I've thought about religion alot lately and beleive I have learned few things "God didn't create man, man created God" Bonus points if you recognize the quote.Back to my point I do beleive that quote to be true in one sense or another, what I beleive is that god is a fictional character created in the place of the all powerfull hand of fate that guides the way of the universe and It's inhabitants.You see this thing that we invision to be an all powerfull entity is really just a tangible form of something to complex to comprehend so we create this Idol in our heads to put everything together, to explain mystery and excite wonder.To sum up this lesson all things are one and we envision it as such and we call it a god.One last thing about the "everything is one" line.Lock your fingers together and tell me were one hand ends and the other begins.Please feal free to critisize I just wanted to know what people would think about this.
So are you an atheist if you believe in Buddhism since it is a way of life?
There are different forms of Buddhism. Although there's not a creator god, the devas and asuras are considered deities depending on the context, and (going by what Wiki says) atheism means lacking belief in deities. If you chuck those parts of the religion and cut it down to simply a way of life, with or without afterlives, then yes, it can be atheistic.
Does any god exist?
That depends heavily on how 'god' is defined.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know Don't forget us agnostics!
Best example I've heard for this point: There's a jar of jellybeans on a desk. There can only be an odd or even number in the jar. Is the number odd or even? You say, "I don't know". Group A says "Even". Group B says "Not even". The answer of "Not even" includes "Odd", but also includes anything that doesn't affirm the answer of "Even", including the answer of "idk".
Errmm, Not really... Maybe you mean like on a pantheistic level, but that would be covered by if what is being called god, is god. If you think what is being called god is not god you still can go back to the do any gods exist question.
Best example I've heard for this point: There's a jar of jellybeans on a desk. There can only be an odd or even number in the jar. Is the number odd or even? You say, "I don't know". Group A says "Even". Group B says "Not even". The answer of "Not even" includes "Odd", but also includes anything that doesn't affirm the answer of "Even", including the answer of "idk".
You've been watching The Atheist Experience haven't you?
Also depends on how 'exist' is defined.
As in, is real. Does this really need to be turned into a semantics argument?
but that would be covered by if what is being called god, is god.
It's fine if they go with the generally accepted meaning of "supernatural deity", but it gets muddled when "god is love" or "god is the essence of consciousness" and such, because you could be talking past each other.
You've been watching The Atheist Experience haven't you?
Yep, up to 603 so far. Skipped nearly all of the first 500 tho. Lots of repetition.
Does this really need to be turned into a semantics argument?
Well, it taps into "what is real?" Like, "tangible/observable", and then by what stretch of observation? Because it often becomes like Russell's Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn when "exist" isn't defined.
To further the first part of that, when someone asks me "Do you believe in (G/g)od", I'll ask what they mean by (G/g)od. They might specify "The Christian/Abrahamic Creator God," to which I'd say no. Or they might abstract it to mean "a higher power," which includes nature as a whole, and I could agree with that.
It's fine if they go with the generally accepted meaning of "supernatural deity", but it gets muddled when "god is love" or "god is the essence of consciousness" and such, because you could be talking past each other.
The same thing would apply to calling god love or the essence of consciousness or what ever you want to call god. Is (insert whatever the hell you like) god, a god? If no then we are back to do you believe any gods exist? By saying that (insert whatever the hell you like) is not god you are not believing in that god's existence in the sense of it being god.
Well, it taps into "what is real?" Like, "tangible/observable", and then by what stretch of observation? Because it often becomes like Russell's Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn when "exist" isn't defined.
"Exist" is defined in those cases, it's a state of being real. The point of whether that state can be observed or not doesn't have to play a role in believing whether I does or not. We can believe things that haven't been measured in some way, it's just that those beliefs are not defensible.
To further the first part of that, when someone asks me "Do you believe in (G/g)od", I'll ask what they mean by (G/g)od. They might specify "The Christian/Abrahamic Creator God," to which I'd say no. Or they might abstract it to mean "a higher power," which includes nature as a whole, and I could agree with that.
But would you be agreeing that nature as a whole is god?
[quote]So your God sent imperfect holy books to the other prophets?
No,over time Allah sent messengers to each nation on earth and that the books that he sent before for example Zabur,Injil,etc All the messages that the procphets brought formed the books but the Quran is the perfected one because thats when it spread openly throughout Arabia and
[quote]When you say 'sent', do you mean you believe He dropped them out of the sky?
No,Allah would send the books with Hazrat Jibrael who would deliver revelations each year or time and after he would give all the pages Hazrat AbuBakar,a companion of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) told people to form a book of it.
But would you be agreeing that nature as a whole is god?
Under the "higher power" definition, yes. Under the general definition, no. That's why it matters. I'd rather answer to their terms than keep referring to a definition they reject.
We muslims believe that every prophet, since Adam has preached Islam(or their version of it, with same core principles but diiferent secondary laws) and Muhammad(SAW) was last of the 124000 prophets.
I was referring to the creation of the religion, not how far back the beliefs go. For example, Christianity was formed 2013 years ago, but the beliefs relate to events that, according to Christians, happened 4000 years ago.
Under the "higher power" definition, yes. Under the general definition, no. That's why it matters. I'd rather answer to their terms than keep referring to a definition they reject.
I would say that higher power is something they are just tacking on to something that does exist. In the sense of being an atheist, it doesn't matter what definition is being used, if your god belief is 0, that's an atheist.
Yes when discussing someone's god belief it is of use to have that person define god.
No,Allah would send the books with Hazrat Jibrael who would deliver revelations each year or time and after he would give all the pages Hazrat AbuBakar,a companion of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) told people to form a book of it.
So basically we have a human saying God told him this stuff and we are just suppose to accept that as true?
