Who or what said that there had to be a creator or creators? Why do we constantly try to give a form of personality, an ego or human like quality to something in order to give ourselves a sense of security that this is all planned out and everything is really under someone else's control? What is wrong with accepting that there is choas in the universe? Does everything need a reason or plan? When do we realize that the plan maybe is that there is no plan? My parents came to me when i was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes because it was part of "God's" plan. My father even tryed to convince me that "God" was punishing me for something i had done or would later do. It didn't take me long to realize that was a load of bull. I personally don't need some form of reassurance to convince myself that things are under control. I find more peace in accepting who and what i am is not because of somebody's grand scheme but because it just is. I can handle that and that is all i need to deal with what i can not explain or understand completely. Let me put it another way. Stories seem to work best so i will go that route. There once was a zen master who was preparing to pass on. He looked through his pupils to see who was best suited to take his place as head of the temple. He narrowed his options down to two. One was a very bright and intelligent leader. The other was a devoted monk of many years and acted as the temple's cook. The master decided to test them with a simple koan to determine who would succeed him. He has them bring a table in and place a glass half filled with water on it. He then had them enter individually to test them. He had the intelligent leader come in first. He pointed at the glass and said what is this? The pupil took a few minutes to ponder the koan. He then turned to the master and said," It is that which is before us in this existence and we must acknowledge it and try to understand it." The master released him and had the cook come in. He then posed the same koan to him. The cook looked at the glass only a second. He then grasped it, drank the water and threw the glass out of the temple. As he turned to leave he told the master," That is it." and left. Now i leave you all with a koan of your own. Who did the master choose to succed him and why?

Yamin don't take any of what i am about to say and ask the wrong way and think that it is an attack on what you believe. I respect your personal convictions about these things. I just figured since we were going to dot every i and cross every t that i might pose a few questions. First off since people are supposed to be following every verse in the scriptures to the letter, let us discuss the history of the bible. Since i don't know what version of scriptures in particular you follow I will just go back to the council of Nicae in Rome, you know around the time of emperor Constantine, roughly three hundred years after Christ's cruxcifiction. It was the council that decided what scriptures,texts, or were going to be in the Bible right? Well its a fact of history so we know its true. They also decide what scriptures were not going to be in the Bible. There were a lot of them too. Did you know the book of revelations barely made it into the Bible? I think it was by a margin a just a couple votes.
yeah that's right a bunch of men were actually arguing, debating and voting on what should and should not be in the Bible. Whichbrings me to my question. What makes you so sure that "Yahweh, God, Jehovah, Elohim, the Trinity, whatever name, association, or doctrine pretext you wanna give the divine is going to be so upset that we celebrate time together as families and friends in good spirit that he is going to have us all burn in hell for it? I mean really? How many different versions of the bible do we have now? How many denominations of christianity are there now? I think that if God was that anal about things then christians would have bigger things to worry about other then celebrating the holidays, don't you? just a thought is all.

As someone who is more philosophical and spiritual. I choose not to attach myself to religious institutions. My reason for belief in a higher power, a source to all things as it were goes back to Blaise Pascal's Wager arguement. I try to avoid the terms deity or "God" because of the tendency of those words humanizing something which is not human. Anyways in the Wager arguement, belief in something is a wager or a bet as it were. If i believe in a higher power and there is one then i lose nothing. If there is no higher power then i lose everything. If i bet that there is no higher power and there is I still lose everything. I don't have to absolute proof to find good reason to believe in something. I just play the odds and statistics. A 50/50 chance is better than resigning myself to no chance at all. Just my thoughts is all.

Funches, I have made my point and Krisma is right, this has gone to far. I apologize for any personal insults i directed at you. I am done debating semantics and leaving it at that. May you find peace.

Sorry Krisma, It becomes personal to me when someone openly attacks me, insults me, constantly chooses to mis-quote me and belittle me. None the less you are right, we should not have let it get to this point and i apologize if i offended anyone.

Funches....good grief...your such a an idiot. Perhaps if you had read the entire post you would have realized that I am in no way contradicting myself. Anyone who has read these posts can tell you that and if anyone is cutting and pasting here it is you becuase you left out this very important part in your counter-arguement or just perhaps maybe you didn't read it. But i willing to bet its another case of you being selective about twisting and mistating what be people say as a means to convince yourself that you might not be wrong, made a bad conculsion or <gasping> god forbid... been flawed in your thinking. Never the less here is the part you selected to ignore and i think it speaks for itself:

Taoism does not fall strictly under an umbrella or a definition of an organized religion like the Abrahamic traditions, nor can it purely be studied as the originator or a variant of Chinese folk religion, as much of the traditional religion is outside of the tenets and core teachings of Taoism.[11] Robinet asserts that Taoism is better understood as a way of life than as a religion, and that its adherents do not approach or view Taoism the way non-Taoist historians have done.[12] Henri Maspero stated that many scholarly works conclude Taoism is a school of thought with a quest for immortality.[13]
I adhere to philosophical Taoism funches, and just so there is no more debate here is the definition of philosophy according to wikipedia:Philosophy is the investigation of truth, existence, knowledge, and conduct through logic and reason. It is an attempt to study the nature of existence, validity, justice, beauty, mind, and language. As Anthony Quinton put it, philosophy is "thinking about thinking."[1][2]

Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[2] The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom."[3][4][5]
So enough with your bullcrap and twisted interpetations of what people say. Start making statements with evidence to back it up or shut up.noway frustrated angry

There i rest my case.

Yeah i have family that has done relief work also, I know religion is probably the last concern anyone has in remote or third world countries. Please understand i am certainly not calling what anyone believes into question. I just have had bad experiences with fundamentalists who refuse to answer such critical questions or to even discuss them. I am in no way saying that your a fundamentalists, These are just questions and thoughts i put forth whenever any religion comes into the equation. I have spent a majority of my life in hospitals, intensive health care facilities and i even live in a nursing home. I see death all around me and heave experienced it myself but the powers that be continually bring me back to life. Some may pass quietly in their sleep, but through my own experiences and the deaths i have witnessed those who go peacefully and quietly are the minority. For most death is a painful, agonizing and terrible process. I have watched people beg their "God" from whatever faith they practiced for mercy and or curse their "God" in the end. These people desevered better then what they got in life. It is my hope that the peace these people were denied in life they at least realize in whatever afterlife there maybe. I guess the best any us can do is just to hope.

Rejecting a deity doen't always mean seperation. If the deity really wanted to he could show you the errors of your ways and convince you to accept them. I mean if the "deity" or "God" really loved their creation then it would only seem fair to suggest that they would love them enough to try to resolve any confusion they may have right? A loving family doesn't cast someone out they don't fully understand something or agree with every thing someone in the family thinks right? I think if Christians believe that their God didn't love his creations enough to try and work things out even after they die, who would want a "father" or to be with a "God" like that anyways? Besides if what christians say is true then "God" gave us free will because he wanted us to have our own thoughts and opinions so that we might discuss them and interact with "God". IMO it stands to reason that right? What of those who never hear the christian "message" or those whose lives were so terrible and they were suffering so greatly in the end they reject "God". These are important questions that can't be just dismissed or run off by quoting a specific text or scripture.

I don't believe a person's faith, beliefs or philosophical inclinations determine whether they are nice or not. You can't just pigeon hole people based what they believe. Not all religious people or atheists are nice. Some can be downright nasty people despite what they claim to believe. I know many nice people who are religious and atheist. They are not nice people becuase of what they believe but because of their virtues and actions. No one has the right to judge people as a whole based on what they believe, otherwise we will end up being but a few steps from another holocaust.

When I was seven i went into a diabetic coma and my heart stopped, I was technically dead for roughly six minutes but i can't remeber a thing. It was just like falling asleep. Do i know the answer? Certainly not and i don't mind. I am content living my life as it is now. I do believe that we are more than our bodies and minds and that perhaps there is something beyond this life. I have to step out on faith IMO that not knowing the answer is a part of the answer. Really think about it, if we knew the answers to everything what reason would we have for existing. I think that not knowing is what drives us to learn,explore and make the most of our life or lives. If you spend your entire life frustrated with not knowing then your just waisting time and not learning what you need to learn. If you go through life thinking you know the answer you are just fooling yourself. The wisest person is the one who realizes trully how limited their knowledge is and trys to make the most of everything they do and learn.

wow i am gone for a day and look what happens. I agree with splendid that ignorance as a whole is just a lack of knowledge and understanding. My focus with this thread was to get everyone's thoughts as to whether being ignorant was a choice we make or something that is ingrained into us. I even leave it open for it to be a combination. My main question is how do we break such trends in ourselves and in our society as a whole?

thank you now maybe we can put this thread to bed.....

Funches, Taoism as a philosophy has no "God" We don't call the Tao a god nor do we imply that it is a deity. If you did any research on the subject you would find that Taoism is divided into three forms of practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
Taoism (pronounced /ˈdaʊ.ɪ.zəm/ or /ˈtaʊ.ɪ.zəm/; also spelled Daoism) refers to a variety of related philosophical and religious traditions and concepts. These traditions have influenced East Asia for over two thousand years and some have spread internationally.[1] The Chinese character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the romanization scheme) means "path" or "way", although in Chinese religion and philosophy it has taken on more abstract meanings. Taoist propriety and ethics emphasize the Three Jewels of the Tao: compassion, moderation, and humility. Taoist thought focuses on health, longevity, immortality, wu wei (non-action) and spontaneity.

Reverence for nature and ancestor spirits is common in popular Taoism. Organized Taoism distinguishes its ritual activity from that of the folk religion, which some professional Taoists (Daoshi) view as debased. Chinese alchemy, astrology, cuisine, several Chinese martial arts, Chinese traditional medicine, fengshui, and many styles of qigong breath training disciplines are intertwined with Taoism throughout history.

There is debate over how, and whether, Taoism should be subdivided. Livia Kohn divided it into the following three categories:[2]

1. "Philosophical Taoism" (Daojia 道家). A philosophical school based on the texts Dao De Jing (道德經) and Zhuangzi (莊子);
2. "Religious Taoism" (Daojiao 道教). A family of organized Chinese religious movements originating from the Celestial Masters movement during the late Han Dynasty and later including the "Orthodox" (Zhengyi 正義) and "Complete Reality" (Quanzhen 全真) sects, which claim lineages going back to Lao Zi (老子) or Zhang Daoling in the late Han Dynasty;
3. "Folk Taoism". The Chinese folk religion.

This distinction is complicated by hermeneutic (interpretive) difficulties in the categorization of Taoist schools, sects and movements.[3] Many scholars believe that there is no distinction between Daojia and Daojiao.[4] According to Kirkland, "most scholars who have seriously studied Taoism, both in Asia and the West, have finally abandoned the simplistic dichotomy of Tao-chia and Tao-chiao, "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism."[5] Hansen states that the identification of "Taoism" as such first occurred in the early Han Dynasty when dao-jia was identified as a single school.[6] The writings of Laozi and Zhuangzi were linked together under this single tradition during the Han Dynasty, but notably not before.[7] It is unlikely that Zhuangzi was familiar with the text of the Daodejing.[8][9] Additionally, Graham states that Zhuangzi would not have identified himself as a Taoist, a classification that did not arise until well after his death.[10]

Taoism does not fall strictly under an umbrella or a definition of an organized religion like the Abrahamic traditions, nor can it purely be studied as the originator or a variant of Chinese folk religion, as much of the traditional religion is outside of the tenets and core teachings of Taoism.[11] Robinet asserts that Taoism is better understood as a way of life than as a religion, and that its adherents do not approach or view Taoism the way non-Taoist historians have done.[12] Henri Maspero stated that many scholarly works conclude Taoism is a school of thought with a quest for immortality.[13]
I adhere to philosophical Taoism funches, and just so there is no more debate here is the definition of philosophy according to wikipedia:Philosophy is the investigation of truth, existence, knowledge, and conduct through logic and reason. It is an attempt to study the nature of existence, validity, justice, beauty, mind, and language. As Anthony Quinton put it, philosophy is "thinking about thinking."[1][2]

Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[2] The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom."[3][4][5]
So enough with your bullcrap and twisted interpetations of what people say. Start making statements with evidence to back it up or shut up.

Funches, Taoism as a philosophy has no "God" We don't call the Tao a god nor do we imply that it is a deity. If you did any research on the subject you would find that Taoism is divided into three forms of practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
Taoism (pronounced /ˈdaʊ.ɪ.zəm/ or /ˈtaʊ.ɪ.zəm/; also spelled Daoism) refers to a variety of related philosophical and religious traditions and concepts. These traditions have influenced East Asia for over two thousand years and some have spread internationally.[1] The Chinese character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the romanization scheme) means "path" or "way", although in Chinese religion and philosophy it has taken on more abstract meanings. Taoist propriety and ethics emphasize the Three Jewels of the Tao: compassion, moderation, and humility. Taoist thought focuses on health, longevity, immortality, wu wei (non-action) and spontaneity.

Reverence for nature and ancestor spirits is common in popular Taoism. Organized Taoism distinguishes its ritual activity from that of the folk religion, which some professional Taoists (Daoshi) view as debased. Chinese alchemy, astrology, cuisine, several Chinese martial arts, Chinese traditional medicine, fengshui, and many styles of qigong breath training disciplines are intertwined with Taoism throughout history.

There is debate over how, and whether, Taoism should be subdivided. Livia Kohn divided it into the following three categories:[2]

1. "Philosophical Taoism" (Daojia 道家). A philosophical school based on the texts Dao De Jing (道德經) and Zhuangzi (莊子);
2. "Religious Taoism" (Daojiao 道教). A family of organized Chinese religious movements originating from the Celestial Masters movement during the late Han Dynasty and later including the "Orthodox" (Zhengyi 正義) and "Complete Reality" (Quanzhen 全真) sects, which claim lineages going back to Lao Zi (老子) or Zhang Daoling in the late Han Dynasty;
3. "Folk Taoism". The Chinese folk religion.

This distinction is complicated by hermeneutic (interpretive) difficulties in the categorization of Taoist schools, sects and movements.[3] Many scholars believe that there is no distinction between Daojia and Daojiao.[4] According to Kirkland, "most scholars who have seriously studied Taoism, both in Asia and the West, have finally abandoned the simplistic dichotomy of Tao-chia and Tao-chiao, "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism."[5] Hansen states that the identification of "Taoism" as such first occurred in the early Han Dynasty when dao-jia was identified as a single school.[6] The writings of Laozi and Zhuangzi were linked together under this single tradition during the Han Dynasty, but notably not before.[7] It is unlikely that Zhuangzi was familiar with the text of the Daodejing.[8][9] Additionally, Graham states that Zhuangzi would not have identified himself as a Taoist, a classification that did not arise until well after his death.[10]

Taoism does not fall strictly under an umbrella or a definition of an organized religion like the Abrahamic traditions, nor can it purely be studied as the originator or a variant of Chinese folk religion, as much of the traditional religion is outside of the tenets and core teachings of Taoism.[11] Robinet asserts that Taoism is better understood as a way of life than as a religion, and that its adherents do not approach or view Taoism the way non-Taoist historians have done.[12] Henri Maspero stated that many scholarly works conclude Taoism is a school of thought with a quest for immortality.[13]
I adhere to philosophical Taoism funches, and just so there is no more debate here is the definition of philosophy according to wikipedia:Philosophy is the investigation of truth, existence, knowledge, and conduct through logic and reason. It is an attempt to study the nature of existence, validity, justice, beauty, mind, and language. As Anthony Quinton put it, philosophy is "thinking about thinking."[1][2]

Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[2] The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom."[3][4][5]
So enough with your bullcrap and twisted interpetations of what people say. Start making statements with evidence to back it up or shut up.

i really hate it when ignorant people miss-quote me...... funches i stated the Yin and Yang represent a mutual balance of opposites, They in now way bring about balance because they are already in balance you goof... I love how you have progressed from making statements without evidence to where you now have to twist and fabricate what others say to try to support your flawed statements.

funches, where the f*#k do you get off making statements like that. A philosophy is a system of thought process and reasoning. It is in no way a belief in a God of any nature. Your a freaking idiot if you believe that the Tao and the concept of the Yin and Yang has any comparison with a "Trinity". You are clearly delusional and seriously misguided and frankly i have better things to do then waist my time on your continued attempts to stroke your own ego and ignorance.

funches, where the f*#k do you get off making statements like that. A philosophy is a system of thought process and reasoning. It is in no way a belief in a God of any nature. Your a freaking idiot if you believe that the Tao and the concept of the Yin and Yang has any comparison with a "Trinity". You are clearly delusional and seriously misguided and frankly i have better things to do then waist my time on your continued attempts to stroke your own ego and ignorance.

Funches i got news for you. Making statements and assumptions without proof or evidence is flawed logic and suggests that you lack any foundations in your arguements and statements..

First off funches you make the mistake of assuming knowledge prior to understanding or even witnessing such event. Your first assumption in the above said arguement is that I am a religious person. Sorry to inform you, this assumption was wrong. I am not a active member of any religion. Religions are just another form of government and control. I study and practice philosophy, reasoning and research spiritual connections to such philosophies. You then go own to assume that knowledge(information,facts,thoughts and intents) are passed on between inanimate objects. Again assuming knowledge where evidence is lacking to support such knowledge. You still continue to attach human thoughts, precepts, emotions and relations to things which are clearly not human in nature because you must have knowledge to justify your assumed understanding and preceptions about the universe.
You want an answer...here it his though i doubt you'll grasp it. The One or as i call it the Source, or the Tao is without any concept of need, desire, want or purpose. These are concepts of the human ego that seperates it from the Tao or the source. Action is not the result of such things. Action is the result of the absence of action.
Everything comes from nothing and nothing comes everything. What is not there is there becuase it is not. These are not contradictions and they are in fact the beggining stirrings of what became creation. There was no need because need had not yet existed. They only way i can put this in terms that you can understand is think of a empty glass. Now what is it? Your answer should be simple, an empty glass right. Does that glass have any need? No of course not its an empty glass. Some might say it needs to be filled but this is their need not any need of the glass. A man gets thristy so he needs to fill the glass with water to drink. This is not the need of the glass or the water but the need of the man. The source had no need to create it was just the source, it is only man who feels that the source had a need to create. You cannot assume that which occurs naturally needs a reason. It is beyond your reason. I hope that helps funches.

Oh my gosh funches, please tell me your not back to preaching need and purpose as a requirement in everything under creation when i already proved this kind of thinking was flawed and illogical in its assumption that a "creator" would have to have such human requirements to do something. Once again you presume knowledge prior to witnessing and even understanding such said events. Angels were in fact a compliation through Jewish mysticism (kabbalah) and early Judaism. They represented spiritual being who acted on God's behalf with man. As such one can conclude that these beings would use man's symbols as a form of communication. The sword throughout all cultures and history has represented man's connection with divine power. As an instrument of both protection and destruction. Does this mean there was a need for such symbols in actual angelic combat? No i don't believe so. The tools of war are mankind's interpatation and symbols for conflict so naturally we would attach such symbols to angels in combat. Mankind has done this over and over in many faiths. In order to understand the divine we in turn attach symbols we can associate to with it. This does not mean that the divine in any way actually uses such means in conflict. Who are we to assume there is even a conflict going on? The truth is found in symbols but sometimes like words these even fall short of allowing us true understanding and relation. We can even allow them to misguide us and deceive us. In serching for the truth we allow ourselves to come up short because we are obsessed with relating ourselves to it in some way.