Are you a pureist?

[Faust]

Are you a purest?
Let me elaborate.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in God or gods. However I do believe that all things are interconnected. I Base this belief on science not religion. I also have a great fondness for Tao. But Tao is a philosophy not a religion.
The belief in interconnectedness seems to put me in the category of both UU and Deist by the standards of both of these religious classifications.
This seems to strike a nerve with people I have come in contact with, in the past and recently. I believe they experience my views as an adulteration of the pure meaning of "atheist". I am also aware of the tendency of some homosexuals to feel the same way towards bisexuals. I am sure that this tendency exists in many forms, but I am curious.
How many people feel this way about religion,lack of religion, sexual orientation, or other topics. Could you give me some reasons behind your feelings if you feel this way about something?
Peace, Faust

 

[SoulTYPE]

I feel slightly against Christianity because of some of their "ways".

 

[Faust]

Could you elaborate?

 

[SoulTYPE]

Well, I am not interested in that religion, because of some of their beliefs, for example. Also not like attending church, or their "description" of the bible. Or their views on "pornography". etc etc..I choose to live how I want to, not how someone (perhaps God) has chosen for me to do so.

Feel free to ask questionage, Faust. I will answer

 

[Scott1]

I am sure that this tendency exists in many forms, but I am curious.

In my faith those people are called "cafeteria Catholics".... not exactly a term of endearment, and not something I personally use.... it reflects Catholics who choose to believe some of the teachings of the Church, but not all. FYI, most Catholics will tell you that you must believe everything in the faith or you are not Catholic.... I however, don't feel the need to label or classify anyone a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

I think those that strike out against others who don't "fit the bill" for their personal opinion of how "things should be" are just lacking self-confidence....

 

[Ceridwen018]

"cafeteria Catholics"

Lol, I know what you mean by this. Sometimes to me it seems like you have your protestants, and your people who are too lazy to change or start their own church, aka, the Catholics.

Personally, Faust, I think its a bit hard to label oneself a 'purist of atheism', given that atheism is pretty undefined. I myself openly admit to having a spiritual side, and I enjoy many of the different philosophies as well.

 

[lilithu]

Are you a purest?
Let me elaborate.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in God or gods. However I do believe that all things are interconnected. I Base this belief on science not religion. I also have a great fondness for Tao. But Tao is a philosophy not a religion.
The belief in interconnectedness seems to put me in the category of both UU and Deist by the standards of both of these religious classifications.

You sound like a Buddhist to me. The UU 7th principle is based on Buddhism. No God or gods. The interconnectedness of all things. Maybe you're a Zen Buddhist, as that is Buddhism with a Taoist influence.

(btw, Taoism is a religion in Asia, complete with temples, supernatural entities, rituals... Only the philosophical part of Taoism got transported to the West, as with Buddhism.)

This seems to strike a nerve with people I have come in contact with, in the past and recently. I believe they experience my views as an adulteration of the pure meaning of "atheist". I am also aware of the tendency of some homosexuals to feel the same way towards bisexuals. I am sure that this tendency exists in many forms, but I am curious.
How many people feel this way about religion,lack of religion, sexual orientation, or other topics. Could you give me some reasons behind your feelings if you feel this way about something?
Peace, Faust

I have no idea what these terms mean so how can I be a purest about them? People mean different things by 'atheist,' 'theist,' 'deist,' 'agnostic,' etc.

I self-identify as a theist. Several times I've experienced arguing with self-identified atheists because they claim that theists are superstitious,etc, but then when we get to know each other better, we find we're not so far apart. A few times I've even found that the so-called 'atheist' is actually more 'theistic' than I am.

In addition, I tend to be a non-dualist. But both Hinduism and Buddhism claim to be non-dualistic and yet one is considered theistic and the other non-theistic. It's all very confusing.

As with religion, so with sexual orientation. In the end, it matters less what you say you are. You just are. Any label is a simplification of a complex human being. The only thing that we can ask of each other is that we don't intentionally try to deceive.

 

[lilithu]

In my faith those people are called "cafeteria Catholics".... not exactly a term of endearment, and not something I personally use.... it reflects Catholics who choose to believe some of the teachings of the Church, but not all. FYI, most Catholics will tell you that you must believe everything in the faith or you are not Catholic.... I however, don't feel the need to label or classify anyone a "good" or "bad" Catholic.

UUs have this problem too - taking what we like and ignoring the rest. In fact it's worse for us because we have more options to choose from. But we never get called "bad" UUs for it. The unfortunate thing is that it leads to spirituality that is not very deep. You don't really understand your faith unless you've had to grapple with the hard stuff that you don't like.

In terms of needing to believe EVERYTHING or else you're not really a good fill-in-the-blank, I think that it comes down to what is essential to one's faith. For example, it seems to me that it is essential to Christianity to believe that Jesus Christ is God. If you don't believe that, it's hard to justify calling yourself a Christian (although I know people who do). On the other hand, it does not seem (to me) essential to Christianity that one believe in the virgin birth. A lot of Christians may believe it but not believing it does not destroy any central tenets of the Christian faith. And one can make analogous arguments for the other religions. What is it that is central to the faith? So I personally think that there is room for a little bit of picking and choosing from the cafeteria, as long as one always takes the correct main course.

I think those that strike out against others who don't "fit the bill" for their personal opinion of how "things should be" are just lacking self-confidence....

You're right. It definately betrays some insecurity about one's own beliefs or sexual orientation, etc.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I am a born- and- bred, dyed- in- the- wool purist!

I just haven't found the right religion to be adamant about yet...

 

[jewscout]

nope not really a purist. :jiggy:

 

[Engyo]

Faust -

Lillith said what I wanted to - you sound very much like a Buddhist.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

However I do believe that all things are interconnected. I Base this belief on science not religion.

I think this depends on your definition of "interconnected". For example, it would be scientific to say that the Earth and Mars are interconnected in the sense that they are both bathed in the same solar wind coming from the same sun. However, it would be unscientific to say that Earth and Mars are interconnected in the sense that Mars' position in the sky will have a dramatic affect on my future lovelife.

 

[Faust]

(I think this depends on your definition of "interconnected".) quote from Mr. Sprinkles.
Very good point Sprinkles,
Although my knowledge of science is limited I mean that statement in the sense of the relationship of the observer with the observed,(Schrodingers cat). Also the effect that one subatomic particle may have on a seemingly unrelated particle without concern to spaciality. I have an inkling that what is possible on a microscopic scale may be possible on a macroscopic scale although not predicated or reliant on an external force. And not on a scale that is very obvious or miraculous. I avoid the nomenclature Buddist because of what I perceive as a rather dour outlook, life as trial or rather the reduction of pleasure or desire based on the belief that desire of anything leads to the sorrow or disappointment humans experience.

 

[Engyo]

Faust -

The "dour outlook" you cite, above, is only a superficial glance at the Theravadan tradition of Buddhism. There is a great deal more available; and the Mahayana schools do not emphasize the outlook you cite.

 

[Faust]

Engyo,

I'm afraid there is a great deal I'm unaware of. I am trying to learn more and advice is always welcome. Please do not be offended by my ignorance. My blunders are not intended to step on anyones toes, I simply do not know sometimes when I am out of bounds . You see my field of personal study has been in the Abrahamic religions and I have only cursory knowledge of other systems.
Faust

 

[Runt]

I'm a Unitarian Universalist, so I'm definitely not a purist. Unless you want to say that I'm a pure Unitarian Universalist... but a pure Unitarian Universalist can be any combination of things.... even sometimes conservative, Republican, or Christian. Go figure. I definitely have no problem with buffet-style spirituality. Nor do I have a problem with the so called "pureists" who get everything they need from one system and don't feel the need to borrow philosophies from other religions. I do, however, have a problem with ecclectics who have a problem with pureists, and pureists who have a problem with ecclectics. Everyone needs to come into their spirituality on their own... and there are many ways to begin that journey.

 

[Lintu]

I am meant to be a purist, but haven't yet found anything to be purist about. I wish there was one religion to sum up everything I believe in. I don't like just ignoring the things I don't like.

 

[lilithu]

I'm afraid there is a great deal I'm unaware of. I am trying to learn more and advice is always welcome. Please do not be offended by my ignorance. My blunders are not intended to step on anyones toes, I simply do not know sometimes when I am out of bounds . You see my field of personal study has been in the Abrahamic religions and I have only cursory knowledge of other systems.

Namaste! I second Engyo that Buddhism is not necessarily dour. (tho, like all religions, it can be - what's more dour than the Calvinist outlook in Christianity?) I did not at all feel like you were out of bounds.

The Buddhist doctrine of no-self (anatta) is not meant to be nihlistic. It's just an observation on the nature of reality. And by recognizing the nature of reality, one learns to respond in ways that make one happier. Even tho the first noble truth is that life is suffering (dukkha), Buddhism doesn't actually focus on suffering. It focuses on how to avoid suffering.

I'm sure that the Buddhists here would be happy to discuss it more with you. And I am certainly not trying to "convert" you. (I'm not really Buddhist.) It's just that what you wrote sounded like you might have an affinity with that tradition.

-lilith

 

[Master Vigil]

"I also have a great fondness for Tao. But Tao is a philosophy not a religion."

Tao is both. For Lao Tzu, tao was life. For some people religion is life. So for some tao became religion. And they built temples and such. But the simple idea of tao that Lao Tzu had did not involve any worship of tao, so the surface of religion was not there. But the core of religion was there. The connection to the Tao (or divine if you want to mix terms). And from taoism came zen buddhism. It is true as the others have said. You do sound buddhist. But remember in china, people were buddhist, taoist, and confucian all at the same time. They are all very similar.

 

[Faust]

Thank you all for your feedback and for remaining true to the thread, something I frequently stray from on this forum. (sorry)
I guess what intrigues me about a purest outlook is the psycology behind the opinion.
What is the motivation? Why is offense taken?
Faust