You don't understand Taoism. Looking it up online doesn't count.

In Japan, I spent 4 hours getting fitted for my traditional robes by the oldest man in the town. This man was a taoist. He talked, I listened.

Taoism is NOT using the contridictory concept of infinate doubt as a means of claiming a higher stance on everything. You don't understand science because you claim you're a taoist. The ONLY thing a taoist truly knows is that the world has a natural means of doing things, and that, due to simply being, we are in direct offense of that natural order. There's nothing you can do without offending the Tao.

Furthermore, you seem to think that indistinguishing your opinion makes you a good taoist. Because you're not putting your dick on a cutting block, you're not responsible. That's popularized taoism, and it's cute.

--------------------

This thread is hilarious. Religion is illogical and non-scientific. Belief in the Divine, however, is well outside of the scrutiny of science. Einstein talked about that a whole lot.

What does original sin have to do with the sins you commit afterwards?

JediKirby, four whole hours? And it took you that long to learn everything there was to know about Taoism? You must be a very slow student.

I am trying to decide whether you directed that to me or not. I am also trying to decide if I should be offended or simply amused.

I didn't say I was an expert. I simply said that you googled Taoism and now you tell people that's what you are. From what I understand, you're using the popularized concepts of taoism to avoid responsibilities of your ideas and opinions.

To quote my C teacher, "Blat!"

Soooo.... you didn't read the thread! Congrats, you're the king of the internet! :toot:

I will repeat: Scientists do not have faith in anything or any previous discovery specifically because they usually turn out to be inaccurate. Absolutely none of the scientific "laws" are actually 100% correct, they're just really good approximations for what happens on a terrestrial scale.

If you read the thread you would realize that I have already posted this information. You don't understand science. It is not a religion, it is not faith-based, and your post was retarded.

Are you going to acquiesce or are you going to join JM on his little loop of willful ignorance?

I am at least moderately certain I have never googled 'Taoism'. I will admit to having read "The Tao is Silent", but that was sometime after I read the Tao Te Ching itself. Truth is, I was Taoist before I learned about it. I was so delighted to discover a philosophy that mostly matched the one I had already formed myself that I embraced it. I'm not avoiding anything. I'll tell you : I believe 'science' is a religion. I take full responsibility for that belief, because I happen to believe it.

Jon'C, if this debate were occurring in a holy place, this is when the sage would hit you with his stick and say something nonsensical about the fallacy of truth.

Good thing sages are easy to punch in the mouth for being :downs:

Funny you should mention people speaking nonsense.

I like Leaky Bucket. The architecture is amazing. The only thing I don't like is the busy texturing.

A massassian made an awesome quote about faith NOT being what science is somewhere.

"Faith is believing in something that is likely wrong. That's the point." or something like that.

"Fallacy of truth"?

You know, most holy and religious people don't get involved in a 'debate' like this one. I say 'debate' because I don't really consider a forum full of people (save Glyde Bane) telling you that you're wrong a debate.
They don't get involved in a 'debate' like this one because it's stupid. Science and religion are both outside the scope of each other. The only people who get the two confused (or believe the two can't coexist) do not understand either subject nor do they understand their purposes. I was tempted to conjure up a more colorful term for it, but you'd probably pretend to take offense even though we all know what you really believe.

You made up being Taoist to impress chicks or get e-cybercredit or whatever, you don't actually understand the religion (you just pretend to), and you tried to use it as an excuse for claiming that science is a religion. This has become a semantics argument and it's goddamn stupid. It is not a complex equation. You are wrong, you know you're wrong, you're just trying to redefine words ("is means is not :downs:") to cover up the fact that you tried spouting pseudointellectual faux-profound gibberish and got called out on it.

Do yourself a favor and admit it. Please.

If you retract that bit of ... well, lies then I'll be happy. I think we've reached the point where you realise it doesn't go with EVERYTHING.

And now I have to work.

Hahahaha!

Instead of listing the ways science is unlike any other religion, perhaps you should ponder the ways it is the same.

No I didn't.

There are no absolutes in life except death. Therefore, it's safe to insert an 'almost' before every absolute.

Hmm. Okay.

• Science was also invented by people.
• Ummm... it involves the communication of ideas?
• It has enabled people to do really terrible things.
• Toolboxes on the internet pretend to follow it because they get off on trying to sound wise.

....I can't think of any others. Maybe you should tell us how they're similar? Maybe this time argue it without using your lies?

Here's a little hint for you since you don't seem to get the message: There are only two kinds of people who are allowed to answer questions with another question: Jesus and people like Jesus, and you're neither. You do not sound profound, you sound foolish. Nobody is impressed.


Yes you did.

Pretentiousness is the new spirituality.

You sound like an absolute tool.

I think almost everyone here agrees.

By the way, do not let him represent taoism. As I said earlier: True taoism is not the study of doubt, or as Jon`C put it, pretentiousness. Taoism is the acceptance of the inability to "know." A true taoist does his best to logically justify the world around him. Because he cannot "know" he has to have the most irrifutable argument, and thus, justify existance.

JM's justification is that everything is nothing. That's a misunderstanding of the taoist belief, and shows his ignorance.

Don't use him as a benchmark in actual Taoism. While I find actual taoism to be rather... silly? I still think it's more legitimate that "Lol, I'm rite becuz I sed both ways are possible, but not."

dudez, ladiez, wth

A banana riding a llama. You cannot have more godly. You all suck.

Jon'C, you have a single fatal flaw. You are incapable of considering a dissenting opinion. You don't merely disagree, you hate those that do not think exactly as you do. I have refrained from attacking you personally, and all you have done in is call me a liar. You do not know me. Who are you to tell me what I do and do not believe? You are nobody.

First, Religion has never enabled anyone to do terrible things. It has given motive, but it has always been technology that allowed us to work evil.

Here is how science is a religion:
A few dictate what the many believe.
The many follow it blindly.
The many do not understand it.
The many call the followers of other religions fools.

No I didn't.

Jeez, now there's a big piece of fallacy. He points out why you're wrong, where there are holes in the logic of your statements and you reply by saying he won't accept your opinion? Should I accept the opinion of flat-earthers or some nutter trying to tell me F=mv? In your case you made contradictory statements and now you're getting called on it. As for whether or not Jon'C hates you. So what if he does? It doesn't change the argument he's making, you're replying with irrelevant crap to change the subject.

Reply with cogent rebuttals if you want to keep on arguing, not these ridiculous attempts at changing the definition of something everytime someone calls you on your BS.

Isuwen: Taoism is compatible with anything and believes that all people are inherently good. I'm a Christian and a Taoist.
Other people: Christianity is partly based on the idea that we're all inherently sinful and evil and only by the grace of God will any of us go to heaven.
Isuwen: Oh well, I don't believe that then! But I'm still a Christian. And science is still a religion because I can draw vague paralells! Look a potato is a fruit because it's round like an apple and it's part of a plant!

And religion has enabled people to do terrible things. It's enabled otherwise good people to convince themselves that what they're doing is righteous.

One can still kill with their bare hands. Opposable thumbs are not technology.



By that definition, nearly anything that dictates policy is religion - governments, after-school clubs, CTOs, HR directors...

I have many flaws.

You are a charlatan. You know nothing about science, you are hypocritical, pretentious, phony, you misrepresent both science as well as all religions, including your own, which you evidently know nothing about. You have no concept of logic or reason. You take your fallacious, wrong opinions, tie them to a religion you obviously don't have a clue about, and then try to hide behind that religion to deflect contradiction and criticism. You are a reprehensible person. In spite of that, I don't hate you, but I sure as hell hate what you're saying.

I may not be the most important person in the world but at least I'm not you.


Oh ho! If we're following this trainwreck of logic, then science does not in any way enable people to work evil. Like the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: more people died in the decidedly-less-technological firebombing of Tokyo. If people are determined they'll find a way, regardless of what tools they have at their disposal.

The only thing that can't be excused by this logic was the Spanish Inquisition, which was - as I recall - solely inspired by, caused by and inacted through religion. Your move, Kasparov.




Now I will post how retarded these arguments are. I'm dividing the people you're talking about into two categories: scientists and laymen.



Scientists: Wrong. Many scientists develop theories and many other scientists test them.
Laymen: Wrong. Laymen don't understand what the scientists would "dictate", and even if they did they wouldn't be in a position to preach its virtues to their contemporaries.


Scientists: Wrong. The scientists, who do scientific work in the given field, do not follow what their colleages write without looking into it themselves.
Laymen: Wrong. Do you think Phil Davis has any idea how his TV works? Do you think he takes it on faith that it creates images by exciting phosphor cells by deflecting an electron beam toward them? No. He doesn't know that, he doesn't care. All he wants to do is watch his NASCAR.



Scientists: Wrong. Unlike you, scientists understand what they're talking about or else they don't talk about it. A biologist isn't going to write a physics paper.
Laymen: Correct. Laymen, like you, don't understand science. Perhaps that's because laymen aren't scientists.


Scientists: Wrong. Just like most people, most scientists believe in a religion. A religion by my definition, mind you. Not by your definition. Because by your definition eating a plate of fish is a religion.
Laymen: Wrong. Just like most people, most laymen believe in a religion. A religion by definition, mind you. Not by your definition. Because by your definition I worship the Porcelain Princess by sitting atop her mighty seat every morn'.

For the record, I never said you were a fool for being a Christian or for being Taoist. That would be atrociously hypocritical of me. I said you were a fool for believing that science is a religion. I also called you a reprehensible slimebag tool for trying to tie your unsound, unjustified, illogical, stupid, retarded little idea to a religion you don't know anything about.

Yes you did.

The scientists are the few. The many, your laymen, they believe what the scientists say. They believe E=mc^2 because Einstein said so, not because they know how he got there.

Of course the scientists don't follow it blindly. They are the few, not the Many. For the many, you have just agreed with me. The layman doesn't know how his DLP TV works, he just knows that it is better, and he will follow that curve as the few create more and more doctrine - or, technology.

Again, the scientists are not the many. They are the theologians, the priests; not the parishioners.


The few refrain, because they know the importance of religion to human existence. They are the few because they are educated. They are above it. For the laymen - how many people on this very board have attacked creationists? How many have attacked me because I am Taoist?

As translated by Thomas Cleary.

"Science"?

...

I can't really speak for the laymen, because I know how Einstein arrived at his equation, but I'm pretty sure they don't care.

Besides, if you're right and science is a religion, then this point is retarded because relativity doesn't always work.

And you miss the point again. The layman doesn't understand how his DLP TV works. He's not taking the theory on faith and I'm pretty sure he isn't buying it because a scientist says it looks better.

Also, to reiterate this earlier point: You don't even understand the difference between a scientist and an engineer.

No. If science is, indeed, a religion, then you cannot describe the laymen of being the parishioners for the express reason that they do not follow the principles or teachings of science. That's like saying "atheists are christians because they live in the same country :downs:"

Laymen reap the benefits of science on a daily basis. That's kinda, you know, the point of our economy. That doesn't mean they're scientists. Hell, you have people on the internet who believe that the earth is flat. And then there are people like you.

Nobody has attacked you because you're actually Taoist. People have attacked you because you aren't. Because you don't know anything about "your" religion (and the most cursory research into Taoism proves that), because you're pretentious, hypocritical and full of balogna. You have no idea what you're talking about and you've invented this whole debate just because you made one stupid remark but you're too damn proud to admit you were just trying to sound smarter than you actually are.

Yes, JM, we all know you think you're better than the rest of us. That's great.

I say this again: You are not profound. When you try to sound profound you end up sounding foolish. Please, for the love of god, stop. Your posts are the intellectual equivalents of a wax museum.

ahahahahaha

What the hell is Isuwen on???

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science&db=*

Whoops, I don't see religion anywhere in there! Oh well, JM fails.

But!

The dictionary is designed and printed by close minded people that hate him for being a taoist christian intellectual!

The title of this thread accurately reflects the contents.

Actually leaders like the early Popes would never have been able to start the crusades with out their religion to base it on. (You can't really call "Christianity" a religion as there are so many religions that go by those names. I'm talking about corrupt Catholicism in this case, not true Christianity. )

I don't want to derail but what exactly do you mean by "true Christianity"? I always find it funny that some Christians have such a hard time accepting that medieval Christians behaved in a manner that was, well..., medieval! It was the Christianity of its time and if your religion is still around 1000 years from now, they might well say the similar things about the religion you practice not being "true Christianity" either.

And unless I'm imstaken, Catholicism was the original Christianity, all other denominations sprang from Protestantism after the Great Schism.

No.

There was another split earlier, that formed Catholocism and the Eastern churches. Later, 'Protestantism' came. Lots of the eastern churches consider themselves Catholic.

True Christianity would be the organization of followers which were formed during and immediately after Jesus' supposed life.

I can't quite fathom how this thread manages to keep on getting more retarded, or why I keep reading it..

I thought it got less retarded in the last 1 or so posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B_Escorial_18.jpg

That picture is the funniest thing I've seen all day! Of course, it is only 10:13, but still.

I postulate that these two events may be related.