The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[Known_Unknown]

All life on earth is a "victim". That's the point. Suffering and pain is part of mortal existence! Happiness and Pain are two sides of the same coin! One cannot exist without the other.

That may be what you believe in, but given a choice, how many people would choose suffering to be part of their lives? Sure happiness can exist without pain. Many people go through their lives without much pain, and others experience more tragedies and pain than they do happiness. The lives of royalty and peasants can be very different.

If God really wanted humans to be happy, at the very least, he would allow them a choice: take pain, joy, or both! Most people, I believe, would take only joy. So yes, joy could exist without pain if only God allowed it to.

Many Sikh Gurus have gone to their deaths smiling. Infact, talking about men being hacked to pieces, Bhai Mani Singh even joked with his Mughal executor to hack him properly (as the executor who was asked to hack Bhai Mani Singh to pieces started off with his wrists, after which Bhai Mani Singh joked and told him that human joints actually start from the fingers, not wrists!) That is the power of belief in God. Pain is temporary and a part of life, soul is forever.

Not everyone is as great as the Sikh gurus. The vast majority of people want freedom from pain, disease, hunger and death. The fact that we don't live in a paradise itself if proof that the concept of a "personal God" is utterly false.

If there is some power out there (God), it is utterly impersonal, not caring about human existence nor suffering. It's function is possibly something we don't understand at all, so there's no need to think of it as either benevolent or evil. It is what it is, and it does not affect our daily lives.....if it does affect us, it is in more evil ways than good. After all, I've heard of far more people suffering than I have of people winning the lottery!

 

[Tronic]

That may be what you believe in, but given a choice, how many people would choose suffering to be part of their lives? Sure happiness can exist without pain. Many people go through their lives without much pain, and others experience more tragedies and pain than they do happiness. The lives of royalty and peasants can be very different.

That's a false illusion. Pain does not discriminate between royalty and peasants. I can give you a whole list of royalty who have been hacked to pieces, smoldered with acid, blinded by burning rods, and all by their own fathers, brothers or sons!

And yes, many people may go through more tragedies than others, but that is just a normal part of existence. To feel pain is to exist. Without pain, you can never know joy. Just as without darkness, you can never know light.

If God really wanted humans to be happy, at the very least, he would allow them a choice: take pain, joy, or both! Most people, I believe, would take only joy. So yes, joy could exist without pain if only God allowed it to.

Well, mortal existence is what every soul must endure and go through. There are no shortcuts to an everlasting peaceful existence. For that, you have to strive for Moksh. Until than, you will continue to be served the good aswell as the bad of mortal existence.

Not everyone is as great as the Sikh gurus. The vast majority of people want freedom from pain, disease, hunger and death. The fact that we don't live in a paradise itself if proof that the concept of a "personal God" is utterly false.

Who told you that the world is suppose to be a paradise? Pain, disease, hunger and death are the realities of our mortal world. Freedom from these elements is only achieved after attaining Nirvana.

If there is some power out there (God), it is utterly impersonal, not caring about human existence nor suffering. It's function is possibly something we don't understand at all, so there's no need to think of it as either benevolent or evil. It is what it is, and it does not affect our daily lives.....if it does affect us, it is in more evil ways than good. After all, I've heard of far more people suffering than I have of people winning the lottery!

Well, you are looking for heaven on Earth.

 

[A chauhan]

Uneven distribution of pain to the people proves that pain is given according to your deeds, and so "Karma" is the source of all the pains and happiness.

Yet it has become a fashion to call oneself an atheist, people who say that they are theist are seen with a sense of dishonour. Everything is westernising, even people are adopting the bad practices as they see it as a fashion, it gives them a false sense of modernity , they think that they have become modern by rejecting the God and the religion. Bad approach !

 

[Illusive]

The Nine Divine ?

No, the eight divine

 

[Illusive]

Time is God

 

[panduranghari]

Try making that argument in a court of law. "I didn't rape myself, just allowed the rapist to rape the victim though I could easily have stopped it". You'll be thrown in the slammer anyway as an accessory to the crime.

I hope we can hold "God" to higher moral standards.

You are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this aspect of your understanding of god and the actions of humans.

कर्मण्ये वाधिकारस्ते म फलेषु कदाचना
कर्मफलेह्तुर भुरमा ते संगोस्त्वकर्मानी

You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action। Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty

Perhaps this may help you understand.

 

[panduranghari]

That may be what you believe in, but given a choice, how many people would choose suffering to be part of their lives? Sure happiness can exist without pain. Many people go through their lives without much pain, and others experience more tragedies and pain than they do happiness. The lives of royalty and peasants can be very different.

If God really wanted humans to be happy, at the very least, he would allow them a choice: take pain, joy, or both! Most people, I believe, would take only joy. So yes, joy could exist without pain if only God allowed it to.

Not everyone is as great as the Sikh gurus. The vast majority of people want freedom from pain, disease, hunger and death. The fact that we don't live in a paradise itself if proof that the concept of a "personal God" is utterly false.

If there is some power out there (God), it is utterly impersonal, not caring about human existence nor suffering. It's function is possibly something we don't understand at all, so there's no need to think of it as either benevolent or evil. It is what it is, and it does not affect our daily lives.....if it does affect us, it is in more evil ways than good. After all, I've heard of far more people suffering than I have of people winning the lottery!

I think you may have heard or read about PL Deshpande.

A line from renowned Marathi author P L Deshpande's book, where the funny but wise character of the old Parsi 'Peston Kaka' says that he believed that "God Is In Suffering Whatever Comes Your Way"

Tell me of all the people who you say are suffering they would choose joy over suffering. Why do these people deserve anything more than what they get? And what they get may be suffering for one but could very well be almost joy for another. How? A multiple sclerosis patient is in pain almost 24 hours a day every day. A person may suffer from toothache and I can be relieved. For one a short term relief of pain could be joy for another every living moment of pain is suffering and a feeling of impending doom.

The point of view is different for the suffering. The suffering remains the same.

 

[Razor]

Re: How Muslims around the world celebrate the month of Ramadan

Ok ! now this universe and we all have been created, and so the validity of causality has been established , now tell me who created all of us? If big bang then who banged it ?

Let us consider, that the big bang is the correct model of the creation of the Universe (though I suspect, the big bang model might not be entirely accurate), then the event known as 'big bang" is the moment of creation, and therefore as I stated before: causality becomes a valid concept only after the "big bang". And so the question: "who banged it ?" is invalid, as time and space is non-existent before the moment of creation ("big bang") and the concept of time is born along with the "big bang".
So what I believe is that the Universe created itself.

As for how things after that were created: The big bang must have created some primordial substance which due to the four fundamental forces(gravity, electromagnetic, strong, weak), interacted with each other and eventually made us.

Although it does not satisfy the questions I asked But I liked your reply!

I am honored. Let us hope that time will reveal the answers.

 

[Razor]

Yet it has become a fashion to call oneself an atheist, people who say that they are theist are seen with a sense of dishonour. Everything is westernising, even people are adopting the bad practices as they see it as a fashion, it gives them a false sense of modernity , they think that they have become modern by rejecting the God and the religion. Bad approach !

Do I see atheism as a fashion statement ? No.
Do I see theist with a sense of dishonor ? No.
Everything is westernizing etc. That's because of English and Hollywood and because a major percentage of scientific literature is in English.
"modern by rejecting the [idea of] God and religion". Where did you get the idea that Atheism is a modern and/or Western concept.
Atheism in a very old concept. Atheistic schools of thought have existed for several millennia.
The Mimamsa and Samkhya schools of thought within Dharmic traditions (Hinduism) have atheistic tendencies and reject and/or question the need for a creator God.

को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत् कुत आजाता कुत इयंविसृष्टिः
अर्वाग् देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यतआबभूव

Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
From where was it produced? From where issued this creation?
Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Who then knows from where it has arisen?

Nasadiya Sukta, Rig Veda

The above questions how the Universe came into being and states that even the Gods (Indra et al) came after the creation. Now the Universe might have created itself and created everything in it (this seems to be supported by certain Hindu texts), which will mean that we're living in the Universe/God, we're breathing in the Universe/God, we're the Universe/God etc. I am okay with this idea to some extent because my idea is also kinda same: that the Universe created itself.
And now the Gods Indra etc may have been powerful and therefore deserving respect, but by no means were they all-powerful/all-knowing etc. And hence some may call them Gods, some may not (like me).

 

[A chauhan]

Re: How Muslims around the world celebrate the month of Ramadan

Let us consider, that the big bang is the correct model of the creation of the Universe (though I suspect, the big bang model might not be entirely accurate), then the event known as 'big bang" is the moment of creation, and therefore as I stated before: causality becomes a valid concept only after the "big bang". And so the question: "who banged it ?" is invalid, as time and space is non-existent before the moment of creation ("big bang") and the concept of time is born along with the "big bang".
So what I believe is that the Universe created itself.

As for how things after that were created: The big bang must have created some primordial substance which due to the four fundamental forces(gravity, electromagnetic, strong, weak), interacted with each other and eventually made us.


I am honored. Let us hope that time will reveal the answers.

Definitely there was something before the moment of creation, an empty space or space-dust which caused the big bang or any such thing. It just can not take birth out of nothing, if we have child then there are sperms and chromosomes, in the same manner Universe also needs a thing like sperm or something like it. I can not believe that Universe created itself until it is God.

Endless space requires an endless space to exist, all the galaxies are resting in the endless space, no scientist has succeeded in measuring the length or depth of the space. Where did this space come from ?

We can not call the space empty because when we send rockets there, they run through an engine which pushes itself ahead by thrusting the gaseous flames in the opposite direction and if the space is empty how can the spacecraft go ahead? it needs some matter to push and go to the opposite direction of it, as per Newton's 3rd law, it requires something which can exert equal force against the thrust of rocket engine. So the space is not empty it is full of dark invisible matter.

(gravity, electromagnetic, strong, weak)

How did the primordial substances get these virtues ? who made these rules or forces ?

Do I see atheism as a fashion statement ? No.
Do I see theist with a sense of dishonor ? No.


...

Do I see atheism as a fashion statement ? Yes. I called it a fashion, a trend and not a concept or philosophy, atheism is a very old concept, and there is a difference between concept and fashion.

Do I see theist with a sense of dishonor ? well I was not talking about you or me but there are many Oxford graduates whom I personally know reject the theism and see it with dishonour.

"modern by rejecting the [idea of] God and religion". Where did you get the idea that Atheism is a modern and/or Western concept.

Well you misunderstood my post so your question is wrong but you have answered your own question :-

Everything is westernizing etc. That's because of English and Hollywood and because a major percentage of scientific literature is in English.

Modern education and technological advancements have made us think that there is no God, that is why I said atheism is a modern 'fashion'.

Atheism in a very old concept. Atheistic schools of thought have existed for several millennia.

Off course !! I didn't say that Atheism didn't exist in old days.

The Mimamsa and Samkhya schools of thought within Dharmic traditions (Hinduism) have atheistic tendencies and reject and/or question the need for a creator God.

Nasadiya Sukta, Rig Veda

The above questions how the Universe came into being and states that even the Gods (Indra et al) came after the creation. Now the Universe might have created itself and created everything in it (this seems to be supported by certain Hindu texts), which will mean that we're living in the Universe/God, we're breathing in the Universe/God, we're the Universe/God etc. I am okay with this idea to some extent because my idea is also kinda same: that the Universe created itself.
And now the Gods Indra etc may have been powerful and therefore deserving respect, but by no means were they all-powerful/all-knowing etc. And hence some may call them Gods, some may not (like me).

Well what ever I said was based on my own thoughts and not on religious texts, so I won't go for it. So far as I think the power which created the Universe, the forces you mentioned above were the form of supreme soul which we call the God,

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

Welcome,

you do realize that your handle is an oxymoron, right?

Nope

It makes complete sense to me, given my personal views about faith.

 

[trackwhack]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

Nope

It makes complete sense to me, given my personal views about faith.

It has nothing to do with your faith or faith in general.

Agnostic Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Any other religion is an oxymoron.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

It has nothing to do with your faith or faith in general.

Agnostic Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Any other religion is an oxymoron.

How would you know what my religious views are to argue that your statement above is applicable to me?

 

[trackwhack]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

How would you know what my religious views are to argue that your statement above is applicable to me?

Why would I need to know what your religious views are?

Agnostic by definition means that the concept of god is unknown, incomprehensible and cannot be defined by mortals. A muslim or christian or hindu is a person who believes that the concept of god is defined by their respective religions.

Hence Agnostic Muslim is an oxymoron.

 

[Nagraj]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

Why would I need to know what your religious views are?

Agnostic by definition means that the concept of god is unknown, incomprehensible and cannot be defined by mortals. A muslim or christian or hindu is a person who believes that the concept of god is defined by their respective religions.

Hence Agnostic Muslim is an oxymoron.

does that mean i can't call myself atheist hindu
because i refuse to believe in djinns who can grant/fullfill wishes in this life or next.
or refuse to believe in a dim witted high school teacher who assigns me home work and then punishes me if i don't use her retarded teachings/methods to solve them or worse get a different answer then her.
welcome agnostic muslim.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

Agnostic by definition means that the concept of god is unknown, incomprehensible and cannot be defined by mortals. A muslim or christian or hindu is a person who believes that the concept of god is defined by their respective religions.

Hence Agnostic Muslim is an oxymoron.

Not a Hindu. All major Hindu schools of thought have a heavy agnostic component.

 

[Tronic]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

Why would I need to know what your religious views are?

Agnostic by definition means that the concept of god is unknown, incomprehensible and cannot be defined by mortals. A muslim or christian or hindu is a person who believes that the concept of god is defined by their respective religions.

Hence Agnostic Muslim is an oxymoron.

No, it's not an oxymoron.

Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LurkerBaba]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

No, it's not an oxymoron.

Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's an oxymoron because Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Agnostism ---> "La Ilaha IillAllah Muhammad Rasul Allah"

 

[Tronic]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

It's an oxymoron because Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Agnostism ---> "La Ilaha IillAllah Muhammad Rasul Allah"

Only according to the self-proclaimed thekedars of Islam.

(And going by that, than pretty much every monotheist religion is fundamentally incompatible with Agnostism, but in practice, that is not true).

 

[LurkerBaba]

Re: Salam, Schalom, Namaste!

Only according to the self-proclaimed thekedars of Islam.

(And going by that, than pretty much every monotheist religion is fundamentally incompatible with Agnostism, but in practice, that is not true).

Islam leaves little room for interpretation. I'd agree that all Abrahamic religions are fundamentally incompatible with Agnosticism (hence the need of this term )