How come Confucius teachings sounds much better than the 3 Abrahamic religions ?

[Jacquemar]

"religion" as defined by WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

... and other less related definitions.

I hate to say it, because I dislike the posts of so many of theists in this forum, but because sacrifices were made to Confucius at some point in history, it is often studied as a religion. (I took an extensive course in the history of world religion, and Confucianism was a part of the course.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Confucianism is not a religion. It is cultural yes but not religion.
No one is worshiping master Kong and there is no master Kong's god.

It's not necessary to have a deity involved to have a religion.

^ How cum Communism, capitalism, stalinism, Nazism, Facism are not religions ?

They have no spiritual, moral, or ethical aspects.
{Text removed by moderator}

But it's not one. I think many have gone over this. Confucianism is a sort of philosophy and way of living that does not induce religion (belief system on god or god).

See above.


My question to the OP is simple:

if you don't view Confucianism as a religion, why did you compare it to some?

 

[Telstra]

It's like Natural Science can be considered a Religion for some people, because they hold it up as an absolute when it comes to looking for/and discovering things. They have to believe in only what they can see, not what they cannot see. Science has become a God for many.

Give one person who worship science ?
People respect science but not worship science.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's like Natural Science can be considered a Religion for some people, because they hold it up as an absolute when it comes to looking for/and discovering things. They have to believe in only what they can see, not what they cannot see. Science has become a God for many.

Yet another definition of religion to ponder!

If we define religion as a system or means for being able to know absolute truth, then Confucianism doesn't qualify -- nor, to those who are honest, does science.

If we define it as believing that there is more than we can perceive with our five senses, directly or by employment of means we can devise, then both of those are arguable.

If we definite it as something through which we can know everything there is to know, then neither Confucianism nor science qualify -- but then neither do Christianity nor a host of other acknowledged religions.

But if you define it as having something in which you put complete trust, Confucianism does not qualify, but for many, science does.


Everything depends on definitions.

 

[Kulindahr]

A very reactionary statement... for one science is not a religion. People who are advocates of science are in favor of the scientific method and scientific discovery. These two things go against the very definition of religion. And the scientific method is one where things have to be testable. Why is it illogical for those of us to advocate the scientific method, yet not believe in god or pink unicorns... or the flying spaghetti monster?

Science is not religion at all, and it cannot even be considered one.

More people "believe in" science in the fashion of a religion than actually have a clue what the scientific method is. I personally think that's the result of oversimplification of the scientific method in school, so people don't really understand it, but it could be due to that along with other educational failures.

These folks have no real clue how science operates, but regard it in the same way that ancient Greeks tended to regard the deities of Mount Olympus: something that can be manipulated to gain benefits. Do they treat it as a religion? Well, if we regard the ancient Greeks as having been religious toward those gods, then these superstitious adherents of science are also religious.

I'd say that's what Mikey was driving at.


Just FYI, those two things do NOT "go against the very definition of religion". Many scientific discoveries have arisen BECAUSE of religion, and many researchers continue to be either driven by religion or faithful believers.

Only if one asserts that nothing can be known except by science can one make the above assertion -- at which point you've made science into a religion, because you're operating on a very blind faith. Not only that, but you'll also have made much of human society into nonsense, because there are numerous things we know that science can't test, and where we humans operate by faith daily.


Returning to Confucius -- I'll venture it's closer to being a religion than being science. At the same time, I'll venture that it and science both are perfectly compatible with Christianity.

 

[Telstra]

According to a few,
everything is religion. Typing a keyboard is a religion ...

 

[Jacquemar]

^^ You're right, Telstra. It's ridiculous, isn't it?

 

[Kulindahr]

According to a few,
everything is religion. Typing a keyboard is a religion ...

If there were people who trusted in typing on a keyboard for their lives to be full and good, and derived their spiritual and moral values from it, it would be a religion -- a really warped one, but still a religion.

 

[Kulindahr]

But science simply isn't a religion and can't be "believed" like a religion. Science is simply about scientific discovery and exploration. In addition, Mikey was talking about "you people"... referring to those on this forum... and not a very nice way to refer to others.


I don't think so. What superstitious adherents of science? Is this the way some react to those who think science is a way of progress?


Name some of the people who are following "science as a religion" on this forum. Even though, science can't be followed as a religion.


Nope. Science is often in direct defiance of religion, and religion is against scientific discovery and often an obstacle. Most scientists are not religious, and are often agnostic ora theist.


Nice swipe at those who do not believe in religion and think religion is false. Tell me who are these that blindly adhere to science... I'd like to hear this one. I think this is your way at criticizing atheists and agnostics who think that science and religion are completely incompatible and are in conflict, like myself.



Many people don't operate by faith. I don't care for faith. I think it's unnecessary and inaccurate.


Actually I never said it was religion or a science. I simply said it was philosophy.

Science is incompatible with Christianity. And the god and religious myths are incompatible with logic and reason.

It's evident you don't understand Christianity or for that matter millions of people around the world.

Christianity not only is compatible with science, for centuries it has encouraged science and helped it flourish.

Any time people trust something while not knowing how it works, they're operating on faith. Most people on airplanes act on faith when they get on; more people act of faith when they buy medications -- or food, for that matter.

This wasn't a "swipe" at anything, it was a statement of truth:

Only if one asserts that nothing can be known except by science can one make the above assertion -- at which point you've made science into a religion, because you're operating on a very blind faith.

Denying that there is any other way than science to know anything is a statement of faith -- it relies on something for which there is no evidence. There's more evidence for the Resurrection than for that position.

As for superstitious adherents of science, just go out and ask a hundred people iof they trust science to at least solve many of our problems, then ask those who say "yes" to explain the scientific method. Those who trust without understanding are making science into a religion.

 

[Kulindahr]

And I don't really care to understand it. Millions people are duped... and it's unfortunate. I hope atheism and agnosticism continues to grow.

And thus you demonstrate faith: you make pronouncements about something you don't understand.

Actually for centuries the Catholic Church has come into direct conflict with science and hindered it. THis was the case during the Middle Ages and even Renaissance. Religion and Science don't mix.

That's the common myth, but it's a small piece of the picture. In almost every single case where the Church is painted as having opposed science, the historical reality is that the church was supporting science -- just science that turned out to be wrong. And on other fronts, it was deeply religious folk who preserved what science/knowledge survived from Rome, and added to it.

Again this is not true. It's not about faith. Science is about evidence and proof. Religion is about faith and make believe.

This doesn't even address what I said.

Claiming that science is the only way we have to know things is a statement of faith. It's definitely not a scientific statement; for starters it's virtually untestable.

I'll put it real simple for you. Many people don't operate on faith. I don't operate on faith. I don't need faith. I don't need religion. I am a man of science, logic and reason. I know that religion comes into direct conflict with science, and religion is not an acceptable answer.

Most people do operate on faith: faith is trust, so any time you operate on trust you operate on faith. When people do that with respect to science, they make it a religion.
As I've already said, they shouldn't, and the fact that they do indicates our educational system has a problem. Grasping how science works is less difficult than understanding basic algebra -- and when I taught basic algebra in student teaching and tutored it in college, I had better than a 4/5 pass rate. So it disgusts me that not only do we have ignorant folks holding a position that because they believe in God they have to ignore science, but we have probably even more who trust in science as some mystic system that produces results but they don't understand how.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, it's not a myth. It's the truth. It seems to me you're simply trying to justify your religious beliefs as not being anti-science, when Christianity has been and still is one of the biggest obstacles to science. Science is fundamentally incompatible with religion. The two don't mix... like water and oil.

It is a myth. I used to see it the politically correct way you hold, but it started unraveling when I read a book called How the Irish Saved Civilization, and followed it with others. The amount of science done mostly in monasteries during the middle ages is staggering.

And in the two classical illustrations, the "religion v science" paradigm also fails -- in both Copernicus' and Galileo's cases, it was science v science; it was just that some in the Church hierarchy backed the wrong science -- and in Galileo's case, it was for political reasons, not theological.

That the two aren't incompatible can be established with a single illustration: Gregor Mendel was driven to his investigations because of his faith. There are a good number of Nobel winners who had the same motivation.

Deeply religious people don't have interest in preserving science or helping it.

Utterly, utterly false.

Cases in point: Jesuit scientists. There are lots of them, along with Benedictine ones -- I've never met a Franciscan scientist, but that doesn't surprise me.
(I read of a noted Jesuit mathematician who held that one could neither understand mathematics without God, nor God without mathematics.)

Another case in point: a head of biology at a university, a Lutheran who went into biological science because he read the verse that said "we are fearfully and wonderfully made", and decided he wanted to understand why God would say that.

Yet another: me.

It most definitely is NOT faith. Faith is for those who refuse to investigate matters.

This statement merely confirms that it's faith: the assertion that science is the only way to know things hasn't been investigated significantly, if at all. Those who make the statement would never think of doing so, because they "know" science is the only way of knowing things.

Faith is nothing of the sort. And it has nothing to do with trust. And I don't operate on faith nor do I have any need for faith. Faith is illogical and irrational. Science cannot be made into a religion. And again you don't address what I said with regards to my own viewpoints. You went off on another tangent about the educational system.

So you've made up your own definition of faith to use so you can make a statement that sounds like nonsense to many people but you can have perfect confidence in it.

If you can claim that "[faith] has nothing to do with trust", I have to doubt your claim to have been in a church. Trust is the essential element of faith in the Bible.

ANYTHING can be made into a religion. If you trust it for your welfare, use it as a source for your ethics and morals, and rely on it for truth, you've made a religion.
Some people have money for their religion, others have fame for their religion, more than a few have government for their religion, and millions have science for their religion.
Why? Because people can distort anything. There are people who have taken the U.S. Constitution and made a religion from it, just as others have taken communism and done the same.

BTW, maybe your definition of faith is something illogical and irrational, but that's not the Bible's definition -- it speaks of evidence, of investigating, of testing. One of the central theological words in the New Testament is λόγος, which carries the meanings of "logic" and "order" along with the surface meaning of "word" -- and λόγος is employed in a way that makes it central for understanding God and the world both. So talk about "faith" the way you want, but be aware that what you're talking about is not what the Bible is talking about.

Please don't try to mix science and religion. I will never accept that explanation.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Many things cannot be made into a religion, because they are fundamentally incompatible with the definition of religion. It's just really that simple.

You have defined religion in this thread as essentially exhibiting the character of worship:

It's not a religion as nobody is worshipping anything.

If that's incorrect, please correct or expand on your definition.

If it's not incorrect, wouldn't something people worship count as a religion?

And to define worship, I personally would say it's ritualized adoration.

Proceeding from the the only definition of religion you've provided so far (and to extrapolate what you mean by worship) it's plain to conclude that things like science and communism can be adored. Can such adoration be ritualized?

 

[zoltanspawn]

Science and political beliefs cannot be ritualized.

I'm unsure of this.

 

[Kulindahr]

I will go this point by point refuting everything. What is politically correct about my viewpoint? I'm not one that is about to merge religion and science together. It is my hope religion is phased out completely as it is a hindrance to human progress and science. The Church during the time of the Middle Ages stopped a great of scientific progress, hence why humanity fell into the dark ages.

Once again with the politically correct but false line. And don't tryu to change the subject by bringing up one of your imagined bugaboos.

The Church hierarchy put dampers on some science. But the reason for the Middle Ages was total social collapse of what had been a complex society. Civil government collapsed, and most of the pieces where it remained had all they could do to hold their little piece together until ultimately overwhelmed by migrating barbarian tribes.

The Church backed their own distorted viewpoints mostly based on biblical verses, and science eventually won out there.

Bible verses were quoted to support the science held by the Church. But they also marshaled mathematicians and what passed for astronomers to argue for the Ptolemaic system. It was not religion v science, it was science v science, with the Church picking sides -- and politics driving it.

You can say that, but it's not utterly false.

Again you demonstrate you aren't interested in evidence.

Again, you can cite whoever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that most scientists are agnostic or atheist.

Ah! Thank you for conceding the point.

See, you're trying to defend an absolute proposition. For that kind of proposition, the test is simple: is there one exception? I gave you exceptions.

Weird, though, that you defend the absolute proposition above, and now concede it.

There is no assertion in my viewpoints. I speak factually about science. I know for a fact that religion continues to pose a hindrance to scientific and human progress, so it's why I hope religion is phased out.

Another statement of faith. Your "fact" is an assumption you seem to be emotionally invested in, one you're willing to ignore large amounts of evidence in order to retain.

That's not factual, and it's not science.

Incorrect. I do not implement faith in my life. I don't need it. There is a difference between having "faith" and knowing something is true.

Try responding to the statement!
You've made up your own definition of faith, one that has nothing to do with the one used by people you're trying to attack. It's a very convenient definition you have, because by using it you can make statements that are true -- with your definition -- but which are in actuality demonstrably false.

There is a good reason why I'm atheist, and that has exactly to do with the fact that the bible is a manipulative text that people have distorted and twisted.

If it's manipulative, it doesn't work very well. Its message is love, peace, kindness, generosity, humility, hospitality, etc. The majority of the people who follow it may be working on those (arguable), but the power structures it has engendered rarely do. Those who build power on the basis of the Bible definitely distort and twist it, because it isn't about oppression, persecution, or any such thing.

No. Many things cannot be made into a religion, because they are fundamentally incompatible with the definition of religion. It's just really that simple. And no, if you use something for a source of ethics and morals that doesn't mean it's a religion. You're distorting the word religion and stretching it so you can weakly attempt to discredit my argument.

I'm not distorting the word -- but you're distorting my statements.

In the end the only one who is left discredited here isn't me. And political views are political views... you seem to have a twisted, distorted definition of what a religion is. I worship nothing, I don't follow any religious leaders... but I am still a man of science and reason.

You like science and reason, but the evidence here is that you do a poor job of it.

I don't care for what the bible says. The bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted a plethora of times. Everything in it is illogical and based on easily misinterpreted text. It's ambiguous and has nothing truthful.

Excellent demonstration of non-logical and non-scientific reasoning.
How long did you spend learning the original languages so you could read it, and then studying the cultures which produced different parts, so you could make this claim? Ah, you didn't do any of that? Then your claim is not scientific, but is rather a statement of faith: you believe that, but haven't actually done a thorough investigation to test it.

I think I know full well about the bible, and about truth and science. Thank you very much.

Well, unless you actually have done the studying I mentioned above, then you don't -- you know less than the fundamentalist fanatics you despise.

If you're going to be scientific, BE scientific! That means admitting you don't know, but you don't like it, and that your view is subjective and not logical or scientific.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. Science and political beliefs cannot be ritualized.

False. Attend some Republican Tea-Party type meetings, and you'll see the evidence.

(If you don't go insane from the... "atmosphere".)

Religion is based on rituals.

False. This is just more evidence you don't know much about religion.

I haven't done anything incorrect, nor have I defined anything incorrectly in this thread. I stand by everything I have said.

Then you're standing on ignorance, private definitions, refusal to face evidence, and non-scientific thought.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm unsure of this.

Science... might not be easily susceptible to ritualization, but it is vulnerable -- there are quite a number of sci-fi novels which look at that very thing, and they are believable.

Politics can easily be ritualized -- if you have any doubt, just watch some of the footage of Hitler's political rallies -- or attend local Republican ones (that can come hauntingly close to seeming like church services).

 

[zoltanspawn]

Science... Politics can easily be ritualized.

Please don't mistake my tone for naivete, Kuli.

 

[Kulindahr]

There isn't anything that is politically correct or even considering political correctness about my position. I state what is widely known about the conflict between religion and science.

That gays are perverts who should be put to death is widely known, too -- why haven't you jumped on that bandwagon?
"Widely known" is all too often a way to say "unfounded fable".

The Church and religion as a whole is a obstacle to science, and continues to be an obstacle to this day.

Unscientific. I've given you evidence to the contrary.

It was religion v science, because the Church was advocating a certain viewpoint that was not based on any real science.

False. The Ptolemaic system was as scientific as the Big Bang: it was based on the best mathematics of its day.

I'm far more interested then you have shown in these discussions. You are only interesting in advancing your religious viewpoints at the expense of science.

I haven't tried to advance ANY religious viewpoint -- I just want you to act like what you say.

I have not conceded anything.
[/QUOTE}

Oh, excuse me. Thank you for making a statement which showed that what you've been saying was wrong and the evidence I've been giving was sound.

I don't care for exceptions.

Then you don't care about science. The progress of science has been to a great degree about running into exceptions. Clyde Tombaugh found another planet because there were exceptions to the way the known ones should behave. Einstein produced his theories because there were exceptions to the Newtonian model.

And if you care about logic, you care about exceptions.

What absolute proposition? Where did I say all scientists were agnostic or atheist? Show me where. You're now proceeding to distort what I have said... as I expect devoutly religious people to do.

You said:

Deeply religious people don't have interest in preserving science or helping it.

From your tone in this thread, that's an absolute statement.
But you're not interested in exceptions; they just mess up what you believe.
Which means you're not interested in evidence.

There is zero faith in my arguments. I don't rely on faith. I only rely on solid evidence and reason... something you are not interested in. And what did I ignore? Oh wait... your opinions.

You sure don't act like it.

The existence of Jesuit scientists is my "opinion"?
The fact that Gregor Mendel was a devout Christian is my "opinion"?
The presence of numerous devout believers in the lists of Nobel scientists is my "opinion"?

I haven't made up anything. YOu've only done that by proceeding to distort what I have said. I think you're just posting to get a reaction out of me... I guess you have done that. I have a vastly different world view then you. No, it's not a convenient statement. It's a factual statement. Nothing in my argument has been proven false.

I'm posting to educate you and get you to be what you claim. You assert you're scientific, but you ignore evidence, depart from logic, and invent your own definitions to things instead of using those from the subject at hand. You invent your own definition to "faith", and to "religion" -- and when someone questions your definition, you ignore him.

Worldviews do not change definitions, unless you're psychotic, perhaps. In your worldview, facts aren't enough to disprove absolution propositions -- so I'm glad I don't share your worldview. In my worldview, critical thinking rules, and things have to be examined before opinions are given -- especially if you're venturing to be scientific.

There's nothing wrong with having a non-scientific view of religion, which by your own admission is what you have. That's fine -- until you go peddling it as scientific.

It's a message of slavery, hatred, disgust, discrimination and selfishness. This is why I don't care for religion or the bible. I think the bible is a tool that manipulates people. The bible has numerous verses that advocate oppression and persecution.

"Numerous verses"? Tell me, where are they found? Do they come from someone who trumps Jesus? If not, they lose. In fact if they're in the Old Testament, they lose. Why do they lose? Because the Bible says so.

So unless you can show me some verses where Jesus preached in favor of "slavery, hatred, disgust, discrimination and selfishness", just give it up and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
You'd be in good company -- the fundamentalists don't, either.

LOL! Or so you like to claim and fail completely to prove. I do a excellent job at defending my viewpoints. You on the other hand rely on mere conjectures.

I've shown it -- again in this post: you claim you follow science, then you make claims about religion and science, I provide evidence to show your claims are wrong, and you... proceed to quite unscientifically ignore the evidence.

Incorrect! More of your faulty assumptions about what I think! It's the objective of the religious person... to undermine the atheist whenever possible and to insult the atheist without attempting to engage in rational discussion!

I made no assumptions about anything.

You made a claim about the Bible. I pointed out how you were wrong. You countered by saying you don't care for what the Bible says.
I pounced on that as being unscientific, because it was: no scientist will make pronouncements about something he has admitted he's ignorant about, but by your own words, you did.

And now you're trying to change the subject. I don't care that anyone is an atheist, or some other religion, but I do care that they think clearly. In this thread you haven't been thinking clearly, which I really pounce on because you claim to represent science. It's a good thing you don't officially represent it, or people would believe that science is full of people with opinions about things they don't know anything about who insult others because they think being scientific gives them some sort of authority, and... oh, wait; too many people believe that already.

You have not studied what you claim well enough. You have completely failed at proving your argument.

LOL

You've admitted you're ignorant about the subject, but now you're claiming that someone who took the time to learn the Bible's original languages and then spend a half dozen years studying little else but that text and the cultures which produced it hasn't studied enough? and that someone who got a college degree in science, with honors, hasn't studied enough?

BTW, asserting that someone hasn't proved an argument doesn't make it true. You haven't offered any evidence to support your broad assertions, or personal definitions, while I've used the basic, well-known (and taken from you as well) definitions concerning science to assess your posts.

Why don't you? But then again you're anti-scientific, and anti-atheist. Your post is highly reactionary to someone who has a vastly different viewpoint then your own. My viewpoint is objective and based on logic and reason. Take it or leave it.

So you're going to stoop to obvious lies? Yeah, that's really scientific.

Engaging in critical thinking is "reactionary"? Wanting science to be science and religion to be religion and rationally assessing the relationship between the two is "reactionary"?

All I've done is held your posts up to examination by the standards you profess, and shown where they fail. Yet you accuse me of a non-existent agenda. That shows a very heavy lack of objectivity, logic, or reason.

 

[Kulindahr]

Please don't mistake my tone for naivete, Kuli.

Sorry. The thread got kinda "infested" with a certain someone's arrogant insistence he knows everything and thinks rationally even when he's not paying attetnion to the evidence he so loudly claims to crave.

How do you talk to someone who bloody well knows what Hitler's political rallies looked like and yet says "politics can't be ritualized"?

 

[TX-Beau]

OK, anything can be ritualized. Politics actually I’d assert has more to do with religion than it does with “science.”

Which begs the question, what is science? Because for damn sure “science” is not some kind of discreet entity like a god. I sometimes think that the religions who insist it is do so because they cannot comprehend the idea of critical thinking.

“Science,” is a process of investigation nothing more, that has nothing to do with gods, and yes Kuli you are going to object – because you are a God person and want God to be behind all of everything, but frankly, religion has been an impediment to science, as plenty of your fellow Christians will acknowledge – just not you, and we aren’t going to agree, and we never have, and we never will, so don’t bother.

The value of science in getting concrete answers in indisputable. Science produces a million miracles every day without the need of faith. As we all know sitting here in our houses worlds away and yet communicating through the miracle of science no matter which God we worship if indeed we worship any at all. AND YET science functions. Which science would adamantly insist was no miracle at all, because science requires those who practice it to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Which is how we got to computers and the internets and the tv.

There are plenty of people who are not scientists who just take it on “faith,” but really, that’s not religious faith, that’s faith born of experience and tangible proof.

Religious faith has no such underpinning. No it doesn’t Kuli, and you know that as well as I. Frankly science seeks no faith of any kind, and if people who have faith in science go looking for answers, they find concrete and immediate answers for why what works, works, and no apologies for why we don’t know what we don’t know.

I know the religious find solace among other things in their beliefs, THAT is religion, and that is not “science,” and it never will be.