surreptitious57 wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:49 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
The basic Atheist premise is this : No gods exist . Or if you prefer I lack belief in gods . Or maybe I believe in no gods
It makes no difference to what I am about to say
The basic Atheists premise means this : that the universe exists without an objective reason or purpose for its existence
Nobody intended anything by creating it because there is no God
Have you seen any rational steps you think any Atheist would disagree with
I personally do not use belief as a metric for anything because it could be wrong as believing in something does not automatically make it true
For things which may or may not exist but for which there is insufficient or zero evidence I retain a neutral position somewhere in the middle
This does not just apply to God but absolutely everything that could exist within reason [ what about things that could exist without reason ]
Then, so far, you are an agnostic: you retain a neutral position, which means you don't claim to know.
Now I do not think that God exists but this is simply my subjective opinion and not a knowledge claim
So I can also say without any contradiction to the above that I do not know whether or not God exists
I also think that there is no meaning to existence but again this is an opinion not a knowledge claim
Opinions do not have to be justified because they do not have to employ reason [ they can but it is not absolutely necessary ]
Knowledge claims however do have to be justified because the standard for knowledge is way way higher than it is for opinion
I understand your distinction. You're not claiming to know anything, so you have nothing to prove in this regard. True.
Therefore what needs to be examined with critical rigour are knowledge claims not subjective opinions
Since I have made no knowledge claims here then there is nothing to be examined with regard to them
But I will say this : nothing is set in stone and so what I think is true now may not always be true for me
Agnostic, and fair to say.
I was a practising Christian for I9 years - a non practising Christian for another 27 years - an atheist for 9 years [ where I am now ]
I think that I will probably remain an atheist for the rest of my life but I cannot be certain as I could become a Muslim before I die
Now, why would you call yourself an "Atheist," when every feature of what you describe about your position is "agnostic"?
This is important because if I am studying Islam then it means I am not closed minded on the subject of God
A searching agnostic.
I have also read the Torah [ the first five books of the Old Testament ] the Bible and the Koran
I have only read them all once but have no problem in reading them again especially the Koran
But I will not be reading the Bible in its entirety because its too long so only individual chapters
This is only for the benefit of Immanuel Can to remove any notion he might have that all atheists are condescending know it all bastards
I most certainly am not a condescending know it all bastard and in fact the older I get the less I know on all subject matter not just God
This is something I have not said. I have not even implied it. But if you have been feeling it, it could well be because Atheism itself has those defects: it's a claim to know things one simply does not. It's irrational and indefensible. And it's not because I say so, because even Dawkins says so, and we don't exactly come from the same perspective. It's actually true. But it's true of Atheism
, not of the people who (sometimes in error) identify as Atheists
If you look back, you will see I have confined my critique to Atheism
. I don't criticize Atheists
as persons: that would be ad hominem,
and so not relevant to the question of Atheism's warrant.
I am not interested in being a condescending know it all bastard even if I actually could
What I am interested in is interesting conversation with those who do not think like me
That's what I'm here for.
I may have left school 37 years ago but I am still learning as much as I can even though I still know very little
I am learning more about Islam than I ever knew and hope to continue learning as much about it as I possibly can
And finally just in case Immanuel Can does not know this Jesus is loved by Muslims as much as he is by Christians
In Islam, he is recognized as a "prophet," though they do not follow His teachings, and Mohammed is regarded as having abrogated everything He says. Christians regard Him as the Son of God.
That's pretty different.
So that is me then : an atheist who knows nothing at all about God but is studying Islam to increase his knowledge and understanding of him
I've read the Quran. And I know a bit of the Haddiths and traditions as well.
And though Immanuel Can will claim that Islam is different to Christianity [ which it obviously is ] this is not what this thread is about at all
However if I converted to Islam tomorrow then he and I would be in complete agreement about good and evil and the meaning of existence
Well, you need to study both more carefully if you suppose this is true. Drill down a bit more, and huge differences will emerge.
The problem is that many people want to keep both Islam and Christianity (and Judaism as well, and sometimes Buddhism, Hinduism and every other major religion) in fuzzy focus, so as to make sweeping generalizations about what "all religions" or "all monotheistic religions" believe or teach. It makes the whole lot way easier to handle (and dismiss, if possible) if they are essentially "all the same," to to speak.
But this is not only incorrect, but highly disrepectful to the people who believe in these various things. Instead of listening to those traditions, these folks only listen for the notes they can use to bundle and disregard the whole lot. It often passes itself off as "tolerance," or "universalism" or "openness," but what it really is, is a closed-minded disregarding of what those traditions actually say, believe and do.
And if you talk to them, you'll find that not a single person who is actually committed to any of these traditions is flattered by such dismissal. It should come as no surprise that nobody wants to be told, "You don't actually know what you believe: rather, what you believe actually boils down to the same warm soap everybody else believes too."
That's just insulting, obviously. There's nothing "open" about it. Somebody's just not listening.