Questions directed to atheists and agnostics only

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hemoo
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 264
  • Views Views 32K
Personally, I'm atheist for the free satanic coconuts that you get when you sign up.
 
ManchesterFolk said:
An interesting thing that I have debated for a long time is the existent of a conscience that we have, which I am not sure how we developed.
Click to expand...

i believe that we are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. maybe it is part of the survival instinct - you don't want to do things to other people that you wouldn't want them to do to you.
but of course, this is another one of those answer-less questions that i love - it's what makes me agnostic, after all.
 
hemoo said:
why didn't all atheists and agnostics respond to my last question about their previous religious experience ,what was your previous religion or your parents taught and the people who have taught you when you was young ????

and thank to you all for your responses ..
Click to expand...

I was somewhat raised with a slight religous background.
I remember going to sunday school "argh will i ever get those days back?"

I think the first time i questioned religion was when i use to tease a friend of mine in taekwondo class as a kid. He was indian and i would make fun of him for not believeing in my religion. He then asked me how do i know i know that my religion was right and that got me thinking.
Of course that was when i was around 11 or so and I think by that time I had stopped believing in santa and the easter bunny and i think that also helped me think about religion.

I think I have always believed in evo as well and through study of it I have evo as well and through study of it I have learned more and more about it and I have had doubts put to rest through eductation.

I think also the horrors i have seen and read about done in the name of gods is also another reason why i have been turned off of believeing in a benevolent god.

I think that logically there can not be a typical god as imagined by most monotheistic religions.

I think the very concept of god/s is a very vague and unspecific idea that varies from one relgion to another.

Well thats all for now.
 
Interesting to some degree I actually agree with this statement.


I think that logically there can not be a typical god as imagined by most monotheistic religions.

I think the very concept of god/s is a very vague and unspecific idea that varies from one religion to another.
Click to expand...

I believe the form and nature of Allah(swt) is beyond our capabilities to understand. We have even less comprehension of what Allah(swt) is than a Gold fish has of the guy who changes the water in his bowl.

Now as far as to how and why I know Allah(swt) exists, I see that as a fruitless debate that can only lead to needless argument. I will only say that I do and my life experiences have lead me to that belief and not the words of any person.

Outside of that I will say I also agree with these words from the Qur'an.

2:256. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation


With that said Welcome to the Forum. I sincerely hope you enjoy your stay and that you will share with us what you can.

Please read the FAQ section up at the top of the front page and I am certain it will keep your stay here a pleasant stay.

Now enjoy yourself and always feel free to ask questions.
 
Trumble said:
It would depend on the context, of course (this sort of stuff is totally meaningless in isolation - what was the Prophet talking about?) but I'd also read it as a metaphor, although of course I make no claim of being scholastically competent to do so. Something on the lines of 'while an event or person may seem unpleasant don't immediately dismiss it/them as some good may come of it/them'.

I assume you are referring to THIS article at IslamOnline.net? Folks can form their own opinions as to how 'amazing' or otherwise this may be. Don't get your hopes up, though.

BTW, if the Prophet had any extraordinary knowledge (for his time) on this subject don't you think he mght have known that flies carry disease primarily on their feet, not their wings?
Click to expand...

flies huh? from the link you provided it seems that flies as listed eariler dont carry disease on one wing and a cure on the other but rather both on its body. Of course i have yet to see any supposed scientific predictions in the quran. At best the knowledge was known before hand and at worst it is a contrived twisting of poetry.
 
Trumble how do you feel, do you consider yourself an agnostic or atheist?
What form of buddhists are you?

Remember atheism and agnostism have nothing to do with not having a religion but rather the belief of a god.
 
Grace Seeker said:
I have a question about the part I've highlighted in bold. I am not arguing that religious people are in fact better. What I want to know is by what standard one would determine that one person is better than another? You gave an example that religious people might following just about anything a religion says and you classify this as brainwashing. You say that thus brainwashed religious people commit certain acts without thinking about the morality of these acts.

I want to know what makes being brainwashed bad? Why is independent thought a good thing, by what means do you conclude that?

Again, I am not arguing that you are wrong in your conclusion, but I want to know by what means you are able to determine that you are right? Other than that you personally value independent thought over brainwashed religious thought, what really makes one better (as opposed to personally preferred) versus the other?
Click to expand...


I would tend to say that religions typically have Dogma.
Not all mind you but most do. These dogma do not allow for adaptation and change as new knowldge is presented and as socieites change.
 
hemoo said:
First : to the disease to be primarily concentrated on the feets of the fly doesn't deny or contradict that its whole body and wings also have this disease .


Second: in the times of the prophet the bacteriology field of science has not been invented yet.


so how can any one knows that there is a cure or antibiotic in any part of the fly's body ?????


third: this fact of the antibiotics that exists on the house fly and exists on its body has only been proved by non-muslim australian scientists here is the link in year 2002 and also this site named www.abc.net.au is not an islamic site its a science and health magazine


so the question remains how did the prophet (peace be upon him) know that there is a cure(antibiotic) on any part of the house fly ?????:?
Click to expand...


he didnt. simple as that.
he was saying , its just a fly, plucking it out wont really matter. But if you are worried about it then believe this and you will feel better.
 
hemoo said:
here is another verse in the Quran :

chapter 006 verse 125 :-

YUSUFALI translation: Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

SHAKIR translation: Therefore (for) whomsoever Allah intends that He would guide him aright, He expands his breast for Islam, and (for) whomsoever He intends that He should cause him to err, He makes his breast strait and narrow as though he were ascending upwards; thus does Allah lay uncleanness on those who do not believe.

so what do you know about the pressure and oxygen levels when you go up higher ??
Click to expand...

this was known knowldged at the time.
people had climbed mountains before and new that it was harder to breath as you got higher.
 
Grace Seeker said:
How about Nessie, Bigfoot, and UFOs? Do atheists also lack belief in these things?:D
Click to expand...

it would depend on who you ask, but i imagine there answers would vary as much as if you asked anyone else.
Me based on the evidence no, no, and yes.
UFOs are unidentified flying objects.

Aliens on the other hand is a different matter.

Statistically i expect life to be out there. Intellgent life as well. As for being interstellar capable i would be very skeptical unless they have some unknown tech.
 
I would more readily believe in aliens from outer space than in God. In fact, aliens may BE God if you define God as the force that created/planted us here.
 
Grace Seeker said:
What I find funny, is the number of people who will reject the existence of God, when talking to a Christian, Muslim or Jew. But when talking to a Native American fully "buy" into their form of spirituality. Don't they realize that in so doing they are no longer truly atheists?
Click to expand...

did you know that atheism only deals with the existence of a god.
Did you know that you can be religous and not believe in a god.
Did you know you can believe in ghost and goblins and magic and the toothfairy and not believe in a god.
I see no problem with an atheists having these beliefs.

Of course there are differnt types of atheism "check wiki for some explainations" i would imagine most strong atheists would reject most religions as well but that has nothing to do with atheism but rather their own personal knowledge.
 
ranma1/2 said:
did you know that atheism only deals with the existence of a god.
Did you know that you can be religous and not believe in a god.
Did you know you can believe in ghost and goblins and magic and the toothfairy and not believe in a god.
I see no problem with an atheists having these beliefs.

Of course there are differnt types of atheism "check wiki for some explainations" i would imagine most strong atheists would reject most religions as well but that has nothing to do with atheism but rather their own personal knowledge.
Click to expand...

1.) Yes.
2.) That's illogical based on the definition of "religion."
3.) Yes, but its rather idiotic.

You have proven that atheism can be as dogmatic as Christianity.
 
Philosopher said:
1.) Yes.
2.) That's illogical based on the definition of "religion."
3.) Yes, but its rather idiotic.

You have proven that atheism can be as dogmatic as Christianity.
Click to expand...


def via wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religon

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

so how is this wrong? by your def buddhsim is not a religion nor is scientology.

and how have i proven that atheism is dogmatic?
what does it say about morals? "nothing is the answer"
the only thing it takes a stance on is the existence of god/s.

so please state this atheistic dogma.
 
Philsopher, you seem to be having difficulty conceptualizing what atheism is. Atheism is NOTHING but a lack of a belief in a God.

It is impossible for atheism to be dogmatic, for there is no dogma. There is no code. No system. No rituals. No directives.

Atheism is not a complete worldview or way of life. It is a statement of what one is not, rather than what one is. Saying that one is atheist is like saying that one is agargoylist, one who doesn't believe in gargoyles. That isn't something you can be dogmatic about.
 
Last edited:
Philosopher said:
1.) That's illogical based on the definition of "religion."
Click to expand...

No it is not. Which 'definition' are you using? 'Religion' is a notoriously difficult word to define, and most dictionary attempts fail miserably. However, even among those definitions, such as the one already quoted, and

"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"

"a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power"

"generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief."

and (the best of these IMHO), although as with all of them "supernatural" needs to be interpreted with care.

"A framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world."

None require a belief in God. Those (English) definitions that do generally come from Christianity-biased sources where such a belief is assumed.
 
cali dude said:
This is wonderful. I often have the same problem with people of religion, some times even some of Sikhs. They try to convince me that there is nothing wrong with eating meat referring to what their religion. I don't care what religion says but it doesn't make sense to me, I am not going to do it.

We shouldn't forget that not all religions are absolute truth. I am not even convinced that they all came from God. So we should rely on something that makes the most sense, even if it's only our own belief.
Click to expand...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Comments of Sikh Scholars
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Throughout Sikh history, there have been movements or subsects of Sikhism which have espoused vegetarianism. I think there is no basis for such dogma or practice in Sikhism. Certainly Sikhs do not think that a vegetarian's achievements in spirituality are easier or higher. It is surprising to see that vegetarianism is such an important facet of Hindu practice in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was a significant and much valued Hindu Vedic ritual for ages. Guru Nanak in his writings clearly rejected both sides of the arguments - on the virtues of vegetarianism or meat eating - as banal and so much nonsense, nor did he accept the idea that a cow was somehow more sacred than a horse or a chicken. He also refused to be drawn into a contention on the differences between flesh and greens, for instance. History tells us that to impart this message, Nanak cooked meat at an important Hindu festival in Kurukshetra. Having cooked it he certainly did not waste it, but probably served it to his followers and ate himself. History is quite clear that Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh were accomplished and avid hunters. The game was cooked and put to good use, to throw it away would have been an awful waste.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar
The ideas of devotion and service in Vaishnavism have been accepted by Adi Granth, but the insistence of Vaishnavas on vegetarian diet has been rejected.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi
Commenting on meat being served in the langar during the time of Guru Angad: However, it is strange that now-a-days in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar
As a true Vaisnavite Kabir remained a strict vegetarian. Kabir far from defying Brahmanical tradition as to the eating of meat, would not permit so much, as the plucking of a flower (G.G.S. pg 479), whereas Nanak deemed all such scruples to be superstitions, Kabir held the doctrine of Ahinsa or the non-destruction of life, which extended even to that of flowers. The Sikh Gurus, on the contrary, allowed and even encouraged, the use of animal flesh as food. Nanak has exposed this Ahinsa superstition in Asa Ki War (G.G.S. pg 472) and Malar Ke War (G.G.S. pg. 1288).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England
The Gurus were loath to pronounce upon such matters as the eating of meat or ways of disposing of the dead because undue emphasis on them could detract from the main thrust of their message which had to do with spiritual liberation. However, Guru Nanak did reject by implication the practice of vegetarianism related to ideas of pollution when he said, 'All food is pure; for God has provided it for our sustenance' (AG 472). Many Sikhs are vegetarian and meat should never be served at langar. Those who do eat meat are unlikely to include beef in their diet, at least in India, because of their cultural proximity to Hindus.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi
In general Sikhism has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards meat eating as against vegetarianism. But if meat is to be taken at all, Guru Gobind Singh enjoined on the Khalsa Panth not to take kosher meat ie. Halal meat slaughtered and prepared for eating according to the Islamic practice. In fact it is one of the kurahits for every amritdhari Sikh. One who infringes it becomes patit (apostate).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Real Sikhism by Surinder Singh Kohli, Harman Publishing, New Delhi
A close study of the above-mentioned hymns of Guru Nanak Dev clarifies the Sikh standpoint regarding meat-eating. The Guru has not fallen into the controversy of eating or not eating animal food. He has ridiculed the religious priests for raising their voice in favour of vegetarianism. He called them hypocrites and totally blind to the realities of life. They are unwise and thoughtless persons, who do not go into the root of the matter. According to him, the water is the source of all life whether vegetable or animal. Guru Nanak Dev said. "None of the grain of corn is without life. In the first place, there is life in water, by which all are made green" (Var Asa M.1, p. 472). Thus there is life in vegetation and life in all types of creatures.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Introduction to Sikhism by Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Hemkunt Press, Delhi
The Gurus neither advocate meat nor banned its use. They left it to the choice of the individual. There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth. Guru Gobind Singh however prohibited for the Khalsa the use of Halal or Kutha meat prepared in the Muslim ritualistic way.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Introduction to Sikhism by G.S. Sidhu, Shromini Sikh Sangat, Toronto
There are no restrictions for the Sikhs regarding food, except that the Sikhs are forbidden to eat meat prepared as a ritual slaughter. The Sikhs are asked to abstain from intoxicants.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Sikh Faith by Gurbakhsh Singh, Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, Vancouver
According to the Maryada booklet 'Kutha', the meat prepared by the Muslim ritual, is prohibited for a Sikh. Regarding eating other meat, it is silent. From the prohibition of the Kutha meat, it is rightly presumed that non-Kutha meat is not prohibited for the Sikhs. Beef is prohibited to the Hindus and pork to the Muslims. Jews and Christians have their own taboos. They do not eat certain kinds of meat on certain days. Sikhs have no such instructions. If one thinks he needs to eat meat, it does not matter which meat it is, beef, poultry, fish, etc., or which day it is. One should, however, be careful not to eat any meat harmful for his health. Gurbani's instructions on this topic are very clear. "Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?" (1289) The Brahmanical thought that a religious person should be a vegetarian is of recent origin. Earlier, Brahmans had been eating beef and horse meat. In conclusion, it is wrong to say that any person who eats meat (of course Kutha, because of the Muslim rituals is prohibited) loses his membership of the Khalsa and becomes an apostate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Paper by Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal
The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the Sikh Gurus made people aware of the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish between a plant and an animal, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian diets and there is no sin of eating food originating from plants or animals.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by H.S. Singha, Hemkunt Press, Delhi.
The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins. Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living. Guru Gobind Singh also permitted the eating of meat but he prescribed that it should be Jhatka meat and not Halal meat that is jagged in the Muslim fashion.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top