Why do you call yourself an Agnostic? (2 Viewers)

[SashatheMan]

This is where the concept of 'test' comes in. If God was to appear before all beings on this Earth, and claim that he was the Almighty etc. and show u signs and miracles etc. Everyone would surely believe in his existence, but only because u saw - right before ur eyes - that he exsist, otherwise u would not believe.

Well if you believe in god, then your certain that he exists, because it sais so in the quran/bible etc . So if your certain that he exists you dont need to be tested , becuase you garantee he is real.
However for my self and some other skeptics and agnotists, they dont see this as a test , rather an excuse for the lack of hard evidence of his existance. Now if god wanted everyone to worship him and follow his world on earth, he has to make himself known to all, and this "test" just doesnt do it.

The test, is to believe, worship, trust in God without having seen him, but rather by forming ur own well thought out decision, as to whether u wish to believe in his revelations to his Prophets and the Prophets themselves (peace be upon them all. Including Adam, Moses, Jesus, His final Prophet Mohammad, and the rest of the Prophets) and whether u wish to believe in his existence or not!

How can we form our own thoughts if you claim that any thought against god, is wrong and will follow with eternity in hell? If god wanted to test us , he wouldnt have made the punishment of hell, but rather reveal him self in the afterlife or somewhere at that time and allow the person to really know that he is real and change his belief.

This is why we have the freedom to think, the freedom to decide and choose whats right, This is ur test, and should u choose to believe 100% without any doubt that God exists, or not, is completly ur decision, and no one elses.

if we assume again that god exists.
as i said before we don’t have freedom to decide and make our own thoughts without paying for it in horrible consequences if those thoughts are in anyway denial of god.

if got was real he would have to provide strong evidence of his existance and then test if people want to follow his words or not. Claiming its a test without evidence makes it seem as a BIG excuse for lack of evidence

 

[ogmzergrush]

If God was real he'd strike all you dickheads down for debating his existEnce and still failing to spell the word.

 

[physician]

If it is a test then the correct behaviour should be not to have the belief that God exists, for if God gave us brains then he or she surely intended for their proper use, and all evidence and reason is lacking in favour of such a belief.

The belief that God exists, is not simply something u follow blindly, For me the Quran provides all the evidence for his existance. We are encouraged to question and seek answers about our religion. I find that Islam answers all the questions to all the problems present in todays society and those of mankind in general ( in The Quran itself, and by studying the doings and saying of the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him)).

Well considering that the existing of a muslim god as you imagine it is so irrational, I believe i would have to be somewhat brainwashed to believe in it or i would still look for further explanation.

Not a God for 'Muslims', he's One God for All mankind. We believe that Jesus and Moses were both Muslims ( meaning they believed in One God).

Looking for further explanation is what everyone should be doing, including Muslims. Brainwashed is such a harsh term! This means that somehow all Muslims and those who believe in God have somehow been brainwashed, but don't u think this is a very generalised statement. Muslims, just like urself, have the ability to think rationaly, logicaly and with reason, After all, Algebra originated from a man who believed in God, an Arab Mathematician by the name of Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi (Just an example)!

Well if you believe in god, then your certain that he exists, because it sais so in the quran/bible etc . So if your certain that he exists you dont need to be tested , becuase you garantee he is real.

That didnt make sense!

sorry ur post was a little confusing, But i'll take another look at it tmrw, it could just be me! I'll read over it again tmrw (or today since its almost 2:00 a.m already) God willing.

Salam (Peace)

 

[withoutaface]

You can be rational in some respects but completely irrational in others.

 

[RanyofuBrogan?]

You can't do anything. But some people can't accept that.

The only thing you can really do is rule out beliefs of certain religions through using your brain. For instance, beliefs in certain gods that seem silly -- like Zeus and the Olympian gods, or gods that are supposed to be all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful, etc.

Why are the indigenous European gods any sillier than some Arabic moon god we imported? Why is it less possible for Zeus and Odin to exist than YHVH?

 

[PaleReflection]

I won't even bother explaining; MoonlightSonata puts it perfectly.

 

[xeuyrawp]

You can be rational in some respects but completely irrational in others.

Yah, look at John Nash.

 

[acmilan]

I've been contemplating my stance for a very long time, and I'm still no where closer to identifying myself as part of one definitive belief group. I was born Christian, then stopped declaring myself one, and then went back a few years ago. I would not consider myself a strict christian, i do believe im fairly well knowledgeable in what the religion involves, more so than the average christian, however I believe in following the teachings and values it presents in my own way and that I don't need to be told what is right from wrong. However, despite my beliefs, I also think that (any) religion cannot and does not display any/enough evidence of the existence (just for you geoffy ) of God for me to say that I know God exists, nor will they ever present such evidence.

I am scientific, science is my life, mainly physics, bio and especially maths. I am of the thought that although science cannot explain everything, it has, and will continue to explain a lot more than religion ever will, and thus I give it more credibility. Nevertheless, I dont think it will provide any more evidence for God's non-existence than religion presents for God's existence, but as time goes on it presents more reason as to why the need for a God is decreasing.

 

[veterandoggy]

If god wanted to test us , he wouldnt have made the punishment of hell, but rather reveal him self in the afterlife or somewhere at that time and allow the person to really know that he is real and change his belief.

if got was real he would have to provide strong evidence of his existance and then test if people want to follow his words or not. Claiming its a test without evidence makes it seem as a BIG excuse for lack of evidence

firstly, it would be pointless to see god in the afterlife, because your life has already ended. you will come to know that god is true when you die, but you cant exactly go into this world and repent...

you see sasha, this is what we have been saying for AAAGGGEEEESSSS!! god gave evidence and miracles to muhammad and all the other prophets, and that is what we believe in: those miracles. but you wont believe in them because you havent seen them. why? if you dont believe in miracles recorded in history, why will you believe in something before your eyes? you will probably shrug it off as being a magical illusion. these religions didnt rise because of preacher's superb brainwashing capabilities, they rose because people saw miracles, and were able to fortify their faith with them.

when the prophet was preaching and converting people, the quraysh tribal elders used to tell anyone who came to not go to muhammad, because his speech was magical and evil lies. this of course got them curious, because they knew the prophet to be honest and trustworthy, so they went to hear what he had to say, and would end up converting. i cant give you fresh miracles, but the old ones are more than enough to last for mankind

 

[veterandoggy]

I am scientific, science is my life, mainly physics, bio and especially maths. I am of the thought that although science cannot explain everything, it has, and will continue to explain a lot more than religion ever will, and thus I give it more credibility. Nevertheless, I dont think it will provide any more evidence for God's non-existence than religion presents for God's existence, but as time goes on it presents more reason as to why the need for a God is decreasing.

if there is one thing i am good in, it is maths and science. that doesnt stop me from seeking the right religion.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The belief that God exists, is not simply something u follow blindly, For me the Quran provides all the evidence for his existance. We are encouraged to question and seek answers about our religion. I find that Islam answers all the questions to all the problems present in todays society and those of mankind in general ( in The Quran itself, and by studying the doings and saying of the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him)).

I am glad you offer a piece of evidence to support your beliefs, but for me and many non-believers, a religious text such as that does not cut it. Why?

Prove to me that the Qu'ran is true.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Why are the indigenous European gods any sillier than some Arabic moon god we imported? Why is it less possible for Zeus and Odin to exist than YHVH?

Perhaps I do insult to Zeus and friends

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.

 

[withoutaface]

Anything being all knowing violates one of the fundamental tenets of the universe.

I am glad you offer a piece of evidence to support your beliefs, but for me and many non-believers, a religious text such as that does not cut it. Why?

Prove to me that the Qu'ran is true.

But it's so beautiful it could not be written by anyone other than Allah (peace be with him)! And OMG it explains so much stuff. Lyk the answer to every science question is "God (I worship you and fellate you in brackets after your name oh mighty one!) did it".

 

[Atticus.]

i would class myself as agnostic but having read your definition chad im not so sure... i believe in... something
i believe in beginings and ends of all things, including everything we see around us now... the earth, the solar systems, humanity... it all came from somewhere even down to single cell molecules that multiplied and formed the big bang... all that came from somewhere and something

the question is where and from whom or from what? this is where i have doubts... i would not and could not fall into a religion. i hate the idea of being taught what to believe
personally though i feel that all structured religions are based on humanities unwillingness to believe that there is nothing after death

heaven or an utopian afterlife is a human construct based on fear. people are scared that when we die thats it. thus so many people have this faith in an afterlife...
which isnt a bad thing but i am of the idea that i want to live my life now, not have anything left over to do in an afterlife that may or may not exist
agnostic? atheist? i am unsure now

 

[withoutaface]

i would class myself as agnostic but having read your definition chad im not so sure... i believe in... something
i believe in beginings and ends of all things, including everything we see around us now... the earth, the solar systems, humanity... it all came from somewhere even down to single cell molecules that multiplied and formed the big bang... all that came from somewhere and something

the question is where and from whom or from what? this is where i have doubts... i would not and could not fall into a religion. i hate the idea of being taught what to believe
personally though i feel that all structured religions are based on humanities unwillingness to believe that there is nothing after death

heaven or an utopian afterlife is a human construct based on fear. people are scared that when we die thats it. thus so many people have this faith in an afterlife...
which isnt a bad thing but i am of the idea that i want to live my life now, not have anything left over to do in an afterlife that may or may not exist
agnostic? atheist? i am unsure now

The problem with creating a god to create the singularity that sparked the big bang is that by that logic you're going to have to create another god to explain His creation, and so on forever.

 

[Lundy]

I'd class you more as a deist than agnostic.

 

[Atticus.]

yes indeed, its hard to hold a belief in beginings and ends because as you said... where did it start?

 

[acmilan]

if there is one thing i am good in, it is maths and science. that doesnt stop me from seeking the right religion.

I havent cut off religion but I have accepted that it can't explain everything, nor can it satisfactorily enough (for me) explain most things in the world which science can. It doesnt mean i think religion is entirely wrong.

 

[RanyofuBrogan?]

Perhaps I do insult to Zeus and friends

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. 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. 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.

 

[Sonic]

I havent cut off religion but I have accepted that it can't explain everything, nor can it satisfactorily enough (for me) explain most things in the world which science can. It doesnt mean i think religion is entirely wrong.

this is somewhat true... but religion explains all (no sorry most) that science can't... in effect they can only exist co-dependantly we will never be able to only accept religion or just science