The Authenticity Of Holy Books

Tar.Aldarion

Well you could work on the fact that you are in japan and I am jealous and also if you start to stray towards the extremities of my diagram and start posting about it...you may well be quite on your way with giving me one ...oh but you also have to become a God somehow

All that or nag me to do the washing..that really gets me!

Dades

Jeez, I step out for a nice chicken dinner and look what happens!

stevenmu has pretty much said what I'd say on the "proof" aspect. Are you close minded to not believe in invisible pink unicorns? No. Ask yourself why.

I agree that atheists have more in common with people with a religious belief than they do with agnostics - but it's not faith. And you will probably find more close minded people (regarding religion, at least) in these two groups.

Thing to remember is - nobody knows anything - and nobody is (at least shouldn't) be claiming to know anything. I don't know whether or not there is a "god", I just don't believe there to be.

What is a "god"? There are many definitions, and consequently many different sub groups of atheism.

WE NEED AN ATHEISM/AGNOSTICISM FORUM!

Oooh just saw your diagram, Tar. Very good.
Unfortunately there's a lot more people than Il Papa in his "area"...

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

Jeez, I step out for a nice chicken dinner and look what happens!

you became vegetarian?no?damn!

The Atheist wrote:

stevenmu has pretty much said what I'd say on the "proof" aspect. Are you close minded to not believe in invisible pink unicorns? No. Ask yourself why.

I may not personally believe in them but I cannot just discount that they don't exist somewhere in the universe or multiverse or whatever.Who knows?maybe some God just created them to spite you?
The answer is no you are not close minded to believe in them,you are close minded if you discount the possibilty.

The Atheist wrote:

I agree that atheists have more in common with people with a religious belief than they do with agnostics - but it's not faith. And you will probably find more close minded people (regarding religion, at least) in these two groups.

It depends on how you define faith.
These definitions are the ones I would use in this case;
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
A set of principles or beliefs.
Also I would say it is a 'sort of faith' that you have,a faith that there is no God.This is a little different than the faith you would associate with people that believe in something existing if you can follow.

The Atheist wrote:

Thing to remember is - nobody knows anything - and nobody is (at least shouldn't) be claiming to know anything. I don't know whether or not there is a "god", I just don't believe there to be.

This is basically my belief,nobody knows anything..it's a good one too...because it's right

The Atheist wrote:

What is a "god"? There are many definitions, and consequently many different sub groups of atheism.

A question I often ask...I wouldn't go by popular religions definition of a God only when defining it.A God could be something we believe to be a God but is infact just a lifeform so advanced that we can not comprehend it.There could be a lot of things we would deem God's...From a creator to my example..It's all on how an individual defines it.

The Atheist wrote:

WE NEED AN ATHEISM/AGNOSTICISM FORUM!

I would love it,bring on the forum!!!!

The Atheist wrote:

Oooh just saw your diagram, Tar. Very good.
Unfortunately there's a lot more people than Il Papa in his "area"...

Thanks,bored uni students need little diagrams to keep us entertained
One of my aims in life is to push that little venn into a circle,I won't get very far but I try!

solas

I kind of didn't get to read all the messages in this thread, but in response to athiests request I thought you would be interested in discussing the following.

from here

1. Formal Anti-Theism

Had the Theist merely to face a blank Atheistic denial of God's existence, his task would he comparatively a light one. Formal dogmatic Atheism is self-refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men. Nor can Polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher. But there are several varieties of what may be described as virtual Atheism which cannot be dismissed so summarily.

There is the Agnosticism, for instance, of Herbert Spencer, which, while admitting the rational necessity of postulating the Absolute or Unconditioned behind the relative and conditioned objects of our knowledge declares that Absolute to be altogether unknowable, to be in fact the Unknowable, about which without being guilty of contradiction we can predicate nothing at all, except perhaps that It exists; and there are other types of Agnosticism.

Then again there is Pantheism in an almost endless variety of forms, all of which, however, may be logically reduced to the three following types:

* the purely materialistic, which, making matter the only reality, would explain life by mechanics and chemistry, reduce abstract thought to the level of an organic process deny any higher ultimate moral value to the Ten Commandments than to Newton's law of gravitation, and, finally, identify God Himself with the universe thus interpreted (see MATERIALISM; MONISM);
* the purely idealistic, which, choosing the contrary alternative, would make mind the only reality, convert the material universe into an idea, and identify God with this all-embracing mind or idea, conceived as eternally evolving itself into passing phases or expressions of being and attaining self-consciousness in the souls of men; and
* the combined materialistic-idealistic, which tries to steer a middle course and without sacrificing mind to matter or matter to mind, would conceive the existing universe, with which God is identified, as some sort of "double-faced" single entity.

Thus to accomplish even the beginning of his task the Theist has to show, against Agnostics, that the knowledge of God attainable by rational inference -- however inadequate and imperfect it may be -- is as true and valid, as far as it goes, as any other piece of knowledge we possess; and against Pantheists that the God of reason is a supra-mundane personal God distinct both from matter and from the finite human mind -- that neither we ourselves nor the earth we tread upon enter into the constitution of His being.

figured you were getting bored of the non questions.

Dades

There are only 7 full stops in that whole piece...

It don't know whether it was the purple prose of the article, or the fact that it's Friday - but that has melted my head.

Live long and prosper.

Asiaprod

I would love it,bring on the forum!!!! (ATHEISM/AGNOSTICISM FORUM)

I will support, it is a very interesting field

Tar.Aldarion

I think he said he requested it before...we should make a joint request

Asiaprod

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I think he said he requested it before...we should make a joint request

Ah, I am kind of new here, How do we do that, I am game for it?

stevenmu

In the meantime feel free to use this forum, they are both related topics. Atheism and agnosticism could help form part of a properly balanced spiritual diet

Suff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life.
The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge).
Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.

Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism (also called positive atheism), which denies the existence of any deities. However, the more general variety of atheism, weak atheism (also called negative atheism, and sometimes neutral atheism), professes only a lack of belief in a god or gods, which is not equivalent to but is compatible with agnosticism.

Agnostics may claim that it isn't possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements.

Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are metaphysical positions (dealing with the nature and truths of reality). The specific branch within metaphysics where (a)theism resides is ontology, which studies the nature of being (or existence).


After reading the above....What's your proof to validate you're beliefs?
now let's see you in action!

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

After reading the above....What's your proof to validate you're beliefs?
now let's see you in action!

What beliefs are you looking for proof for Suff? If agnosticism, the very term means that there is no proof either way(as I understand it) so if proof were available then they'd be religious or atheists.

Personally I would feel that "proof" is not needed for most religious types. Faith is the thing. EG, most Christians would not take the story of Genesis literally and look on it as allegory, but would still count themselves Christian(that said some do. Check out the creationism thread in the Christianity forum).

As for your posts on this thread. You believe them to be scientific proofs written in the Quran. Most here(I think) don't see them as such and like myself, find contradictions scientifically, but they're not believers like yourself. Your Proof is backed by your faith. For me proof requires no faith to see it as such.

Suff

Wibbs wrote:

What beliefs are you looking for proof for Suff? If agnosticism, the very term means that there is no proof either way(as I understand it) so if proof were available then they'd be religious or atheists.

Still they have to be one or the other! they can't be just sitting in the middle having no mind of their own on the matter.

it's like saying both sides are right and wrong in the same time!

Wibbs wrote:

As for your posts on this thread. You believe them to be scientific proofs written in the Quran. Most here(I think) don't see them as such and like myself, find contradictions scientifically, but they're not believers like yourself. Your Proof is backed by your faith. For me proof requires no faith to see it as such.

I don't agree with blind faith, a person must ask and anaylse before making their final thoughts on the matter, like most of the good people here have only took my word and did not show and interest of reading further to get the correct and full picture.

YOU CAN NEVER TAKE ONE MAN's VIEW, YOU NEED TO RESEARCH EVERTHING.

However, any faith still have to make sence, some of you might have problems in this. like when it comes to the miracles of Prohpets most are relectant to view it as truth.
Why? cos no normal human being can come up with such things? well Prohpets are normal humans but with a twist GOD has given them extra abilities in order to back their claims.

I like having these discussions, it's the only way we can understand each other and make our won mind.

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

Still they have to be one or the other! they can't be just sitting in the middle having no mind of their own on the matter.

Why not? If a person finds no proof in religious scripture(any of them) and doesn't have faith, blind or otherwise, surely they have the right to adopt a wait and see attitude to God.

it's like saying both sides are right and wrong in the same time!

Not really. It's more like saying nobody knows. They just believe.

I don't agree with blind faith, a person must ask and anaylse before making their final thoughts on the matter, like most of the good people here have only took my word and did not show and interest of reading further to get the correct and full picture.

Possibly, but your version of the "correct and full picture" may not appeal or work for everybody. If it did we might all be Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims and we're not.

YOU CAN NEVER TAKE ONE MAN's VIEW, YOU NEED TO RESEARCH EVERTHING.

True enough.

However, any faith still have to make sence, some of you might have problems in this. like when it comes to the miracles of Prohpets most are relectant to view it as truth.
Why? cos no normal human being can come up with such things? well Prohpets are normal humans but with a twist GOD has given them extra abilities in order to back their claims.

That's OK, but what if you come from a non Abrahamic religion? The idea of prophets may not even exist in other religions. If you're a Muslim, Christian or Jew the Prophet idea may make sense. What about the rest?

I like having these discussions, it's the only way we can understand each other and make our won mind.

If I had a mind to make, that might be true.:D

Suff

Wibbs wrote:

Why not? If a person finds no proof in religious scripture(any of them) and doesn't have faith, blind or otherwise, surely they have the right to adopt a wait and see attitude to God.

what will they do after this wait and see?

Wibbs wrote:

That's OK, but what if you come from a non Abrahamic religion? The idea of prophets may not even exist in other religions. If you're a Muslim, Christian or Jew the Prophet idea may make sense. What about the rest?

That's a fair point, In Islam we are told of the prophets that we all know of however GOD also stated that there are some he did not inform us of ?
why I don't know and I doubt anyone can answer This!

Wibbs wrote:

If I had a mind to make, that might be true.:D

Well mine was in a chesse burger an hour ago but now I think I'm free of it

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

Well mine was in a chesse burger an hour ago but now I think I'm free of it

Well far be it from me to suggest Suff, but if a cheeseburger isn't Haraam, it should be. Have you not seen Supersize me?

Suff

Wibbs wrote:

Well far be it from me to suggest Suff, but if a cheeseburger isn't Haraam, it should be. Have you not seen Supersize me?

no did't get to see it, but I never eat at Mc or B-King, I relly love home made burgers...mmmm Burgers

Dades

[off topic]

Have posted a suggestion for an atheism/agnosticism forum in the "new forum" section. I know we have some interested parties, so anyone who is - drop by and give their two shekels worth of support.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=318765

[/off topic]

Back to thread!