< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

What is Religion?

 
Shaikh Raisuddin
 
Avatar
 
 
Shaikh Raisuddin
Total Posts:  85
Joined  20-03-2015
 
 
 
01 September 2017 01:46
 
Jefe - 25 August 2017 07:38 AM
Shaikh Raisuddin - 25 August 2017 04:34 AM

Is education a religion or not?

If education is a religion, does that make innocence/ignorance equivalent to atheism?

Yes innocence and lack of prejudice can be seen as “without beliefs” or atheism. We become theist the moment we learn language. Because each word of dictionary is a scientifically unverified belief.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dictionary-misery-mankind-shaikh-raisuddin?published=t

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
01 September 2017 03:15
 
Shaikh Raisuddin - 01 September 2017 01:46 AM
Jefe - 25 August 2017 07:38 AM
Shaikh Raisuddin - 25 August 2017 04:34 AM

Is education a religion or not?

If education is a religion, does that make innocence/ignorance equivalent to atheism?

We become theist the moment we learn language.

So everybody who speaks a language believes in a god???

Ron

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17726
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
01 September 2017 08:02
 
Shaikh Raisuddin - 01 September 2017 01:40 AM

When we blindly without question believe the meanings of the words given by dictionaries then how can we be rational and scientific?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dictionary-misery-mankind-shaikh-raisuddin?published=t

We give words meanings and use them to convey ideas, without consensuses on those meanings words would be meaningless gibberish, like your posts.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2017 11:44
 
GAD - 01 September 2017 08:02 AM
Shaikh Raisuddin - 01 September 2017 01:40 AM

When we blindly without question believe the meanings of the words given by dictionaries then how can we be rational and scientific?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dictionary-misery-mankind-shaikh-raisuddin?published=t

We give words meanings and use them to convey ideas, without consensuses on those meanings words would be meaningless gibberish, like your posts.

+1

 
 
Shaikh Raisuddin
 
Avatar
 
 
Shaikh Raisuddin
Total Posts:  85
Joined  20-03-2015
 
 
 
03 September 2017 03:36
 

“A baby is not a theist,
And an atheist is not a baby.”

The reason of endless debate of theism vs atheism id due to imperfect dictionary.

I repeat

“A baby is not a theist,
And an atheist is not a baby.”

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dictionary-misery-mankind-shaikh-raisuddin

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
03 September 2017 05:16
 

@Shaikh

Why are you ignoring our questions? I had asked; “does everybody who speaks a language believe in a god???”  What is your answer to that? And previously I had asked if you adhere to any religion and if so, which one. 

Ron

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17726
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
03 September 2017 08:34
 
Shaikh Raisuddin - 03 September 2017 03:36 AM

“A baby is not a theist,
And an atheist is not a baby.”

The reason of endless debate of theism vs atheism id due to imperfect dictionary.

I repeat

“A baby is not a theist,
And an atheist is not a baby.”

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dictionary-misery-mankind-shaikh-raisuddin

There is no debate, a baby is not a theist or an atheist.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6388
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
03 September 2017 08:38
 
GAD - 03 September 2017 08:34 AM

There is no debate, a baby is not a theist or an atheist.

Likewise, our Presidentay is not a theist or an atheist. He is a baby.

 
 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
03 September 2017 10:11
 

Some of the logic here is impressively circular, but I think I see behind the Oz curtain.

I think this is rhetorical device which the protaganist/s hopes will -
(a) create a parity between rationality and faith since they are both “taken on trust”.
(b) undermine a scientific world-view by showing how it is dependent on a set of a posteriori assumptions or at least the acceptance of them.
(c) show that a non-scientific theism is logically essential as a basis for experience and therefore existence.
(d) illustrate that through these paradoxes all human beliefs are rooted in theism as a principle, and therefore even atheists are theists.

There is an honourable tradition of this kind of thought, particularly in Islamic, Jewish and Medieval Christianity.  The ontological argument is a variation that seeks to bind consciousness to the existence of God through a conceptual device.

In fact the brilliant Avicenna actually took this on and arguably refuted it in his famous “floating man” thought experiment.  Like Descartes (and predating it significantly), Avicenna showed that in the absence of anything, including knowledge, assumptions, language, context and so on,  that self-consciousness would exist.  And the powerful corollary of this is that nothing else needs to exist.

I would counsel the Shaikh, who may have an interest in the many brilliant islamic philosophers, to review Avicenna’s floating man and the Mu’tazalites, and to hone the rhetoric to prepare for any logical challenge.  He/she may wish to cite Al-Ghazali (the Incoherence of the Philosophers) which is also very interesting, although did not in fact finally resolve the various conundrums.

Kalessin smile

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17726
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
03 September 2017 11:14
 
Kalessin - 03 September 2017 10:11 AM

Some of the logic here is impressively circular, but I think I see behind the Oz curtain.

I think this is rhetorical device which the protaganist/s hopes will -
(a) create a parity between rationality and faith since they are both “taken on trust”.
(b) undermine a scientific world-view by showing how it is dependent on a set of a posteriori assumptions or at least the acceptance of them.
(c) show that a non-scientific theism is logically essential as a basis for experience and therefore existence.
(d) illustrate that through these paradoxes all human beliefs are rooted in theism as a principle, and therefore even atheists are theists.

There is an honourable tradition of this kind of thought, particularly in Islamic, Jewish and Medieval Christianity.  The ontological argument is a variation that seeks to bind consciousness to the existence of God through a conceptual device.

In fact the brilliant Avicenna actually took this on and arguably refuted it in his famous “floating man” thought experiment.  Like Descartes (and predating it significantly), Avicenna showed that in the absence of anything, including knowledge, assumptions, language, context and so on,  that self-consciousness would exist.  And the powerful corollary of this is that nothing else needs to exist.

I would counsel the Shaikh, who may have an interest in the many brilliant islamic philosophers, to review Avicenna’s floating man and the Mu’tazalites, and to hone the rhetoric to prepare for any logical challenge.  He/she may wish to cite Al-Ghazali (the Incoherence of the Philosophers) which is also very interesting, although did not in fact finally resolve the various conundrums.

Kalessin smile

You should post for Shaikh, you are far, far better at it.

But this is all for naught, Gods are make-believe and there is no saving them, even without a dictionary.

 

 
 
Dumaya
 
Avatar
 
 
Dumaya
Total Posts:  124
Joined  04-05-2017
 
 
 
03 September 2017 22:19
 

What is religion?

 

Image Attachments
 
faith_for_goys.gif
 
 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
04 September 2017 15:15
 
GAD - 03 September 2017 11:14 AM

You should post for Shaikh, you are far, far better at it.
But this is all for naught, Gods are make-believe and there is no saving them, even without a dictionary.

Thanks.  I think for some reason those arguing “for” religon generally don’t pick up on the really interesting and often ingenious philosophical arguments from Islam and Christianity.  Those philosophers made use of logic, Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic concepts to try and show that conscientious application of reason would inevitably lead one to God. 

However, the kalam and ontological positions in the end take you to a God that is probably unrecognisable and undesirable from a conventional theist position: a God that exists as a result of logic and necessity, or a monist position, or God or as a kind of self-fulfilling agent intellect, first cause or inevitable divine essence, is actually nothing like the God anyone wants to believe in.  It’s a God that exists universally in the way in which the laws of physics exist, and with just as much interest in mankind.  Its not a God that rights moral wrongs (and in fact most conceptions of God don’t ever do this) or responds to prayer, because it is already both existent and agent in all things.  God cannot be less than God, or separate from God, and nothing about God can be the same as at is for mortals (this is the existent/existence.or essence/substance divide).

So the problem for theists who want to engage in debate with atheists on a philosophical level is this - the most powerful rhetorical and logical arguments for God (have mostly already been explored by great minds in the service of theology, and take us to a place which is a long way from the holy books.  But just because they are not convenient, these arguments can’t be ignored. 

The only other path is the argument through faith, but there are incredibly strong philosophical refutations here.  I’ve just started exploring these and am finding them really interesting,  especially as they interact with free will.arguments in thought-provoking ways.

My point in this thread was just to say that bad reasoning is no substitute for good philosophy, whether you agree with the conclusions or not smile.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17726
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
05 September 2017 08:35
 
Kalessin - 04 September 2017 03:15 PM
GAD - 03 September 2017 11:14 AM

You should post for Shaikh, you are far, far better at it.
But this is all for naught, Gods are make-believe and there is no saving them, even without a dictionary.

Thanks.  I think for some reason those arguing “for” religon generally don’t pick up on the really interesting and often ingenious philosophical arguments from Islam and Christianity.  Those philosophers made use of logic, Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic concepts to try and show that conscientious application of reason would inevitably lead one to God. 

However, the kalam and ontological positions in the end take you to a God that is probably unrecognisable and undesirable from a conventional theist position: a God that exists as a result of logic and necessity, or a monist position, or God or as a kind of self-fulfilling agent intellect, first cause or inevitable divine essence, is actually nothing like the God anyone wants to believe in.  It’s a God that exists universally in the way in which the laws of physics exist, and with just as much interest in mankind.  Its not a God that rights moral wrongs (and in fact most conceptions of God don’t ever do this) or responds to prayer, because it is already both existent and agent in all things.  God cannot be less than God, or separate from God, and nothing about God can be the same as at is for mortals (this is the existent/existence.or essence/substance divide).

So the problem for theists who want to engage in debate with atheists on a philosophical level is this - the most powerful rhetorical and logical arguments for God (have mostly already been explored by great minds in the service of theology, and take us to a place which is a long way from the holy books.  But just because they are not convenient, these arguments can’t be ignored. 

The only other path is the argument through faith, but there are incredibly strong philosophical refutations here.  I’ve just started exploring these and am finding them really interesting,  especially as they interact with free will.arguments in thought-provoking ways.

My point in this thread was just to say that bad reasoning is no substitute for good philosophy, whether you agree with the conclusions or not smile.

Again, very well stated, but again all for naught.

Gods are either unknowable or knowable, if unknowable then everything ever written about them is solely a human invention and if knowable, then where is the proof.  Philosophical, rhetorical and logical arguments are only needed for unknowable gods which makes them pointless. Faith is also pointless as all it states is a belief in gods you can’t know. If gods were knowable there would be no debate and the only faith required would be that human misery and the evil acts they command are for some greater purpose.

 

 
 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  128
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 14:37
 
GAD - 05 September 2017 08:35 AM

Again, very well stated, but again all for naught.
Gods are either unknowable or knowable, if unknowable then everything ever written about them is solely a human invention and if knowable, then where is the proof.  Philosophical, rhetorical and logical arguments are only needed for unknowable gods which makes them pointless. Faith is also pointless as all it states is a belief in gods you can’t know. If gods were knowable there would be no debate and the only faith required would be that human misery and the evil acts they command are for some greater purpose.

Yes, a God who does not wish to be known or knowable is conceptually equivalent to no God.  This is when the intelligent design argument starts to sound like a conspiracy theory “God deliberately made everything compatible with the theory of evolution”.  Not even wrong, in my view. 
Coincidentally I was looking at the fantastic Shelley poem ‘Ozymandias’ today, which I think is relevant.  The closing stanza especially

And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17726
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
06 September 2017 07:51
 
Kalessin - 05 September 2017 02:37 PM
GAD - 05 September 2017 08:35 AM

Again, very well stated, but again all for naught.
Gods are either unknowable or knowable, if unknowable then everything ever written about them is solely a human invention and if knowable, then where is the proof.  Philosophical, rhetorical and logical arguments are only needed for unknowable gods which makes them pointless. Faith is also pointless as all it states is a belief in gods you can’t know. If gods were knowable there would be no debate and the only faith required would be that human misery and the evil acts they command are for some greater purpose.

Yes, a God who does not wish to be known or knowable is conceptually equivalent to no God.  This is when the intelligent design argument starts to sound like a conspiracy theory “God deliberately made everything compatible with the theory of evolution”.  Not even wrong, in my view. 
Coincidentally I was looking at the fantastic Shelley poem ‘Ozymandias’ today, which I think is relevant.  The closing stanza especially

And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away

Indeed. The folly of man and the fate of gods rise and fall together.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›