Agnostic mind

[snakelegs]

ok let me get this straight..you do believe in God but then you find him to be a bit of a mystery(which is fine since we cant comprehend God or understand how He works)..and you also donot worship Him?

yes, he is a mystery. i don't worship him in the normal sense of the word, but i do feel him at times - when i see or contemplate the beauty and miracle of nature, or am moved by a beautiful piece of music. it's a feeling like of awe - non-verbal.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

what if there is nothing called "The Truth" as an absolute?

Simply use reason - can it be possible that life after death is true and not true at the same time? Someone who says that there is life after death is either telling the truth or he is not. Someone who says that Muhammad was the last of God's prophets is either telling the truth or he is not. Someone who says that Paradise exists is either telling the truth or he is not. Either someone who says there is Divine decree is telling the truth or he is not. This isn't a matter of relativity.

i certainly don't feel like i have a monopoly on "The Truth" either - no one does, in my view.

I believe there was a student who told his Prof something similar in protest of his poor mark on a math exam. The Prof didn't change his mark though.

so i don't agree that either someone who says there is one god is right, or wrong. god is not changed by your perception of him.

Doesn't this refute your own statement rather than mine? A polytheist percieves God as multiple entities. An atheist percieves God as a non-entity. No matter how they percieve God, it won't change the fact that He is ONE entity, alone without partners, the only one worthy of our worship, our loving devotion.

for the atheist he does not exist, so that is true for him.

What do you mean "that is true for him" ? Surely either God exists or He does not. Can you explain your statement with logic? If someone lies, is it sufficient for them to claim that what they said was "true for them" in order to escape any penalty?
Do you think this is legally acceptable? What does it mean when someone says in court, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?? Do you think the courts would let someone go for perjury if they claimed that their statement was true for them?
Do you think this is socially acceptable? How often do you hear your friends excuse their lying by saying, "Well, it was true for me!" ?
Do you think this is politically acceptable? Do you expect a President to excuse his lying to his country by saying, "It was true for me!" ?

If such an excuse is not acceptable in our daily affairs, how could it be acceptable with regard to the greatest affairs???

the qur'an was revealed by god. this is his truth. he is not right. he is not wrong. it isn't an either/or thing.

How is this logically possible? It seems you are clearly not using truth in the sense that I am. Truth is that which is correct, in accordance with fact and reality. It seems to me that you are using the word 'truth' to refer to everyone's individual beliefs whether they are correct or incorrect.

this may be why it is practically impossible to grasp the seriousness of apostacism in islam - because i don't think it hurts or angers god at all. he remains god.

No one said our disbelief or sins hurt God. In fact, the Qur'an says the opposite:
39:7 If you disbelieve, verily God has no need of you. But He does not approve of disbelief for His servants.

29:6 Whoever strives, then verily he strives for the benefit of himself. Indeed, God is completely independent of creation.

6:18 And He is the Irresistible, transcendent above His servants.

41:46 Whoever works righteousness benefits his own soul; whoever works evil, it is against his own soul. And your Lord is not the least unjust to His servants.

The Qur'an continually protrays God as elevated above His creation, compeletely Self-sufficient and immune to any harm or hurt. But that doesn't change the fact that rejecting God's mercy and justice by commiting murder or any other crime is a sin. So think how tremendous the sin of one who rejects God in His entirety.

a person's perception of god is a very intimate thing, even tho he may join with other people that share it

A person's perception of God should be in accordance with reality. As you said God does not change.

another thing is that to me, the seeming contradictions in various religious are more apparent than they are real - on some level, they are all the same.

Several religious groups (like the Jâhilîyah arabs) believe[d] that there is no life after death. Please show me how this boils down to being the same thing as the one who believes that there is life after death.

no i would not say that just because there is one god, doesn't mean that we have to look for the most plausible explanation. god doesn't need explanations.

But we do. God did not give us the faculty of reason for no reason. He has given human beings an ingrained capability that will aid them on their search for truth. The one who does not use it and accepts whatever nonsensical doctrines thrown at them will have no excuse on the Day of Judgement. If you know your beliefs about God are not plausible, i.e. they have no basis on logical grounds, how can you even consider accepting them regardless when you are accountable?

do i think that a true god would not be watching over his creation (not sure what you mean by Supreme Control? my answer is: i don't know.

God gave you a brain. Use it. Is it reasonable to believe that an All-Powerful All-Knowing God who is good would just create us an abandon us to chaos and evil like some absent-minded child? Just use your brain and say, "No. That is not a plausible understanding of God."

this is what makes an agnostic an agnostic, after all.

Yes, you are agnostic. You don't know. But not knowing is different from wilfully rejecting any attempt to gain knowledge. You don't know what God is like - so why don't you try to find out? Why be satisfied with ignorance? You are doing exactly what Dr. Brown said - using the term agnostic to legitimize escapism from the responsibility of a serious investigation to acquire the answers to the questions you currently plead ignorance to.

I've had many debates with atheists and when I ask them some questions about morality and the origin of the universe they also respond saying, "I don't know." BUT at least they say that they are looking for the answer and are not satisfied with their ignorance. Your case is worse because not only do you not know, but you don't want to know!

i do not know why god created us.

Do you want to know? Or are you satisfied with ignorance? Are you interested in undertaking a serious logical investigation to find the truth?

as far as i am concerned, there are many questions that have no knowable answer

If you claim nothing can be known for certain - how can you be so sure??

no, i don't think logic and reason should be our guiding force in our investigation

Is is logical to believe that logic should not be used? The obvious answer is no. Why do you accept an illogical doctrine - namely, the expiry of logic when we turn to questions of theology - without any proof? You routinely use logic to negate the possibility of all sorts of concepts, entities, and occurences in your daily life - why does this ability suddenly terminate when it comes to the most important questions?

At any rate, it should be clear if you restrict the use of logic there is no point in my discussing this issue with you. It's much like solipsism, actually. There is no way to convince someone who believes in it that he is the only thing that exists. Its imposing on yourself a blindfold that you are unwilling to remove. That doesn't mean you won't be accountable for putting that blindfold on in the first place, though.

Regards

 

[julie]

whoever WANTS to know God, Insha Allah God will guide him/her.

 

[snakelegs]

Talking to Ansar 7-30-06
hi ansar,
first - i was in a hurry and missed the end of your previous post - thanks for the correction ("to you your religion - to me, mine." i knew better than to say that was a quote from muhammad - that was dumb. :embarrass
this is a really difficult exchange for me. i can not debate you because i don't believe that islam is wrong and i am right. this is why i'm agnostic - i don't know. and this is how i would have to answer most of your questions.
being that you are a believer in a religion - it is almost like we live in different universes - our frames of reference are soooo different. you believe in something structured - and i do not. to me there is no need whatsover for one of us to right, and the other to be wrong.
so in a way this discussion is futile. i don't want you to believe what i tell you. why would i?
can it be possible that life after death is true and not true at the same time?
i do not know whether there is life after death or not - and it really doesn't matter to me. if i use reason - it would tell me that it is unknowable. as i said before i do not feel that there need to be answers - actually i much prefer questions to answers. there are things that are unknowable by reason - they are a matter of faith or belief. you can't "prove" that there is an afterlife by quoting a book that you say was written (dictated) by god because there is no way for me to know whether or not that is true or not as it is not a matter of scientifically verifiable proof (which doesn't mean that it is not true it just means that it is only known through faith. so this holds true for muhammad, buddha, brahma, etc. this. in order to regard it as the Truth, you first have to accept (believe that a certain book is the word of god, which you can not do scientifically.
there are many things that are unknowable to logic and reason - which does not mean that they are untrue, or less true - only that you can not know this things by the same way as you can know that a snake sheds his skin. so it is a different system of knowing. you can know through reason or through direct experience. if you know by direct experience it is certainly true for you. in order for you to accept this as True - you must be willing to believe me. also in this category are a whole range of psychic phenonema. i don't deny that they could be real - i don't know, because i have not experienced them. if i tell you i heard the voice of god - there would be no way you could know whether i am being truthful or not. and most of all - it does not matter. so to me it doesn't matter whether buddhism or islam are true or not. they are most definitely the truth for people who believe them, but they are not true for me because in order for them to be true i have to be willing to enter into an agreement that their holy books are true. i don't feel any need to either accept or reject their claims. all i can say with certainty, is that they are true for people who have first agreed to base things on the premise that what they offer as proof is real - and how can i know? i feel absolutely no need to know. so all i can know is that you believe that god revealed himself thru the qur'an, the bible.
so all your questions - afterlife or not, true or false, muhammad last prophet or not, jesus divine or not - it is not an either/or thing - it is an unknowable thing. i am comfortable with living in a world where there are many many things that are unknowable. i have no way of knowing them so they don't concern me. i don't know whether or not these things are true, and i feel no need to know.
"A polytheist percieves God as multiple entities. An atheist percieves God as a non-entity. No matter how they percieve God, it won't change the fact that He is ONE entity, alone without partners"
oddly enough i can agree with this (not that it is True, only that we share the same belief.) to me it does not change god's "god-ness" whether some one perceives him in 10,000 forms or not - he is the same, whether he is in one package or 10,000 packages.
this is getting much to wordy because i am trying to help you understand my version of agnosticism - only because gary originally asked me to and you have asked me questions about it. i have no desire for you to accept it. there is absolutely no reason why you should. as there is no reason that i should accept or reject your beliefs.
for the athiest it is true that there is no god because he has arrived at this conclusion because it is scientifically unprovable. i don't understand his position because if it is unverifiable, so is knowledge of unverifiability. (i am too lazy to verify whether "unverifiability" is in the dictionary or not!). but this is his frame of reference, so it is true for him even if it is uncomprhensible to me.
" What do you mean "that is true for him" ? Surely either God exists or He does not. Can you explain your statement with logic? If someone lies, is it sufficient for them to claim that what they said was "true for them" in order to escape any penalty?
Do you think this is legally acceptable? What does it mean when someone says in court, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?? Do you think the courts would let someone go for perjury if they claimed that their statement was true for them?
Do you think this is socially acceptable? How often do you hear your friends excuse their lying by saying, "Well, it was true for me!" ?
Do you think this is politically acceptable? Do you expect a President to excuse his lying to his country by saying, "It was true for me!" ?

If such an excuse is not acceptable in our daily affairs, how could it be acceptable with regard to the greatest affairs???"
ansar, this is not at all comparable. in court, i do not have to prove my innocence - the court is obliged to prove me guilty. this it does by proving solid evidence, calling in forensic experts to testify, gather testimonies from witnesses etc.
so of course, you could not say that "it was true for me" because in order to convict you the court will provide evidence. i can lie about an event or i can tell the truth. i will not lie because i don't think it is ethical, as well as the fact that i could get in a whole heap of trouble if i lie and evidence proves to the contrary.
what's true for the mundane is not necessarily so for the spiritual or religious realm. "saw him stab her and here is blood on the jacket he was wearing" is totally different from "muhammad was the last prophet".
" Do you think this is politically acceptable? Do you expect a President to excuse his lying to his country by saying, 'It was true for me!''"
this is another absurd question. we know he lied because there were no WMD's found so his claim was unverifiable. now, to me it was obvious he was lying long before the u.s. actually invaded because every other week he gave a different reason - it might be WMD's on tuesday, 9/11 on friday, our former pal, saddam hussein on sunday etc. etc. so anybody with common sense would know he was lying it. but even though i knew - i couldn't prove it to anyone else. because it was so obvious, when congress gave him the rubber stamp of approval, they were agreeing to accept as truth something that completely lacked evidence.
""the qur'an was revealed by god. this is his truth. he is not right. he is not wrong. it isn't an either/or thing."
you are quoting a thing i had written previously and you have taken it out of context-the way you present it, it makes no sense whatsoever. the full quote is "to a muslim the qur'an was revealed by god. this is his truth. he is not right. he is not wrong. it isn't an either/or thing."
(i could say you did in deliberately, but i would have no way of proving it lol.)
"A person's perception of God should be in accordance with reality. As you said God does not change.
when i said god does not change, all i was saying was that my concept
of god is that he does not change. i thought i made this obvious to gary that my answers would only be MY concepts as an agnostic - agnostics do not know - and they accept that certain things are unknowable, though they have their individual concepts, something that is subjective.
"Several religious groups (like the Jâhilîyah arabs) believe[d] that there is no life after death. Please show me how this boils down to being the same thing as the one who believes that there is life after death."
if you read what you have written, you will see that the answer is contained in your statement. it is not the same thing as the one who BELIEVES[/COLOR] that there is life after
death. it is a belief so in order for me to think that it is the truth, i have to be willing to believe that is is truth.
"God did not give us the faculty of reason for no reason. He has given human beings an ingrained capability that will aid them on their search for truth. The one who does not use it and accepts whatever nonsensical doctrines thrown at them will have no excuse on the Day of Judgement. If you know your beliefs about God are not plausible, i.e. they have no basis on logical grounds, how can you even consider accepting them regardless when you are accountable?"
what you have stated above is your belief = for you this is the truth because you believe that it is so.
of course my beliefs about god are not plausible to you - why should they be???
"God gave you a brain. Use it. Is it reasonable to believe that an All-Powerful All-Knowing God who is good would just create us an abandon us to chaos and evil like some absent-minded child? Just use your brain and say, "No. That is not a plausible understanding of God."
my brain tells me that we are speaking of things that are unknowable.
"Yes, you are agnostic. You don't know. But not knowing is different from wilfully rejecting any attempt to gain knowledge. You don't know what God is like - so why don't you try to find out? Why be satisfied with ignorance? You are doing exactly what Dr. Brown said - using the term agnostic to legitimize escapism from the responsibility of a serious investigation to acquire the answers to the questions you currently plead ignorance to.

I've had many debates with atheists and when I ask them some questions about morality and the origin of the universe they also respond saying, "I don't know." BUT at least they say that they are looking for the answer and are not satisfied with their ignorance. Your case is worse because not only do you not know, but you don't want to know!"

to you what you wrote above makes sense. to me, it does not. WHY WOULD I BE "WILLING TO FIND OUT" WHEN I BELIEVE IT IS UNKNOWABLE??? WHY WOULD I BE "WILLING TO INESTIGATE SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE TO BE UNKNOWABLE?? WHY SHOULD I BE "LOOKING FOR THE ANSWER" TO A QUESTION THAT I BELIEVE HAS NO ANSWER??
the words and phrases ""WILFULLY REJECTING ANY ATTEMPT TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE", "WHY BE SATISFIED WITH IGNORANCE?", "USING THE TERM AGNOSTIC TO LEGITIMIZE ESCAPISM", "PLEADING IGNORANCE", and, my very favorite, "YOUR CASE IS WORSE (than the atheist) BECAUSE NOT ONLY DON'T YOU KNOW, BUT YOU DON"T WANT TO KNOW!
are nothing but your judgements of me.

" Is is logical to believe that logic should not be used?"
of course, since i believe that there are certain things that can not be knowable logically!
i accept the following as TRUE ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEFS AND NOTHING MORE:
"At any rate, it should be clear if you restrict the use of logic there is no point in my discussing this issue with you. It's much like solipsism, actually. There is no way to convince someone who believes in it that he is the only thing that exists. Its imposing on yourself a blindfold that you are unwilling to remove. That doesn't mean you won't be accountable for putting that blindfold on in the first place, though."

THIS IS WHAT I TRIED TO TELL YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!

this entire discussion is absurd. it is not a debate because it is not debatable. it is not a definition of agnostic concepts because they are concepts and vary with the agnostic. you are trying to convince me of something but i am not trying to convince you of anything, just co-operating with you because you have asked, out of respect for the forum. EVERYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN IS NOTHING MORE THAN MY SPECIFIC BELIEFS AS AN AGNOSTIC - AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE WHAT SOME
STRANGER IN CALIFORNIA BELIEVES???????????
but obviously, you wanted people here to know what YOU believe, [AS WELL AS SHOW YOUR DEBATING SKILLS (LOL)] and that's ok, i have done it as a courtesy to the forum and also because i have an interest in social anthropology

and now, the time has come for ice cream. you do believe in ice cream, don't you?

 

[snakelegs]

whoever WANTS to know God, Insha Allah God will guide him/her.

i agree with this, 100%!!!

 

[snakelegs]

Originally Posted by julie
whoever WANTS to know God, Insha Allah God will guide him/her.

come to think of it, if one believes this to be true (which i do also),
why is there any need to proselytize??? :giggling:

 

[cihad]

what does proselytize mean?

 

[snakelegs]

what does proselytize mean?

dawah (?) - to try to convince some one else that what you believe (a religion, in this case), is what they should believe = preaching.
if you live in the u.s. surely you've had a christian try to convert you?
i've had plenty!

 

[- Qatada -]

We believe that the people who are looking for the truth, Allaah Almighty will guide them to it. But the person who is in search of it has to be willing to take the first step.

The same way, if you're looking for a job - you'll take the first step to look for it. Without that first step - you're not going to get anywhere.


Allaah Almighty knows best.


Peace.

 

[snakelegs]

We believe that the people who are looking for the truth, Allaah Almighty will guide them to it. But the person who is in search of it has to be willing to take the first step.

The same way, if you're looking for a job - you'll take the first step to look for it. Without that first step - you're not going to get anywhere.


Allaah Almighty knows best.


Peace.

this makes sense.
but in that case, wouldn't you wait for a non-muslim to take the first step by asking a muslim about islam, rather then telling him before he takes that step?
since i live in the u.s. i have never been bothered by muslims, but i've sure had a lot of christians bang on my door. if i wanted to learn about christianity, i would take the first step by looking for different churches in the phone book and then going to them, wouldn't i? since i don't, why do they knock on my door to tell me about jesus when i have shown no interest whatsoever.
a side note - personally i find islam interesting, which is why i'm here and read about it; for some reason - probably because i live in a majority christian country, and therefore can't escape it entirely - i have never found christianity even mildly interesting.

 

[- Qatada -]

Hi snakelegs.


I've seen a site a few months back, a christian site - where they were saying that if you believe in the divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him) - you'll win a free Playstation 2. lol.. i'm not saying all christians are like that - but it seemed like the were buying people to enter their faith.


However, in islam - it is only our duty as people, and even for the messengers of Allaah to convey the message to the people, not to buy them into the faith. But to convey to them that none should be worshipped except their Creator Alone, and to warn them of the day of judgement. After this, the person who recieves the message can choose to apply that within their lifestyle, or regret it on the day when a person won't be able to turn back. If the person accepts it - then their law is established within the Qur'an and Sunnah.

If we don't convey the message, we are guilty of not warning the people. But at the same time, there's no compulsion in religion.. even though hell is the default destination for the ones who disbelieve, so the only real option is to accept that Allaah is ones Creator and that everyone should obey Him Alone.


I know it may seem harsh, but why should a person be rewarded with paradise, if they don't even accept that one should obey their Creator, and not just that - but if they don't even believe in paradise? The same way, why should a person be given a position at work, if he/she doesn't even obey the manager or boss? The boss would choose to fire the person, and remove the pay cheques that the person recieves. The same way, Allaah will remove the blessings for the disbeliever in the hereafter - even though through the Mercy of Allaah - the disbeliever is still being provided for within this world (when easily, Allaah could have removed those blessings.)


Allaah Almighty knows best


Peace.

 

[bint_muhammed]

this makes sense.
but in that case, wouldn't you wait for a non-muslim to take the first step by asking a muslim about islam, rather then telling him before he takes that step?
since i live in the u.s. i have never been bothered by muslims, but i've sure had a lot of christians bang on my door. if i wanted to learn about christianity, i would take the first step by looking for different churches in the phone book and then going to them, wouldn't i? since i don't, why do they knock on my door to tell me about jesus when i have shown no interest whatsoever.
a side note - personally i find islam interesting, which is why i'm here and read about it; for some reason - probably because i live in a majority christian country, and therefore can't escape it entirely - i have never found christianity even mildly interesting.[/QUOTE

what do you find intresting about islam?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Snakelegs,

can it be possible that life after death is true and not true at the same time?
i do not know whether there is life after death or not - and it really doesn't matter to me.

But I am not asking about what you know or what you don't know, I'm asking is it logically possible?

The rest of your response is essentially that nothing can be known 100% for certain. That's true. You do not know for certain if anything beyond your mind even exists. That's solipsism. But I already responded to this with the very simple answer, "So what?" It is no surprise that nothing can be known for certain. But human beings routinely go with the most plausible explanation throughout their lives, even though it cannot be objectively demonstrated with 100% certainty. Scientists do not know for certain whether theory A is true or whether theory B is true but they look for the theory that provides the most plausible explanation. If scientists just backed off saying, "I don't know [for certain], I don't know [for certain]" we wouldn't have made any of the scientific or technological we have made. In law, evidence is used to convict the accused though it can never be proven with 100% certainty. It is entirely possible that a pink dragon flew out of the sky and carried the accused to the scene of the crime, put his fingerprints on the weapons and killed the victim, and then digitally edited security cameras to frame the accused. It is possible, but it is not plausible so it is rejected. What would we think of a jury or an inquisitorial judge who backed off a verdict from a case saying that it was impossible to know with 100% certainty? Is it acceptable for a Medical physician to refuse to diagnose patients saying, "It is most likely disease A, but it is entirely possible that my patient is actually a martian species in disguise as a human, in which case it could be an unknown disease. Since it is impossible for me to known with 100% certainty I will refrain from making any conclusion even if one option is massively more reasonable and likely than the others."

So saying, "Nothing can be known with 100% certainty" is not an excuse to reject a logical investigation for the most plausible answer. It doesn't work.

there are many things that are unknowable to logic and reason - which does not mean that they are untrue, or less true - only that you can not know this things by the same way as you can know that a snake sheds his skin.

Actually EVERYTHING is unknowable as per your position. You don't know if a snake sheds his skin with 100% certainty because you do not know if snakes even exist. How do you know that it was not really a gorilla disguised as a snake? How do you know that the researchers were not manipulated by some giant blue beluga whale which created these holographic images of snakes or created an illusion in the mind of researchers? How do you know that our entire universe is not a figment of your imagination? You don't know. Why don't you be agnostic about everything?

i am comfortable with living in a world where there are many many things that are unknowable.

How do you know you are living in a world? How do you know that your entire life is part of an artificial intelligence computer simulation? You think you exist but in reality you may just be numbers on someone's computer screen.

ansar, this is not at all comparable. in court, i do not have to prove my innocence - the court is obliged to prove me guilty. this it does by proving solid evidence, calling in forensic experts to testify, gather testimonies from witnesses etc.
so of course, you could not say that "it was true for me" because in order to convict you the court will provide evidence.

So you are saying that evidence determines what is true? I thought you said earlier that any belief we hold is true for us?

what's true for the mundane is not necessarily so for the spiritual or religious realm. "saw him stab her and here is blood on the jacket he was wearing" is totally different from "muhammad was the last prophet".

In what way?! Either the accused did not stab her or he did. Either Muhammad was not the person he claimed to be, or he was. Why do you accept logical argument and circumstantial evidence in the case of the former but not the latter? You are simply asserting that the cases are different but you aren't demonstrating how.

" Do you think this is politically acceptable? Do you expect a President to excuse his lying to his country by saying, 'It was true for me!''"
this is another absurd question.

It is absurd because logic clearly dictates an answer! We ACCEPT that either he is telling the truth or he is lying. Either his statements are in accordance with fact or they are not.

And btw, I was not necessarily referring to GWB!

if you read what you have written, you will see that the answer is contained in your statement. it is not the same thing as the one who BELIEVES that there is life after
death. it is a belief so in order for me to think that it is the truth, i have to be willing to believe that is is truth.

But you didn't answer my challenge. You told me that these apparently contradictory beliefs boil down to the same thing, so I challenged you to prove that in this case.

As for the above comment, our beliefs should be guided by logical investigation. If a person believes they are a bird, they will end up in a mental institute, even though for them it is 'true' that they are a bird but for everyone of sound mind it is not!!

of course my beliefs about god are not plausible to you - why should they be???

But snakelegs, logic is not something subjective. It is objectively verifiable. So if your beliefs about God are not logical, they won't be logical to me or to anyone else.

my brain tells me that we are speaking of things that are unknowable.

It is unknowable for you that your entire city it a group of extraterrestrial species that have lived on this planet for centuries disguised as humans and are not planning to eat you the moment you set foot outside your house. I don't think you would accept this because it is not plausible.

the words and phrases ""WILFULLY REJECTING ANY ATTEMPT TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE", "WHY BE SATISFIED WITH IGNORANCE?", "USING THE TERM AGNOSTIC TO LEGITIMIZE ESCAPISM", "PLEADING IGNORANCE", and, my very favorite, "YOUR CASE IS WORSE (than the atheist) BECAUSE NOT ONLY DON'T YOU KNOW, BUT YOU DON"T WANT TO KNOW!
are nothing but your judgements of me.

No they are my rational arguments against your position. I am criticising your position on this issue; I don't understand why you have to take it personally.

" Is is logical to believe that logic should not be used?"
of course, since i believe that there are certain things that can not be knowable logically!

I didn't ask if you believed that or not, I asked if it was logical. You can't say that it is logical that logic should not be used - that is self-contradictory!!

EVERYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN IS NOTHING MORE THAN MY SPECIFIC BELIEFS AS AN AGNOSTIC - AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE WHAT SOME
STRANGER IN CALIFORNIA BELIEVES???????????

Please - caps imply shouting.

and now, the time has come for ice cream. you do believe in ice cream, don't you?

It is possible that some ice cream companies are actually part of a conspiracy which grinds snails and worms into thin paste for the production of ice cream in order to slowly spread disease amongst the human race and eventually wipe it out in preparation for a mass invasion of aliens from jupiter. I don't know [with 100% certainty]!

Regards

 

[snakelegs]

Hi snakelegs.

I've seen a site a few months back, a christian site - where they were saying that if you believe in the divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him) - you'll win a free Playstation 2. lol.. i'm not saying all christians are like that - but it seemed like the were buying people to enter their faith.

yes, i know that. thanks to tv evangelicism, they are extrememly well funded, and some do try to win converts by buying them. in fact, many indian hindus are quite upset about missionaries doing this in india.

However, in islam - it is only our duty as people, and even for the messengers of Allaah to convey the message to the people, not to buy them into the faith. But to convey to them that none should be worshipped except their Creator Alone, and to warn them of the day of judgement. After this, the person who recieves the message can choose to apply that within their lifestyle, or regret it on the day when a person won't be able to turn back. If the person accepts it - then their law is established within the Qur'an and Sunnah.

i know and accept that this is your belief. but that is not the same as believing that god will guide them if they want to know and are willing to take the first step. you have done your duty and warned me about the day of judgement. as an agnostic, i don't believe that it is knowable whether there is or is not a judgement - all i know is that is what many people believe and that's perfectly fine with me. so once a muslim has don his duty and shown somebody about islam, he has fulfilled his obligation, hasn't he?
the person who is interested enough to learn about islam (which does not necessarily imply that he is interested in becoming a muslim - i'm not interesting in becoming anything) - will take that first step. if a muslim does his religious duty (doesn't wait for that first step), actually, according to islam, he is putting that person in more danger on judgement day because if the person knows about islam and fails to embrace it he will go to hell for sure.

If we don't convey the message, we are guilty of not warning the people. But at the same time, there's no compulsion in religion.. even though hell is the default destination for the ones who disbelieve, so the only real option is to accept that Allaah is ones Creator and that everyone should obey Him Alone.

I know it may seem harsh, but why should a person be rewarded with paradise, if they don't even accept that one should obey their Creator, and not just that - but if they don't even believe in paradise? The same way, why should a person be given a position at work, if he/she doesn't even obey the manager or boss? The boss would choose to fire the person, and remove the pay cheques that the person recieves. The same way, Allaah will remove the blessings for the disbeliever in the hereafter - even though through the Mercy of Allaah - the disbeliever is still being provided for within this world (when easily, Allaah could have removed those blessings.

i don't want, - let alone expect - to go to paradise, since i believe that the existence of paradise is not knowable. your analogy of god being like the boss at work is not really an analogy. i know all to well that my boss is my boss. i do not know that god is my boss because i believe he is unknowable. i also know that this is your belief and i respect that.

Allaah Almighty knows best

Peace.

"Allaah Almighty knows best" - this is also what i believe!!

 

[snakelegs]

what do you find intresting about islam?

ya_giney,
i will send you a PM about this later because i've already explained several times on this forum, why and how i came to be interested in islam. if it turns out that other people want to hear it, i'll post what i write to you. otherwise i don't want to subject people to it yet again (it would be like cold french fries lol) - fair enough?

 

[- Qatada -]

Hi snakelegs.


Yeah i do understand that we don't have the ability to see Allaah Almighty, nor do we have the chance to talk to Him directly. But obviously, if Allaah was to show His Majesty to us, then there would be no test of faith in this world anyways.


The first description that Allaah mentions of a believer in the Qur'an is:

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; (2:2)

Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them; (2:3)​

Hence - it is part of our belief to believe in the unseen, and this is part of our test. If we were to see Allaah Almighty, paradise and hell - then obviously everyone would know the the truth for an assurety. And then there would be no test.

However, the signs of this world are endless to prove that the Creator hasn't just made this world without a purpose, and with every good in this world - there is an evil, and with every evil - there may be a form of good.


You may see a person with soo much wealth, that you wish you could be him/her. Yet you realise that the person is always in constant danger of his wealth being taken away from him/her, even if it costs his or her life. That is a goodness (the wealth) - but the person is in constant danger, so there is a negative aspect to it too.

Just think about anything good you got in this world, and you'll always see a negative aspect always linked to it.


Now refer to something negative in this world. Let's say, a person is being punished in this world. Now to some who don't know the truth, this may be a form of remorse. However - from the one who is being tortured's point of view (if he/she is muslim), he/she may be feeling happy that if they remain patient and steadfast - they will be rewarded with something better on the Day of Judgement/Account, and even within this world later.

Or lets say a person wasn't wealthy enough, and had a really low income. They government may let them off so that they don't have to pay taxes. Whereas for the rich person - they may have to pay a high amount of tax. The government may even allow this poorer person have benefits.

So you see how negative aspects like this can turn into positive in some ways.



The reason there is a mixture of both within a good and a negative aspect is because Allaah Almighty is showing us that everything in this world is only temporary, and everything whether its good or bad will end. All the things within this world are just a taster, so when you enjoy something good - you get a taster of how it feels like to have enjoyment. (i.e. a taster to show how enjoyment will be in paradise forever.)

Whereas if a person has a hard or sad time, they know that the agony that they go through - harms them. Hence, the person realises that this agony is just a taster of the agony of hellfire.


People experience these emotions as tasters, so they realise that i don't want to be in agony forever - so i don't want to go to hell. And i love enjoyment, so i want to be in paradise forever. These two extremes are only in the afterlife, whereas the agony in this world may end with enjoyment, and the enjoyment in this world may end with sadness.



By the way - the reason we have to convey the message is because it is part of our duty to warn anyone who is ignorant of the truth. We don't know the outcome, hence we just have to try to fulfill our duty of conveying the message. After that - it is between the person, and Allaah. If the person was sincere in searching for the truth, then Allaah may guide that person aright. Whereas if the person is just looking for an excuse to turn away - then the person may not end up being guided.

The promise satan made when he disobeyed Allaah (due to arrogance) was - "I'll misguide all of them (children of Aadam) except the sincere ones." [something similar to that] - hence we realise that the ones who are sincere will end up in paradise.


Allaah Almighty says in the Qur'an:

O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy. (Qur'an 2:208)
​

If you have anymore questions, or don't understand what i said - please do ask.


Allaah Almighty knows best.


Peace.

 

[snakelegs]

hi ansar,
i apologize for the caps - i know they show anger and at the time, i wanted to show anger - i was frustrated and irritable (at my self) for wasting so much time trying to have a communication that i knew was impossible from the beginning.
you, yourself, wrote in your previous reply:

"at any rate, it should be clear if you restrict the use of logic there is no point in my discussing this issue with you. It's much like solipsism, actually. There is no way to convince someone who believes in it that he is the only thing that exists. Its imposing on yourself a blindfold that you are unwilling to remove. That doesn't mean you won't be accountable for putting that blindfold on in the first place, though."

i agree completely and i had told you in the beginning that this is completely pointless. we come from completely different frames of reference so it is impossible to communicate because we speak 2 different languages. i do not think that you or islam are wrong and my agnosticism is also neither right or wrong and unlike you, i am not motivated to argue because i am not trying to convince you of anything whatsoever. you can't have a debate with someone who does not disagree with you.
i am not going to pick this post apart like i have the other ones and resond to your comments one by one because you and i already agree that this discussion is completely pointless! we are trying to compare apples and oranges.

you are motivated because you want to convince me that you are right but i have no desire to convince you that you are wrong and i am right.
so i am ending this discussion but will live you with a moral of the story:next time, believe it when an agnostic tells you that he is an agnostic because he doesn't know and thinks some things are unknowable!

peace.
p.s. i realize that you were not necessarily thinking of GWB - but who else would come immediately to mind when pondering a president who is a liar? ;D

Hi Snakelegs,

But I am not asking about what you know or what you don't know, I'm asking is it logically possible?

The rest of your response is essentially that nothing can be known 100% for certain. That's true. You do not know for certain if anything beyond your mind even exists. That's solipsism. But I already responded to this with the very simple answer, "So what?" It is no surprise that nothing can be known for certain. But human beings routinely go with the most plausible explanation throughout their lives, even though it cannot be objectively demonstrated with 100% certainty. Scientists do not know for certain whether theory A is true or whether theory B is true but they look for the theory that provides the most plausible explanation. If scientists just backed off saying, "I don't know [for certain], I don't know [for certain]" we wouldn't have made any of the scientific or technological we have made. In law, evidence is used to convict the accused though it can never be proven with 100% certainty. It is entirely possible that a pink dragon flew out of the sky and carried the accused to the scene of the crime, put his fingerprints on the weapons and killed the victim, and then digitally edited security cameras to frame the accused. It is possible, but it is not plausible so it is rejected. What would we think of a jury or an inquisitorial judge who backed off a verdict from a case saying that it was impossible to know with 100% certainty? Is it acceptable for a Medical physician to refuse to diagnose patients saying, "It is most likely disease A, but it is entirely possible that my patient is actually a martian species in disguise as a human, in which case it could be an unknown disease. Since it is impossible for me to known with 100% certainty I will refrain from making any conclusion even if one option is massively more reasonable and likely than the others."

So saying, "Nothing can be known with 100% certainty" is not an excuse to reject a logical investigation for the most plausible answer. It doesn't work.

Actually EVERYTHING is unknowable as per your position. You don't know if a snake sheds his skin with 100% certainty because you do not know if snakes even exist. How do you know that it was not really a gorilla disguised as a snake? How do you know that the researchers were not manipulated by some giant blue beluga whale which created these holographic images of snakes or created an illusion in the mind of researchers? How do you know that our entire universe is not a figment of your imagination? You don't know. Why don't you be agnostic about everything?

How do you know you are living in a world? How do you know that your entire life is part of an artificial intelligence computer simulation? You think you exist but in reality you may just be numbers on someone's computer screen.


So you are saying that evidence determines what is true? I thought you said earlier that any belief we hold is true for us?

In what way?! Either the accused did not stab her or he did. Either Muhammad was not the person he claimed to be, or he was. Why do you accept logical argument and circumstantial evidence in the case of the former but not the latter? You are simply asserting that the cases are different but you aren't demonstrating how.

It is absurd because logic clearly dictates an answer! We ACCEPT that either he is telling the truth or he is lying. Either his statements are in accordance with fact or they are not.

And btw, I was not necessarily referring to GWB!

But you didn't answer my challenge. You told me that these apparently contradictory beliefs boil down to the same thing, so I challenged you to prove that in this case.

As for the above comment, our beliefs should be guided by logical investigation. If a person believes they are a bird, they will end up in a mental institute, even though for them it is 'true' that they are a bird but for everyone of sound mind it is not!!


But snakelegs, logic is not something subjective. It is objectively verifiable. So if your beliefs about God are not logical, they won't be logical to me or to anyone else.

It is unknowable for you that your entire city it a group of extraterrestrial species that have lived on this planet for centuries disguised as humans and are not planning to eat you the moment you set foot outside your house. I don't think you would accept this because it is not plausible.


No they are my rational arguments against your position. I am criticising your position on this issue; I don't understand why you have to take it personally.

[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I didn't ask if you believed that or not, I asked if it was logical. You can't say that it is logical that logic should not be used - that is self-contradictory!!


Please - caps imply shouting.

It is possible that some ice cream companies are actually part of a conspiracy which grinds snails and worms into thin paste for the production of ice cream in order to slowly spread disease amongst the human race and eventually wipe it out in preparation for a mass invasion of aliens from jupiter. I don't know [with 100% certainty]!

Regards

 

[bint_muhammed]

ya_giney,
i will send you a PM about this later because i've already explained several times on this forum, why and how i came to be interested in islam. if it turns out that other people want to hear it, i'll post what i write to you. otherwise i don't want to subject people to it yet again (it would be like cold french fries lol) - fair enough?

sorry! pm would be great!

 

[united]

I basically have two beliefs.
There is a god.
No one has any knowledge about him.

holding on to the premise that no one has any knowledge about God means that you are not keeping an open mind.

 

[wilberhum]

holding on to the premise that no one has any knowledge about God means that you are not keeping an open mind.

Provide me with a concept that the majority of the world accepts, and I will look at it.