. I remember that in a previous forum In used to hang out in for a year or two,.... I found myself gradually coming to very much appreciate a chap who's point of view on so many topics was diametrically opposite to my own. I think what began to change my instinctive reaction of dislike was the discovery that we shared a common love of plants and gardening. Just that one piece of shared ground turned out to be enough to overlook our differences as 'perhaps not being all that important, after all'.

 

Even your idea of allowing us to hover around subjects we find interesting, I also "knew", but wasn't conscious of. I do it every time I scroll around in the general discussion topics,... wondering if there's anything I might find interesting.

 

I guess it takes repeated exposure to re-learn stuff we've picked up on the road of life, but which didn't come naturally to us, (like the 'natural baggage' of our likes and dislikes that all us adults come equipped with through the process of our inherited personality interacting with our childhood experiences).

 

Maybe I'll remember next time. Thanks for the reminder.

Edited January 29, 2014 by ThisLife

[Stosh]

Well said. I believe that both the points you've made are valid and interesting takes that I hadn't considered. That I should have so quickly forgotten the first point, ("what may be offered is a basis for adjusting ones attitudes about both the subject and the mindsets of people who we dont agree with"), does surprise me a bit. I remember that in a previous forum In used to hang out in for a year or two,.... I found myself gradually coming to very much appreciate a chap who's point of view on so many topics was diametrically opposite to my own. I think what began to change my instinctive reaction of dislike was the discovery that we shared a common love of plants and gardening. Just that one piece of shared ground turned out to be enough to overlook our differences as 'perhaps not being all that important, after all'.

 

Even your idea of allowing us to hover around subjects we find interesting, I also "knew", but wasn't conscious of. I do it every time I scroll around in the general discussion topics,... wondering if there's anything I might find interesting.

 

I guess it takes repeated exposure to re-learn stuff we've picked up on the road of life, but which didn't come naturally to us, (like the 'natural baggage' of our likes and dislikes that all us adults come equipped with through the process of our inherited personality interacting with our childhood experiences).

 

Maybe I'll remember next time. Thanks for the reminder.

I had a similar experience , with someone I was diametrically opposed to on just about everything! The thing which struck me about it was though our opinions were so different , when it came down to what it was that needed to be done, or what was the summary response to a given thing ,, there was very little difference at all. ( and if the two of us agreed on something it was more than certain that whatever it was ,, was iron clad fact).

The thing I wonder about , is just what these folks are like in person, I only get a sense of who they are from a text standpoint,( if you know what I mean) and whats missing are personal notes like the tone of voice ,facial expressions, postures ,and general life structure... but then again , thats just how it is, so theres no use moaning over it.

[Marblehead]

The thing I wonder about , is just what these folks are like in person, I only get a sense of who they are from a text standpoint,( if you know what I mean) and whats missing are personal notes like the tone of voice ,facial expressions, postures ,and general life structure... but then again , thats just how it is, so theres no use moaning over it.

I can tell a straight faced lie just as well in person as I can here. No differences there. And I'm the same smartass in person as I am here.

[Songtsan]

The thing I wonder about , is just what these folks are like in person, I only get a sense of who they are from a text standpoint,( if you know what I mean) and whats missing are personal notes like the tone of voice ,facial expressions, postures ,and general life structure... but then again , thats just how it is, so theres no use moaning over it.

 

You guys would love me in person! I'm just straight up fucking nonsensical here, but in real life I am simply crazy in a way that makes sense!

[Dolokhov]

Faith, as I see it , is maintaining a belief whether the evidence supports your conclusion or not.

If a person wants to have their faith , then there is no need for proofs, and indeed they admit they wouldnt listen,

even if the proofs are shoved in their face.

If instead they want to make rational conclusions about existance based on that which is presented to them,

then they should quit pretending faith , and should instead consider proofs as meaningful.

 

That's very interesting. I see a lot of people who have that definition of faith - even many Christians. I don't see it that way. St Isaac of Syria said, "Natural knowledge, which precedes faith, is the way to faith and to God." Knowledge should be a necessity, not an opponent to faith.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Dolokhov

[Marblehead]

That's very interesting. I see a lot of people who have that definition of faith - even many Christians. I don't see it that way. St Isaac of Syria said, "Natural knowledge, which precedes faith, is the way to faith and to God." Knowledge should be a necessity, not an opponent to faith.

And you have made a post that I find interesting even though I totally disagree with the quote.

[Dolokhov]

Interesting - how do you see that issue?

[Marblehead]

Interesting - how do you see that issue?

Well, I am an Atheist so I never see faith or God at the end of my efforts to gain knowledge. What I do find are processes in nature that are undeniable facts. Knowing the "truth", the natural facts, is better than needing to have faith.

[Stosh]

I can tell a straight faced lie just as well in person as I can here. No differences there. And I'm the same smartass in person as I am here.

Well there are lies fibs and peoples opinions of themselves, which may or may not match what someone else considers to be the fact . Since I didnt read you as a smartass, it didnt translate for me, Ill just have to take your word for it.

[Stosh]

That's very interesting. I see a lot of people who have that definition of faith - even many Christians. I don't see it that way. St Isaac of Syria said, "Natural knowledge, which precedes faith, is the way to faith and to God." Knowledge should be a necessity, not an opponent to faith.

Yeah , that is a pretty standard Idea , that the two have to be, or are opposed , but Im not looking at it that way either. If you said you had faith person X would do thing B , you imply that you really arent sure of it , but you want to maintain an optimistic view anyway. If I had seen person X do thing B repeatedly , then Im just thinking you'd call it statistically probable or a reasonable expectation, its not then based on hopeful attitudes as its based on example... so Im using that distinction in the post. But they arent exclusive because you may see person x do thing B many times and yet there is still the possibility that they wont this time and so then you would be covering that base with your faith ( if you were prone to that). Im just making word distinctions based on attitudes (not pairing up a polemic.)

[Sudhamma]

To be dogmatically Buddhist, one should have taken the three refuges in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, observe the 5 precepts, believe in karma (its generation and cessation) and act in accordance. The most basic Teaching of all the Buddhas; Do good, don't do evil. The 227 rules in Vinaya defines behaviour of the members of the Sangha and strictly prohibits homosexuality within the Order. That being the case, homosexuality amongst the laity will also be frowned upon.

 

As for Daoism, the balance of the Universe brings about benefits to all within the sphere. And to maintain order and balance, both Yang and Yin should be in harmony. Man is considered Yang, and Woman, Yin. The balance of nature is maintained with the interaction of Yang + Yin qualities of equal intensity. The opposite therefore, , Yang + Yang or Yin + Yin do not bring about harmony and balance. I stand to be corrected.