Why do you call yourself an Agnostic? (1 Viewer)

[SashatheMan]

I had this religion teacher once who tried to tell me that science lies, and that the Great Flood (aka Noah) caused the Grand Canyon, and that it was created in 3 days!

He then went on to show us a science experiment which he said validated his statement.

I actually got kicked out of religion class after 2 lessons with this guy.

yes it amazes me how religious people try to justify creationism, but leave out solid evidence against it that science presented.

 

[SashatheMan]

this is why out of all religions i see Buddihsm as the most nuetral and free-thinking religion.

Buddha told his students "Don't believe anything I say just because I said it - try it out for yourselves". Which really is the only way that anyone learns anything.

unfortunately alot of the religion folk, dont follow that idea, but follow exactly what the quran/bible said. i see that as the big oppression of the world, where no progress is made.

just wanted to say that

 

[MoonlightSonata]

What I mean is that some conceptions of God are obviously prone to more logical flaws than others. For example we can probably rule out a God that is all knowing, all powerful and all good because the possession of such traits are inconsistent with the world around us. But it does not necessarily rule out a God that is all powerful but not all good. Or all good but not all powerful.

But this goes against what you said earlier,

No, agnosticism is not about a belief in God -- it is about believing that there is a limit in our knowing whether there is a God or not. The "true sense" of the word comes from "a" (without) and "gnosis" (knowledge).
Again, it is not really a metaphysical issue but an epistemological one. Agnostics do not believe one way or the other because they think it is impossible to know.

and

It is a fair question, but I think I should point out that agnosticism is really about knowledge – or rather the limits of knowledge. We believe that we cannot know whether there is a God or not, so it is best to withhold judgment on the matter. It is not necessarily about the belief itself.

Probability, then, is neither here nor there. Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence, for we would not necessarily have such evidence even if there was a God. How can we form conclusions about things without parallel, that we have no experience or possible basis for drawing our inferences from?

Now, if you believe there can be no proof for or against the existence of God, this must extend to 'god(s)' as defined by any of the religions, in which the nature of God or the gods vary greatly.

No, because it depends upon what one means by God. I believe that we cannot know whether a God exists or not. But this does not stop me from arguing about its characteristics, should there be one.

I think your definition of God, as a "powerful, thinking creator" may be influenced by a western/christian view of God, and only one of many definitions that exist.

To have an 'powerful, thinking creator', no matter how rational you try to make it, requires a number of conditions that are impossible to us, (immortality, ability to have designed and created the universe... etc.); it may seem more rational, but your powerful thinking creator is actually no more realistic, or proovable (for or against) than any other concept of the nature of god.

Yes it is. This is because there would be a logical contradiction based upon the material evidence in this world if we were to say God is all good, all knowing and all powerful. The argument is that all three of these traits are not possible, whereas one of those traits is possible.

Since agnosticism simply states that there can be no proof for or against the existence of a particular god, we are forced to conclude that it is just as possible for Allah to exist as Vishnu, etc.

No we are not, for the reasons above. We may not be able to know whether a God exists or not, but we can make limited arguments about what characterstics such a god would have, should one exist.

 

[veterandoggy]

i dont justify evidence given to a single man centuries ago as a miracle that makes me change the way i think.

If god him self showed me a miracle that wasnt the influnce of people i would believe in him. if yuo think that he wont do that becuase he is testing me, well thats exactly why i dont believe in him. If he wanted people to know that he is real, he would tell one man to spread the message , but tell each person individually and then let them decide if the people would follwo him or not.

if i told you to guess something that was in a box and i would give you a prize, and you said that if you dont get to see what is inside that box you wont believe there is anything there, and i show you what is inside, should i give you the prize? i dont think so...

allah told us to believe in what you cant see and he will grant us paradise. if he showed us what we cant see, then i dont see why he should give us paradise. oh and btw, the prophet said that his companions are dear to him, but those after his death will be more dearer to him because they believed in him without seeing him.

 

[SashatheMan]

if i told you to guess something that was in a box and i would give you a prize, and you said that if you dont get to see what is inside that box you wont believe there is anything there, and i show you what is inside, should i give you the prize? i dont think so...

allah told us to believe in what you cant see and he will grant us paradise. if he showed us what we cant see, then i dont see why he should give us paradise. oh and btw, the prophet said that his companions are dear to him, but those after his death will be more dearer to him because they believed in him without seeing him.

its differnt becuase i am communicating with a human being and he is a person i can see and hence trust becuase your clearly communicating to me and telling me theres something unknown in that box.

i would like to present the same analagy except make it more like religion.

i am standing in a room alone and there is a box. There is noone to tell me if i should even bother to guess whats inside or that i should even care about the box.

 

[SashatheMan]

allah didnt tell you what to believe. a muslim scholar or yuor parents told you to look in a copy of the quran , that said that the revalations made by muhammad are true becuase god told him so.

if allah personally told you , then it would be differnt.

 

[veterandoggy]

yes of course it would be different because it would defeat the article of faith, which is "belief in the unknoen and fate"

ill stop for a while, since i can see a roundabout ahead.

 

[SashatheMan]

i guess it comes down to having blind faith or not.

which i dont follow and you do.

 

[veterandoggy]

exactly.

Phew! for a second there i thought we were going to revisit an old friend of ours (the roundabout), but it seems like i have passed him.

 

[SashatheMan]

exactly.

Phew! for a second there i thought we were going to revisit an old friend of ours (the roundabout), but it seems like i have passed him.

but sadly you drive into a brickwall.

while i drive onto a road of reasoning

 

[googooloo]

this is why out of all religions i see Buddihsm as the most nuetral and free-thinking religion.

Buddha told his students "Don't believe anything I say just because I said it - try it out for yourselves". Which really is the only way that anyone learns anything.

unfortunately alot of the religion folk, dont follow that idea, but follow exactly what the quran/bible said. i see that as the big oppression of the world, where no progress is made.

just wanted to say that

I hope you also know that in Buddhism there are objects of Buddha, which he said not to have. And that it is copied greatly from hinduism. There is a "class system" so to speak, as you are born into a poor life, and stay there ony becuase your past self was greedy, so you're paying for it now. And you still find it the best of all beliefs. It isn't actually a religion, only a beleif system, and Buddha is worshipped like a god, but there is no god to him only nirvana.

And it is selfish. You only do good deeds to get yourself out of the state you're in that you last self got you in, whihc again you must deserve cause you did wrong, so don't complain. You don't to good to do good, but to help yourself, as it seems.

 

[googooloo]

allah didnt tell you what to believe. a muslim scholar or yuor parents told you to look in a copy of the quran , that said that the revalations made by muhammad are true becuase god told him so.

if allah personally told you , then it would be differnt.

It is repeadly told you that it is allah. Gabriel is the messenger off god. Gabriel said the words which god spoke to him and spoke those to muhammad. It was imprinted upon muhammad's mind so he could tell his firends who could read and write. To have gabriel do it as well, and still have muhammad believe in them being the words of allah is proff of faith, adn a test of faith. Muhammad did at first think "is this readl or am i crazy" but he realised he wasn't. The Qur'an is perfect, no one else can replicate it, therefore that alone should be evidence enough of it being the word of god, it was for me.

People don't say muhammad said "....blah blah, qur'anic vrse this, line that...", they say allah said in qur'anic verse this and line that, or in the qur'an it says this and that. For hadith and sunnah it says, related by soand so, the messenger of allah said this and that.

 

[viviena]

And it is selfish. You only do good deeds to get yourself out of the state you're in that you last self got you in, whihc again you must deserve cause you did wrong, so don't complain. You don't to good to do good, but to help yourself, as it seems.

Not necessarily. To help others is what underlies the concept of bodhisattvas. Also, while Buddhism may share some elements with Hinduism, it also differs greatly in several aspects, such as in the 'class system' -- one's place in the Hindu caste system is to my knowledge largely fixed, whereas in Buddhism one's position in life is more mobile and more able of enlightenment.

Anyway. There's some truth to what you say (e.g. in some areas and divisions, Buddha is treated like a deity), but overall, you seem to be generalising greatly -- divisions such as Mahayana, Theravada, Zen, Tibetan, etc., interpret the canon in their own, significant ways. It would be like looking at one sect of Islam and insisting that's how all Muslims practice their religion.

 

[veterandoggy]

Anyway. There's some truth to what you say (e.g. in some areas and divisions, Buddha is treated like a deity), but overall, you seem to be generalising greatly -- divisions such as Mahayana, Theravada, Zen, Tibetan, etc., interpret the canon in their own, significant ways. It would be like looking at one sect of Islam and insisting that's how all Muslims practice their religion.

it would be like looking at one sect of islam? oh, i didnt realise that they already do that. i would place terrorists in their own sect, but many wont, so that they can generalise islam as being them.

 

[acmilan]

I hope you also know that in Buddhism there are objects of Buddha, which he said not to have. And that it is copied greatly from hinduism. There is a "class system" so to speak, as you are born into a poor life, and stay there ony becuase your past self was greedy, so you're paying for it now. And you still find it the best of all beliefs. It isn't actually a religion, only a beleif system, and Buddha is worshipped like a god, but there is no god to him only nirvana.

And it is selfish. You only do good deeds to get yourself out of the state you're in that you last self got you in, whihc again you must deserve cause you did wrong, so don't complain. You don't to good to do good, but to help yourself, as it seems.

geez, you complain about people making generalisations and false/incomplete claims about your own religion then go and do the exactly the same thing to another religion.

Also, were you not the one who thought buddhism was the largest religion in the world?

 

[withoutaface]

It is repeadly told you that it is allah. Gabriel is the messenger off god. Gabriel said the words which god spoke to him and spoke those to muhammad. It was imprinted upon muhammad's mind so he could tell his firends who could read and write. To have gabriel do it as well, and still have muhammad believe in them being the words of allah is proff of faith, adn a test of faith. Muhammad did at first think "is this readl or am i crazy" but he realised he wasn't. The Qur'an is perfect, no one else can replicate it, therefore that alone should be evidence enough of it being the word of god, it was for me.

People don't say muhammad said "....blah blah, qur'anic vrse this, line that...", they say allah said in qur'anic verse this and line that, or in the qur'an it says this and that. For hadith and sunnah it says, related by soand so, the messenger of allah said this and that.

I'm sure if I wrote a 5000 page book noone could replicate it word for word either. Does this make me God?

 

[googooloo]

I'm sure if I wrote a 5000 page book noone could replicate it word for word either. Does this make me God?

That's just it...can you make a perfect text, a poem that if you change even one word and it was read to someone, even if they didn't know the text, they'd know something was off, something was wrong? If you can then you might be, but you cannot. This is what makes the text from god, the Al-Qur'an, meaning recite.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

That's just it...can you make a perfect text, a poem that if you change even one word and it was read to someone, even if they didn't know the text, they'd know something was off, something was wrong? If you can then you might be, but you cannot. This is what makes the text from god, the Al-Qur'an, meaning recite.

If you're going to worship someone based on the quality of poetry, I think you'll find Keats is infinitely more divine.

 

[googooloo]

If you're going to worship someone based on the quality of poetry, I think you'll find Keats is infinitely more divine.

Have you heard the Qur'an read out in it's arabic form, in it's complete form, and then looked at it's english translation, it is more perfect in arabic. But even the Al-Furqan impostor qur'an in english doesn't sound like the real qur'an.

Go to that site:

http://chamyouth.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=556&sid=c1326eb7a3477fb6d618bfc60d1a679f

and this one:

http://http://www.islam-exposed.org/furqan/contents.html

and this one:

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/islam/Quran.html

and compare the real qur'an to this fake one and you will see what I mean.
The True Furqan speaks of trinity, that dicrose sin't allowed, and has 77 surahs, where the real qur'an has 114. It is completely wrong.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Have you heard the Qur'an read out in it's arabic form, in it's complete form, and then looked at it's english translation, it is more perfect in arabic. But even the Al-Furqan impostor qur'an in english doesn't sound like the real qur'an.

Go to that site:

http://chamyouth.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=556&sid=c1326eb7a3477fb6d618bfc60d1a679f

and this one:

http://http://www.islam-exposed.org/furqan/contents.html

and this one:

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/islam/Quran.html

and compare the real qur'an to this fake one and you will see what I mean.
The True Furqan speaks of trinity, that dicrose sin't allowed, and has 77 surahs, where the real qur'an has 114. It is completely wrong.

How enlightening. But having glanced at bits and pieces from the translation, I can confidently say that Mr John Keats far surpasses whomever wrote that book. As for Shakespeare, don't even get me started.

I kind of like your philosophy though, worshipping people for being good writers. I think then that it is unquestionably the case that we were all brought into being by the quill of the almighty Will, he who is master of language, he who will singe your eyebrows off with acerbic wit, and he who is divinely blessed with a receding hairline.

Praise the lord!