And even better test Religion and Philosophy

[Phaedrus]

Taoism is a belief and not a religion in the strict sense.

Yes, that is one of its main virtues ...

[Phaedrus]

@niffweed17

what i really don't like with taoism is the complete rejection of the scientific method, or indeed any explanation at all.

I totally agree with you here. I don't like that it is an irrational kind of mysticism.

the other problem i have with taoism is the idea of spiritual force, the tao, yin and yang, etc. i dislike those ideas for the same reason that i dislike other religions; namely that they provide no insight to anything and make no sense.

I agree here, too. But in the beginning Taoism was at least not as polluted with such things as it has become during the centuries.

And I would also put Buddhism in second place after Taoism. After that I am not sure.

[aestrivex]

"huh???? Confused Confused Confused Confused

how is taoism not a religion?"

In the strict sense, he said.

can you, uh, clarify? at least from my perspective, taoism is unquestionably a religion.

[Phaedrus]

can you, uh, clarify? at least from my perspective, taoism is unquestionably a religion.

That is just a matter of definition. You can call Taoism a religion if you want and many do. But one could argue that for something to be called a religion it must contain a belief in a god (or in many), i.e some sort of supernatural being. And since Taoism doesn't contain such beliefs it is not a religion in the strict sense of the word "religion".

But in that case neither Buddhism is a religion, so it all comes to where you want to draw the line between a religion and a belief system. Another important feature of a religion is that it probably must contain some sort of institutionalized practices, like prayers, rituals, etc. Taoism has rituals but no belief in a supernatural being.

A metaphysical doctrine is not a religion, but Taoism is not even a metaphysical doctrine - it is a kind of mysticism, since it refuses to define its central concepts (like Tao).

[aestrivex]

can you, uh, clarify? at least from my perspective, taoism is unquestionably a religion.

But one could argue that for something to be called a religion it must contain a belief in a god (or in many), i.e some sort of supernatural being. And since Taoism doesn't contain such beliefs it is not a religion in the strict sense of the word "religion".

that's absurd.

[MysticSonic]

"that's absurd."

How would one define religion, then? It is a difficult matter, because definitions too broad lead to impracticality, and definitions too narrow insult the vulgarities of many's opinions, your belief that the aforementioned definition being absurd being a clear example of the latter. I believe it can be made in compromise that a sufficient definition might be belief in the supernatural. Though, then one arrives at another horrible connundrum: what should supernatural be defined as?

[Kirana]

presumably the test refers to which religion, the practice of which suits you best.


Your Results:

1. Orthodox Judaism (100%)

2. Bahá'í Faith (99%)

3. Reform Judaism (99%)

4. Sikhism (97%)

5. Islam (96%)

6. Liberal Quakers (80%)

7. Jainism (77%)

8. Unitarian Universalism (77%)

9. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (60%)

10. Hinduism (58%)

11. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (56%)

12. Neo-Pagan (52%)

13. Mahayana Buddhism (51%)

14. Jehovah's Witness (46%)

15. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (46%)

16. Orthodox Quaker (46%)

17. Seventh Day Adventist (42%)

18. Eastern Orthodox (42%)

19. Roman Catholic (42%)

20. Theravada Buddhism (39%)

21. New Age (39%)

22. New Thought (38%)

23. Scientology (35%)

24. Taoism (28%)

25. Secular Humanism (28%)

26. Non-theist (24%)

27. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (23%)

[diamond]

Blaze, what did they say to you? I also believe that Jesus was a real person, and have some personal things that happened in my life to prove it. Though, I am not sure if sharing would convert anyone, lol.

Lessee it says to me that there are limits to the human intellect and perception. For me this is indubitably correct. If this is correct, then it lets in the possibility of things which seem illogical or irrational are actually not impossible or irrational. Such as the resurrection, the virgin birth, the idea that Jesus is God.

Even if you look at the issue of eye witness testimony - it's nearly always flawed and many times incorrect. We are flawed - we take things in that we think we see rather than what we do see. If we are this way and I believe we are then we probably miss all kinds of stuff, including identifying a walking, resurrected Jesus.