Atheists...

[franc]

And that's the beauty of it, it's so vague that it's anything. It's everything.

[boagie]

franc,

Yeah but, is it as vague as nothing?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by andykelly

Who the hell is anyone to say that there is no God

Anyone who holds a massive omnipresent omnipotent being to the same evidentiary standards that we hold our own navel lint.

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by boagie

Zetetic,

This then applies to all the present gods as well as all historical gods, I could not really deny any of them, is that not right?

From Lord Bertrand Russell

Proof of God
"Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line."

My stance is quite similar.

[one-philosophy]

I'm no athiest, or for the matter, gambler. But it does seem that choosing religion is like the russian roulette of the soul, except that all but one of the bullet holding bits have bullets in them. No matter what, everyone dies except one person! 5 people die in pain the last has 6 times his wealth. (like russian roullette).

Yeh, we're doomed for damnation so lets make a comedy about it all!

[Holiday20310401]

I'm glad you're agnostic one-philosophy, but what is appealing about a different religion being your advocating of muslim faith over anything else. Without faith religions only have humane differences, but if people looked deeper they'd realise that faiths are essentially all the same and human differences are easy to solve.

Perhaps people invented God so that their differences could not be solved and by opening a transcendent paradox to the situation was only to keep a side from loosing, and seemingly prestigious to the other.

The irony in that would be how barbaric the intent is and yet the quality of God seems to hold no degrading stature let alone only the biases of animals. lol.


I mean, what could honestly change one's outlook on life through the experience of a different religion. Anything that is truly moral? People use religion, power, control, false merit, but thats all against what God should be about. So we know God was an invention, its that simple.

The real God is beyond the perception that allows for itself to be invented. Thus I suppose the reason for faith, and also for people to realise that it holds no potential, no point to base customs upon, to start holy wars indirectly caused by its underlying sonority upon the sentient mind. That is the problem with becoming a society. We harness the potential use of such underlying forces of the mind. (And paulhanke would add such a society is an external scalfolding, lol).

Hope you found that entertaining as part of the comedy, though it really wasn't funny.

[one-philosophy]

In islam, muslims accept abraham and moses and jesus to be prophets aswell as muhammad. Muslims consider the torah, psalms and gospel of jesus to be from God but that they got altered over time thus needing the requirement of an unalterable guidence for mankind (the quran). Anyway, a muslim would say that the followers of mosus and jesus at the time of their living were also muslims (muslim means one who submits to God even though the word muslim may not have existed until the time of muhammad). The point is that the God which told the children of israel to practise in such and such a way, also told and commanded muhammad, many of the same rules and priciples. Muslims aswell as jews do not eat pork (at least they shouldn't), we have prayers similerly and jewish men are renowned for having beards, as are muslims. There are other similarities, but muhammad loved the jews and christians because of where there religion came from and not necessary as an influence to start a new one. But then again, I would say that as a religious guy wouldn't I?

Reguarding the mixture of religion thing, The quran says not to follow other religions, and how can you change an already perfected religion? Man should not be allowed to do that. If its changed then it is no longer perfect if it was from God in the first place. Thats also why I don't agree with sects of religions branching off. As for some religions, I believe you're right that they can join with other religions in some way, but sometimes (most of the time) the religion want to join forbids the sort of action. Only religions I can think of that allow "joining" are hinduism and matrixism.
As for the whole hell thing, you're sort of right again, for islam anyway. Islam teaches that anyone who has an atome of belief that their is only one God will go to paradise (even if they must go through hell first to expiate sins). But I cannot go to a religion after I've accepted islam as thats a clinching damnation (I hate damnations and being told I'm going to hell, maybe thats why my mum didn't like the catholics-my grans a catholic).
I dine with athiests all the time (family) doesn't mean I gain afterlife benefit really from it.

[Zetetic11235]

I consider it just as damning to be under the control of a being which I cannot know or understand, who if I obey all my life I get the privalege to worship for all eternity and bask in its glory, being finally reunited with that which makes my individual existence insignificant. The alternative to obedience: burning in hell fire for all eternity... great. Such an existence is too torturous for me to live with. Being of such a nature, it seems quite doubtful from any perspective that it could be anything but a creation of man.

[Holiday20310401]

As an agnostic you don't follow the Qu'ran, right? I mean, do you advocate for how muslims degraded woman, still do in some parts I think.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but morals are relative to the social environment, I believe. What once could be tolerated as right can change to wrong to suit the fashion of virtue. That is the potential of deduction in moral terms.

[Didymos Thomas]

Russell's words are interesting - and personally, I'm a huge fan of his work. I've recommended him many times on these forums; I've read Why I am Not a Christian more than once. But I do not deny the God's of Homer and more than I deny the God of Dante. Religion evolves because the way humans live changes. As our lives change, so does everything else, from religion to fashion, to art. That the old religions are not as relevant to modern man should be no surprise - that two thousand year old religions are having difficulty with modern man should be no surprise. We are a species of constant change - all of reality is constant change. Our spiritual language will change as well, our ceremony will change. What will not change is that particular human quality of consciousness, and the question of how to direct that consciousness.

Reguarding the mixture of religion thing, The quran says not to follow other religions, and how can you change an already perfected religion?

Care to provide a link or something - I've never read the Koran, so I wouldn't know. But this does seem strange to me. What is it to 'follow' other religions? Mohamed himself received instruction from Jewish mentors.

And what is a 'perfected religion'? No such thing exists. No one faith tradition works for all people. If you accept that Jesus, Buddha and Mohamed were all enlightened, then the only possible conclusion is that these faith traditions are all valid; no one being universally perfect. Basically, if the tradition produces loving kindness, the tradition is the potential to be the perfect religion to at least some practitioners.

If its changed then it is no longer perfect if it was from God in the first place.

But even Islam has changed over time. Islam contains various elements that speak to different people. Some are Sunni, some are Shii, some are Sufi, all have a valid and possibly productive path. Some are Muslim, Some are Christian, some are Buddhist.

I believe you're right that they can join with other religions in some way, but sometimes (most of the time) the religion want to join forbids the sort of action. Only religions I can think of that allow "joining" are hinduism and matrixism.

All religions allow this. Some groups within the religions prohibit such things. The example I had in mind was not hypothetical - Thich Nhat Hanh discusses his experience, which I summarize above, in Living Buddha, Living Christ. So, at the very least, add Buddhism and Christianity to the list.

I dine with athiests all the time (family) doesn't mean I gain afterlife benefit really from it.

Hmmm... by focusing on current life, afterlife will take care of itself.