Some things you hear provoke thought - seemingly simplistic statements by the likes of Kant provoke a lot of thought. Fan, I was brought up religious and was devout until I was about 19. All that time (I realise now) I didn't believe through independent thought. I was told there was a God and accepted it until reading various strands of philosophy as a smart-arse student. What you have said above is an absolute paradox. "What we know is oft hearsay" - you said that after half-quoting the hadith - the hadith and all other theocratic texts are, by there very nature, not required to be factually correct. Disbelieving what I was taught to think when I was young was informed independent thought - fed by others (books) and considered and reasoned. I'm more interested in the anthropology of religion - probably the thing that proves more than anything that the currently popular religions are cultural phenomenons leading to the theocratic rather than the other way around. The major religions around just now (particularly the Abrahamic ones) were emerging when Constantinople became the meeting point between East and West and further literacy caused theocratic structures to expand. At that point, Norse mythology (for example) had already died out - if it hadn't, it would still be a popular religion now (or, at least have lasted til the late middle ages). Shintoism and Buddhism are still practised but Celtic mythology isn't. Your assumption was that I have had no previous interest in religion which is guff - I'd suggest someone looking at them as society-based social structures and anthropologic backstories knows more about the nature of belief than someone who believes any particular doctrine. If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to create him. I surely don't need to anotate that quote, do I?
No you haven't. You've claimed that it's possible with technology that we don't have. This is drivel. You can't even decide whether you think that I'm an atheist, an agnostic, an anti-theist or a Jew. I don't believe in any gods, therefore I'm an atheist. End of story. There are different definitions of god even amongst theists of the same sect that attend the same place of worship. You're confusing me with someone else again, if you think I've ever used a multiverse theory as proof of anything, as there's no proof that any such thing exists. It's a hypothesis. Could there be multiple universes? Yes. Is there any proof of it? No. Comparing that with solipsism is an error though, as solipsism is unfalsifiable and unprovable by it's very nature. If there are multiple universes then it's possible that we could develop a way to detect some of them.
ALL things you hear should provoke thought, the problem arises when things you hear get repeated without provoking thought, or just to prove/disprove something without understanding. There is no paradox if you look at the entirety of what I wrote. I have stated that all thought is based on previous information and then have repeatedly said that repeating things without understanding/investigating is wrong. Same applies to religious texts The process you highlighted re 'informed independent thought' I have no issue with and is kind of what I am saying but less succinctly. I also agree with the notion of current religions being cultural phenomenons. My argument being that what we currently understand as being 'God' is and never was 'God' previous interest in religion wasnt meant in the manner you have assumed and not specifically aimed at you. and your assumption that people with a belief in a particular doctrine isnt/wasnt based on going through a similar process as you in terms of nature of belief/anthropological backstories is guff, and may I say more in line with my assumptions. I think the notion of 'man having to invent God' is false, simply because if anything the 'creation' of God implies rules, why would a man want the institution of marriage for example
It's pretty straightforward. Cromagnon man: "Why does it rain?" Cromagnon man's pal: "I don't know" Somebody else: "Why do I feel love, envy and fear?" Somebody else's mate: "I don't know." Then someone offers an explanation for not only the physical but also the metaphysical and it all falls into place. This is more true of multi-deity (more rudimentary, if you like) religions. Roman, Greek, Celtic, Norse etc gods had specific things they were responsible for. I presume you think Roman mythology to be nonsense - yet an entire civilisation believed in it. What's more likely? Mars creates war? Man creates deity to explain war? It's the latter - categorically. Now I know that you're going to suggest that basic multi-deity religions are not in the same metaphysical realm as Abrahamic notions of God (the embodiement of love etc - in fact, doesn't the word "Islam" translate as various English words but one of them is love? Also, the RC church now claims that hell is not a dimension of eternity anymore but simply existing without God) and, indeed, that the notion of God is extremely far removed from ancient gods but that's the point. It's a natural progression. Just like the changing religions of Europe. Just like evolution, if you will. Once you see how religions and notions of spirituality came to be formed naturally, it changes the position in which you view all doctrine.
This is drivel. You can't even decide whether you think that I'm an atheist, an agnostic, an anti-theist or a Jew. I don't believe in any gods, therefore I'm an atheist. End of story. [B]I didn't claim that god doesn't exist[/B], only that there's no evidence that a god does exist. Atheism = The theory or belief that God does not exist.[/ agnostic =One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.B] There are different definitions of god even amongst theists of the same sect that attend the same place of worship. so? refer to the scriptures You're confusing me with someone else again, if you think I've ever used a multiverse theory as proof of anything, as there's no proof that any such thing exists. It's a hypothesis. Could there be multiple universes? Yes. Is there any proof of it? No. That's not proof, is it? That's a hypothesis. (your words I believe in post 166) when it proves you wrong its unnacceptable?
There is possible proof of universes touching ours PNP. Fluctuations in the red light signatures from the edges of the universe. They possibly signify the same effect you see with multiple bubbles joined together.
The notion of understanding or finding the reason for something is natural, the point was that to accept it on someonse say so is wrong, without exploration Most o fteh models of religion or God/s you mention followed that process and eliminated certain models. not sure that applies today. Even the use of the term 'abrahamic religion' is incorrect today as some have been changed so much The translation of Islam is wrong simply as it isnt defined using the criteria Islam sets. Islam put simply means to submit and none of the whole peace etc. You can use the same argument with anything the church says, is the church of today 'christian'? for me no. There are fundamentals that they have changed making them void. Same applies to certain sects/sections of Islam As I point out a lot of what is written about religion/god is based on a premise that is false, therefore making any analysis/conclusion false
Dictionary.com: 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. World English Dictionary: rejection of belief in God or gods. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: A disbelief in the existence of deity. I don't fall into that category. The gods that some people believe in should be knowable, if they did exist. They're vague and often contradictory, which is why followers of the same religion have different beliefs about the same things. The thing that I said is a hypothesis is a hypothesis? Well done, Fan! For once I agree with you. What part of that proves me wrong, exactly? You appear to be confused again.
Proof, if any were needed, that Fan will interpret the Quran to mean virtually anything, as needs arise.
I can't be bothered arguing any more - it's pointless, but the term "Abrahamic religions" means those that have Abraham as a common origin and are monotheistic. Simply because some muslims don't like it, isn't reason to stop using the term.
dress it how you want kiddo, you use what suits you on a specific day. Its ok for you to offer a hypothesis, but when miggins proved you wrong you came out with 'thats a hypothesis'. i could look it up but I dont need to. Your smiley indicates you know
fair enough however my point wasnt that muslims dont like it, my point was that the religions today are not Abrahamic due to the changes implemented
I don't believe in any gods. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. How did that confuse you, exactly? Those two sentences are not the same. They don't mean the same thing, at all. Saying that there's no evidence that a god or gods exist doesn't mean that there couldn't be any. Your first claim is clearly disproved by the second, as various people don't agree with you on those claims. More gibberish. Miggins said that he had proof of something and he didn't, he had a hypothesis. You're claiming that I've offered the existence of a multiverse as fact, when it's actually also a hypothesis, yet you have no proof for this claim, as usual. Can you ever substantiate anything? No. Why don't you explain it to me, as you were an English teacher?
I said I wouldn't. 1. They all include Abraham telling his two sons to form "the great nation of Israel and the great Arabic nation" 2. They're all monotheistic. Therefore, they're Abrahamic - it's not a theology argument, it's a semantic one (which actually has absolute rules). I don't really mean to argue. A man's beliefs are his own and shouldn't have anything rammed down his throat against his will. May your God follow you wherever you go, Fan, and no disrespect to your beliefs intended - just, if you're going to denounce "science", people will similarly object.
Not really Jackie. I kept it simple and can go into detail The notion of the notion of the universe being bubbles in time has lead to people like Gene Wolfe suggesting we change the name 'universe' as it is no longer sufficient to describe our 'universe' The suggested name is 'Malkuth' which means 'world' or kingdom in Jewish scriptures It is arabic n origin with the modern word being mamlaka and the Quranic being Mulkan, again meaning kingdom and meaning our world clearly differentiating between this 'world/kingdom' and other universes. However as I say in english (depending on those doing the translation) they often use a 'catch all' term . so worlds or universes in the plural is used for other and world and universe (singular) is used for our bit. Some are so lazy they dont even bother making it single/plural
Fan doesn't like to recognise Christians and Jews as Abrahamic faiths, as that would make them People of the Book and afford them certain privileges, if I remember correctly. Marriage between Mulsim men and women of those faiths, for example.
