Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[counting]

We as Chinese even till day, some still believe that we have 7 'souls'(魂) 6 'ghosts'(魄) (only lose translation, there are no western concepts actually represent them), or 3 souls 7 ghosts in every one of us, and each one of them can separate from your body at any time, and they can be captured by others too.

Can you write out the chinese words phonetically? Some people may be familiar with them from reading asian literature.

The best he can do is a form of pinyin, though I dunno how he'd make the tones.

Easily I give the links so even if you can't read it, you can still click the little speaker in the web page, and hear the sounds of it.

You see the red words with hyperlink, click it, and a link like below will guide you to a new page. It will show you it's character, how to write it, what its sounds is like, for 魂
http://www.365zn.com/xhzd/dh.asp?swf=R09244473C.swf&mc=%BB%EA

[Glowcat]

So White Wolf's Exalted setting is actually a pretty good measure of the Chinese folklore religion?

Easily I give the links so even if you can't read it, you can still click the little speaker in the web page, and hear the sounds of it.

Well, I meant through a written medium, though that's an excellent work around.

[counting]

We need to divide people into groups, not as a prescriptive measure but as a descriptive one. I say that someone is "atheist" instead of "theist" for the same reason that I say a chair is red instead of orange, or a stool instead of a loveseat.

The distinctions are useful because they represent different types of belief (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

To what end I may asked? More debates? You are still trying to explain the terminology. Not the real functions in discussion. Such as we can distinguish white horse and black horse, so we can breed a new race of Pegasus. Or I want chocolate instead of candy bar, because it's Valentine's day.

The function is to actually properly distinguish between irreligious people who assert that there is no god, and irreligious people who do not. It is also to show that "atheists" as a group can fall into either category in order to prevent people from thinking otherwise. This is an important distinction in this debate.

There is no "for" anywhere. What's it for? Americans divided into Democratic and Republican "for the purpose of elections, hence in a society they don't need to resolve difference using wars"

So again, what's the purpose of this division for ?

I can give you one, "For the purpose if Atheist dominate the world, so we can still divided within ourselves, so we won't lack the opponents to debate with.", (debating for debating sake). But it's a purpose all right. I am not against it, just asking what you think in your mind this division for?

[Criptfeind]

Replace to with used for? I mean really.

[darkflagrance]

We as Chinese even till day, some still believe that we have 7 'souls'(魂) 6 'ghosts'(魄) (only lose translation, there are no western concepts actually represent them), or 3 souls 7 ghosts in every one of us, and each one of them can separate from your body at any time, and they can be captured by others too.

Can you write out the chinese words phonetically? Some people may be familiar with them from reading asian literature.

The best he can do is a form of pinyin, though I dunno how he'd make the tones.

Easily I give the links so even if you can't read it, you can still click the little speaker in the web page, and hear the sounds of it.

You see the red words with hyperlink, click it, and a link like below will guide you to a new page. It will show you it's character, how to write it, what its sounds is like, for 魂
http://www.365zn.com/xhzd/dh.asp?swf=R09244473C.swf&mc=%BB%EA

You can also copy-paste the characters into online dicts like nciku to get the pronunciation.

There is a related wikipedia article on this...how are the wikipedia descriptions of the hun and po related to your understanding?

At the end, the article even specifies a controversy over the exact number of soul pieces a human has. I personally thought a person only has one of each.

[G-Flex]

We need to divide people into groups, not as a prescriptive measure but as a descriptive one. I say that someone is "atheist" instead of "theist" for the same reason that I say a chair is red instead of orange, or a stool instead of a loveseat.

The distinctions are useful because they represent different types of belief (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

To what end I may asked? More debates? You are still trying to explain the terminology. Not the real functions in discussion. Such as we can distinguish white horse and black horse, so we can breed a new race of Pegasus. Or I want chocolate instead of candy bar, because it's Valentine's day.

The function is to actually properly distinguish between irreligious people who assert that there is no god, and irreligious people who do not. It is also to show that "atheists" as a group can fall into either category in order to prevent people from thinking otherwise. This is an important distinction in this debate.

There is no "for" anywhere. What's it for? Americans divided into Democratic and Republican "for the purpose of elections, hence in a society they don't need to resolve difference using wars"

So again, what's the purpose of this division for ?

I can give you one, "For the purpose if Atheist dominate the world, so we can still divided within ourselves, so we won't lack the opponents to debate with.", (debating for debating sake). But it's a purpose all right. I am not against it, just asking what you think in your mind this division for?

I have no idea what's hard to understand about this. There are different philosophical standings among atheists, and they are significant enough to be worth mentioning in discussion. That's it.

[counting]

So White Wolf's Exalted setting is actually a pretty good measure of the Chinese folklore religion?

Easily I give the links so even if you can't read it, you can still click the little speaker in the web page, and hear the sounds of it.

Well, I meant through a written medium, though that's an excellent work around.

Many polytheism hold this kind of concept, but most of them died out in history. Only some remaining the original aspects mostly folk religions. The basic reason is simple, because polytheism is likely evolved became many tribes conquered or combine with each others. So different gods if different in nature, and serve different functions in society will remain separately, too close they will become one but with many nicknames (most likely the more important function ones merged more).

However with those different in nature enough, but no longer serves functions anymore (lost demi-god), or those sub-characters of a nickname(alternative ego - abandon demi-god), or gods from the tribes which not fully merged yet, but slowly peacefully been assimilated, will not able to incorporated into the mainstream believes (free demi-god). They stay that way, till society decide their fate. Lost ones are most likely slowly been forgotten, abandon one to, but has the chance to re-integrated into others, free ones most likely gradually join the rank. It's for the greater harmony.

I think their function mostly been abandon, or integrated into angels, or becomes demons, in monotheism believes. And through time the importance of their roles changes as well, and finally the purpose of harmony no longer existed, and monotheism becomes a replacing old ones and aggressive religions. (Count how many times god strike down people in old bible), the origin of an angry god. And this idea is very dangerous as powerful, since if you can't continue your victory in conquering other people and strike down others, or been accepted by powerful conquerors, monotheism will not survived. Probably the reason why most major monotheism all have the same root. I believed many other monotheism believes are not that lucky. Abrahamic religions are really lucky, first dodge the conqueror from Egypt, if anything goes wrong in that journey, we may not have them today. And again dodged when Rome adopted it when its already a integrated empire and timing is right. And through the desert hardship another one rise, this time the conquer went well for a thousand more year or so, but stops when the force driving it lost in battle. And to their believers it will increase their faith as a separate group, since each time it seems like making the impossible, and the religious leader know about this, and make the most usages out of it. I believed that many are not that lucky, and when they died, there's no one left to tell the tell.

PS Another interesting aspect about Xian 仙, the demi-god, is that although the highest purpose is supposed to become one with the universe. Many people actually don't want to be deities, but to be Xian, the demi-god. You may wonder why, and reason is exactly because it has no obligation to serve the people, no responsibilities, with all the power. Sounds too perfect. Hence being real gods are hard, like working for your gods' bosses. But being demi-god, is like going on a vacation forever with all the expense been taking care of. And its a concept often related to another mortal concept - 俠 Xia. Someone do not belong to any governments, best with super charged abilities (not yet superhuman), and freely roaming the world as he/she wishes. Basically human version of Xian 仙. And more close to comic book superhero. People expected some form of responsibilities from 俠, but not because they have to, or force to, (there is no one controlling them), it's simply because he/she desires to take that burden willingly, and only ones willingly one can be called Xia 俠, but if he/she choose so, he/she can live freely away from people preventing the trouble, and doesn't affect the status as being Xia. Even less restrains on Xian 仙, they truly can almost do what ever they want, as long as it doesn't violate the balance of nature, and against the 'dao'

[counting]

We as Chinese even till day, some still believe that we have 7 'souls'(魂) 6 'ghosts'(魄) (only lose translation, there are no western concepts actually represent them), or 3 souls 7 ghosts in every one of us, and each one of them can separate from your body at any time, and they can be captured by others too.

Can you write out the chinese words phonetically? Some people may be familiar with them from reading asian literature.

The best he can do is a form of pinyin, though I dunno how he'd make the tones.

Easily I give the links so even if you can't read it, you can still click the little speaker in the web page, and hear the sounds of it.

You see the red words with hyperlink, click it, and a link like below will guide you to a new page. It will show you it's character, how to write it, what its sounds is like, for 魂
http://www.365zn.com/xhzd/dh.asp?swf=R09244473C.swf&mc=%BB%EA

You can also copy-paste the characters into online dicts like nciku to get the pronunciation.

There is a related wikipedia article on this...how are the wikipedia descriptions of the hun and po related to your understanding?

At the end, the article even specifies a controversy over the exact number of soul pieces a human has. I personally thought a person only has one of each.

I write them through personal experience in who people around me see them and used them. Since I am Chinese (Taiwanese actually). The wiki can't help you much to understand it. Since its more about the terminology than it's function and true meanings in real life. And "DON'T TRUST EVERYTHING WRITE ON WIKI". Not even trust my point of view fully. Since I only tell the story from my point of view, very subjective to my own believes. But I can tell you what people actually think about them in life and dead, and when it is used the most. Like in mental problems, and patient's family who believes the religion than science will not take them into hospital, but asking the help of deities to collect these hun and po back, very practical way of deal things right? But mostly not helpful. and thus why it remains a most folk religion believes status.

While the number of the hun and po, are different, is largely due to people want as many of them as possible, but no too much to make it sounds ridiculous. (Like I have 100 different ones, so I lost one, it doesn't sound so bad. ) While when it is incorporated into Taoism (道教) the concept needs to be defined, so the official number is set as 三魂七魄 (3 hun, 7 po). But people still used what they think fit, and the highest been 七魂六魄 (7 hun, 6 po). Other numbers existed (3 hun 6 po, 5 hun 6 po), but not as often as this two. And it also found its way into martial art practices and mysticism. Forming theories behind why they existed and why this number. 七竅 7 holes in your face 2 eyes, 2 noise holes. 2 hearing holes, 1 mouth = 七魂 7 hun; heaven, people, the earth, in body the energy into you, hence 3 po. It's not that difficult of a theory. but rather simple and easily understandable concept, or people won't use them.

Will all these make you better understand what hun and po is? If not, I apologies the waste of your time. By the way it may means you will lost one of them in your sleep, and waking up finding you can't find you car keys. Since one of them roaming while you sleep, and it contain that part of you knowing where it is. And suddenly you remembered. Ah ha! the lost one comes home. 

[G-Flex]

You can edit your posts, you know. You don't have to double-post.

[counting]

We need to divide people into groups, not as a prescriptive measure but as a descriptive one. I say that someone is "atheist" instead of "theist" for the same reason that I say a chair is red instead of orange, or a stool instead of a loveseat.

The distinctions are useful because they represent different types of belief (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

To what end I may asked? More debates? You are still trying to explain the terminology. Not the real functions in discussion. Such as we can distinguish white horse and black horse, so we can breed a new race of Pegasus. Or I want chocolate instead of candy bar, because it's Valentine's day.

The function is to actually properly distinguish between irreligious people who assert that there is no god, and irreligious people who do not. It is also to show that "atheists" as a group can fall into either category in order to prevent people from thinking otherwise. This is an important distinction in this debate.

There is no "for" anywhere. What's it for? Americans divided into Democratic and Republican "for the purpose of elections, hence in a society they don't need to resolve difference using wars"

So again, what's the purpose of this division for ?

I can give you one, "For the purpose if Atheist dominate the world, so we can still divided within ourselves, so we won't lack the opponents to debate with.", (debating for debating sake). But it's a purpose all right. I am not against it, just asking what you think in your mind this division for?

I have no idea what's hard to understand about this. There are different philosophical standings among atheists, and they are significant enough to be worth mentioning in discussion. That's it.

I am asking this because if you do get into debate, and people with believes will hold similar perspective about "what's the difference, all you atheists are the same group". Isn't it? But my questions while better in phrase may help you give a quick answers and standing ground. You can just say

"I do it because ... for the purpose of ... something something" and you won't feel you have to explain all these from the beginning, and give strait answers to the hearts, if it's functionality and social roles are strong or stand in a moral high ground. And this time I still give you a choice,to think more clearly, or just knowing for the knowledge sake.It is fine. I can live with that, other religious debaters may not.

P.S I may choose that I separated the difference for the purpose that "those of us atheists who don't think about the subject of religions is the possible conversion targets for you religious people, so we abandon them, but we who believe there is none. Stand Ground here, Today! if you dare challenge me, Come and get me!" Protecting the innocents!

I know I can edit, but I think I am replying to different people (I thought they are, maybe I mistaken), and I like to separate them, so others won't confuse. But I did this combine because of you ^^, and I don't think making a post with topic of polytheism and monotheism, with the one of hun and po, mashed up well together.

[Bauglir]

So no, a agnostic is not a atheist. (Which happens to be why we have two words.)

Spoiler: Let Me Try To Make This Clear For The Last Time (click to show/hide)

They aren't on the same axis.

No, the CORRECT version of that chart would be a triangle whith one point labeled "athiest" one point labeled "theist" and the third point labeled. "Agnostic" is no more the opposite of "Gnostic" than "Indifference" is the opposite of "Difference", a "Device" the opposite of a "Vice", or the Macedonian general "Antipater" the opposite of fatherhood

I linked a previous thread about religion to this one a page or two back. Go to it and search for posts by a user named Farmerbob and start reading from there if you want to see this debate as it happened before. I advise this because I'm way too tired at this hour to write up a refutation to that point again.

In regard to the posted chart, does the thread in question make it clear what you (or whoever made the chart) think the word "Gnostic" means (and if so, can you point me to that part of the discussion), because from the context I can tell that it is being misused.

Depending on the chart you mean (if it's the axes one, nevermind), but the inclusiveness chart was basically:
Atheist: Does not believe in a God.
   Implicit Atheist: Does not recognize that it does not believe in a God, typically through not having a concept of a God.
   Explicit Atheist: Recognizes that it does not believe in a God.
      Strong Explicit Atheist: Recognizes that it believes God does not exist.
      Weak Explicit Atheist: Recognizes that it does not have a belief about a God, whether for or against its existence.
         Agnostic: Believes that it cannot rationally believe in a God, and therefore does not have a belief in a God.

[Bohandas]

So no, a agnostic is not a atheist. (Which happens to be why we have two words.)

[*EDIT: SPOILERBOX REMOVED*][/spoiler]
They aren't on the same axis.

No, the CORRECT version of that chart would be a triangle whith one point labeled "athiest" one point labeled "theist" and the third point labeled. "Agnostic" is no more the opposite of "Gnostic" than "Indifference" is the opposite of "Difference", a "Device" the opposite of a "Vice", or the Macedonian general "Antipater" the opposite of fatherhood

I linked a previous thread about religion to this one a page or two back. Go to it and search for posts by a user named Farmerbob and start reading from there if you want to see this debate as it happened before. I advise this because I'm way too tired at this hour to write up a refutation to that point again.

In regard to the posted chart, does the thread in question make it clear what you (or whoever made the chart) think the word "Gnostic" means (and if so, can you point me to that part of the discussion), because from the context I can tell that it is being misused.

Depending on the chart you mean (if it's the axes one, nevermind), but the inclusiveness chart was basically:
Atheist: Does not believe in a God.
   Implicit Atheist: Does not recognize that it does not believe in a God, typically through not having a concept of a God.
   Explicit Atheist: Recognizes that it does not believe in a God.
      Strong Explicit Atheist: Recognizes that it believes God does not exist.
      Weak Explicit Atheist: Recognizes that it does not have a belief about a God, whether for or against its existence.
         Agnostic: Believes that it cannot rationally believe in a God, and therefore does not have a belief in a God.

I was referring to the bottom half of the chart that MetalSlimeHunt posted earlier in this quote tree (two axis one, not the line one), its the bizarre misuse of the word "gnostic" at the tpo of said portion, and the question of what concept he (or whoever made the chart) actually meant. (BTW. I've removed the spoiler box in this quote for ease of explanation)

[Grek]

That usage of the word gnostic is correct, if unusual. A gnostic is a person who has (or at least thinks they have) special knowledge (gnosis) with regards to some topic. Unfortunately, the term "gnostic", much like the term "catholic" (which, in literal terms, means universal) was coopted by a religious movement way back in history and has lost its older meaning.

An example of a gnostic theist would be Muhammad, who claimed that Allah sent an angel to him to tell him about Allah. Another example would be a neopagan who claims that Thor appeared before her in a dream and told her something.

An example of an agnostic theist would be a deist, as they claim that their god does not intervene in the world and that, as such, direct evidence of the existance of their god does not exist.

An example of a gnostic atheist would be a "strong atheist", someone who claims that the existance of god is impossible on scientific or logical grounds.

An example of an agnostic atheist would be a "weak atheist", someone who beleives that since is not either not currently possible or not in principle possible to know if god exists, that we should assume that god does not.

An example of an agnostic flompulist is a person who, given that they have no idea what a flompula is and have no way of learning more, refuses to make claims about the topic.

[Bauglir]

I feel dumb for not reading the entire quotamid now. Excuse me whilst I hang my head in shame, although restoring the spoiler might be a good idea if only for aesthetics in reading the page.

[Phmcw]

Seriously, I don't see how an atheist could be sure if he's gnostic or agnostic. I mean how could you be sure that there is not a way to disprove the existence of god (the problem of the definition of said god notwithstanding).
There is a flaw in these definitions : they are all completely theoretical, and demand to answer almost mathematical question about the universe, something that an atheist, who have to actually base his vision of the world on fact rather than belief, cannot do.
Rather that "god doesn't exist", your topical atheist mean "my guess is that god doesn't exist" since he have no religious belief to tell him that it's the absolute truth. Logically, his faith in this statement cannot be higher that the one he have in it's own judgment.