Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Atheism, Agnosticism, Spiritualism and Faithheadism
brainout

"Something More'" vs. "No something more"

1. People who come to believe in the supernatural, "God", etc. seem to me to have reached some moment in their lives when they concluded that "there has to be something more" to life than the existence they have.

2. People who come to believe against the supernatural, "God", etc. seem to me to have reached some moment when they concluded either a) there CANNOT be "something more", or b) there SHOULD NOT be "something more".

In both cases, you'll have subdivisions among these groups who came to this "moment" by traumatic means. Good examples of these on the "2." folks which spring to mind are Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge and Camus' L'Etranger (The Stranger).

But it doesn't have to be that way. One can come to the conclusion logically, that there should or should not be "something more", and philosophy is full of Western folks on both sides of that question, through the centuries. Wish we in the West could know more about such folks who are not Western.

So if there is a God, He sure begs the question of His Existence.

There: now everyone can post about where he is on the question and why. Smile
All_Brains

I was a believer for 6 years between (11-17) before the age of 11, I had no interest in religion.

Then, I was a skeptic religious researcher for 3 years, between 17 and 20.

Then I left Islam and became Agnostic for 14 years between 20 and 34, during that period I really wanted God to exist and did my best to prove his existence. Unfortunately, all religions failed me and I was convinced that they were all man-made.

Early this year I have declared my Atheism and now belong to the
"There can't be a God" rather than shouldn't.

Things can change again, who knows!
brainout

All_Brains wrote:
I was a believer for 6 years between (11-17) before the age of 11, I had no interest in religion.

Then, I was a skeptic religious researcher for 3 years, between 17 and 20.

Then I left Islam and became Agnostic for 14 years between 20 and 34, during that period I really wanted God to exist and did my best to prove his existence. Unfortunately, all religions failed me and I was convinced that they were all man-made.

Early this year I have declared my Atheism and now belong to the
"There can't be a God" rather than shouldn't.

Things can change again, who knows!


Understood. I take it that when you say "believer" you mean believer in Allah. I need to clarify that because if you meant "believer in Christ" then you are still going to heaven, even if you don't believe now and don't want to go. One moment of belief in Christ saves a person forever. Doesn't matter what religion they profess. Can't turn back time to 2000 years ago when that first moment of belief got pre-funded.

I really can see things through your eyes. Religion is man-made. Genesis 3 is the invention of it, man trying to be as good as God. If no God exists it's man-made, and especially if God exists, it's satan-made and man-embellished. I hate religion with all my heart and soul. I avoid religious people, especially my fellow Christians. The religious vocabulary makes me bilious.

To parallel your story, I believed when I was maybe age 4 or 6, according to my mother. Then a hiatal period, and I was stuck in Latin class with a "fundie" who kept on telling me I was going to hell. During basketball practice, waiting for it, I read L'Etranger and was so demoralized I started seeking God (then 1Cool. About a year later in college I knowingly believed in Christ, then daydreamed in Italian class to find a teacher of Bible. The pastor for me was the one my roommate listened to, and that was the end. I've been under the same guy, ever since then (1971).

But like you say, it can change. God wouldn't want me to be stubborn. Surely what is true is as good as or better than I now know. And if no God, then that will become apparent too. Just keep open. Else, truth means nothing and the 'faith' is all bombast.
Tvebak

Re: "Something More'" vs. "No something more&

brainout wrote:
1. People who come to believe in the supernatural, "God", etc. seem to me to have reached some moment in their lives when they concluded that "there has to be something more" to life than the existence they have.

2. People who come to believe against the supernatural, "God", etc. seem to me to have reached some moment when they concluded either a) there CANNOT be "something more", or b) there SHOULD NOT be "something more".

In both cases, you'll have subdivisions among these groups who came to this "moment" by traumatic means. Good examples of these on the "2." folks which spring to mind are Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge and Camus' L'Etranger (The Stranger).

But it doesn't have to be that way. One can come to the conclusion logically, that there should or should not be "something more", and philosophy is full of Western folks on both sides of that question, through the centuries. Wish we in the West could know more about such folks who are not Western.

So if there is a God, He sure begs the question of His Existence.

There: now everyone can post about where he is on the question and why. Smile


Hi Brainout Smile (like the avatar)

My own opinion about this "something more" starts already with my own brain, body and self. And what is obvious in my opinion is that we have no such thing called a "soul", and therefore not an immortal one either. It's all material. What we could call the "soul" or conciousness is constituted in the many small elements of the brain, and I really don't have the need to explain it with something metaphysical.

So I'm in the number 2 category.

Cheers and peace
Ameen

All_Brains wrote:
I was a believer for 6 years between (11-17) before the age of 11, I had no interest in religion.

Then, I was a skeptic religious researcher for 3 years, between 17 and 20.

Then I left Islam and became Agnostic for 14 years between 20 and 34, during that period I really wanted God to exist and did my best to prove his existence. Unfortunately, all religions failed me and I was convinced that they were all man-made.

Early this year I have declared my Atheism and now belong to the
"There can't be a God" rather than shouldn't.

Things can change again, who knows!


You don't need religion to beleive in God. Just look at the man who you have an image of on your ID.
I think the problem lies in how you define 'proof'. I think we should talk of 'best explanations' not proof. Because such discussions are complex e.g prove to me you exist, okay, you may not be able to do this on emperical grounds, but does that mean that its irrational to beleive that you exist?
All_Brains

Ameen wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
I was a believer for 6 years between (11-17) before the age of 11, I had no interest in religion.

Then, I was a skeptic religious researcher for 3 years, between 17 and 20.

Then I left Islam and became Agnostic for 14 years between 20 and 34, during that period I really wanted God to exist and did my best to prove his existence. Unfortunately, all religions failed me and I was convinced that they were all man-made.

Early this year I have declared my Atheism and now belong to the
"There can't be a God" rather than shouldn't.

Things can change again, who knows!


You don't need religion to beleive in God. Just look at the man who you have an image of on your ID.
I think the problem lies in how you define 'proof'. I think we should talk of 'best explanations' not proof. Because such discussions are complex e.g prove to me you exist, okay, you may not be able to do this on emperical grounds, but does that mean that its irrational to beleive that you exist?


Best explanation will also do. I am afraid religions do not at all logically explain the creation, its reason and the nature of God. I don't believe in that God, described in available religion. There could be one that we have not know yet!
Ameen

All_Brains wrote:
Ameen wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
I was a believer for 6 years between (11-17) before the age of 11, I had no interest in religion.

Then, I was a skeptic religious researcher for 3 years, between 17 and 20.

Then I left Islam and became Agnostic for 14 years between 20 and 34, during that period I really wanted God to exist and did my best to prove his existence. Unfortunately, all religions failed me and I was convinced that they were all man-made.

Early this year I have declared my Atheism and now belong to the
"There can't be a God" rather than shouldn't.

Things can change again, who knows!


You don't need religion to beleive in God. Just look at the man who you have an image of on your ID.
I think the problem lies in how you define 'proof'. I think we should talk of 'best explanations' not proof. Because such discussions are complex e.g prove to me you exist, okay, you may not be able to do this on emperical grounds, but does that mean that its irrational to beleive that you exist?


Best explanation will also do. I am afraid religions do not at all logically explain the creation, its reason and the nature of God. I don't believe in that God, described in available religion. There could be one that we have not know yet!


well lets first make distinctions in what you say here.

are you sayig that religions, and the ideology of Islaam have to detail the mechanism of ho wthe universe came into being.........hmmm.....the prupose of prophethood is to show humans how tolive there lives, such questions do not get answered by religion.

As for the nature of God, his howness or reality cannot, but the concepts can be understood, read about Allah's names and attributes.

So you think god exists, he engineered the universe, and then left it at that?! if a human being doesn;t even do that to the things he designs, like software for a computer, then what about God?

beleiving in God is a good explanantion for why the universe exists, and to an extent, hopw the universe came into being.
All_Brains

Ameen wrote:
are you sayig that religions, and the ideology of Islaam have to detail the mechanism of ho wthe universe came into being.........hmmm.....the prupose of prophethood is to show humans how tolive there lives, such questions do not get answered by religion.


And I am afraid the way shown by Muhammad how to live life is no where near my personal ethics.
Quote:

As for the nature of God, his howness or reality cannot, but the concepts can be understood, read about Allah's names and attributes.


Of course you can, just by analysing Allah conduct, reasons and speech we can learn a great deal about him! Remember we have his literal words!

Quote:
So you think god exists, he engineered the universe, and then left it at that?! if a human being doesn;t even do that to the things he designs, like software for a computer, then what about God?


If you man by God the rules of physics then, yes!
Quote:

beleiving in God is a good explanantion for why the universe exists, and to an extent, hopw the universe came into being.


No it's not a good explanation, it's the easy and lazy explanation! This really explains why the Muslims and Arabs are backward in terms of science and other fields....Insha'allah, put us back centuries behind the world!
Ameen

quote="Ameen"]are you sayig that religions, and the ideology of Islaam have to detail the mechanism of ho wthe universe came into being.........hmmm.....the prupose of prophethood is to show humans how tolive there lives, such questions do not get answered by religion.[/quote]

Quote:
And I am afraid the way shown by Muhammad how to live life is no where near my personal ethics.


Yes, Muhammad ibn Abdullah is far removed away fronm your personal ethics! I'm scared to ask what youmean by the personal ethics you allude to, is the ones that are used in the west and exported abroad?! V.scary!



Quote:

As for the nature of God, his howness or reality cannot, but the concepts can be understood, read about Allah's names and attributes.


Quote:
Of course you can, just by analysing Allah conduct, reasons and speech we can learn a great deal about him! Remember we have his literal words!


ermmmmm.....lol.

yes thats why i said we can learn about his names and attributes, some of them instinctually and some o fthem via text, but we cannot know the modality of such things.


Quote:
So you think god exists, he engineered the universe, and then left it at that?! if a human being doesn;t even do that to the things he designs, like software for a computer, then what about God?


Quote:
If you man by God the rules of physics then, yes!


No, this is partial meaning, if he sets a laws of physics, why can he not set a law for the humans?

sorry, did you mean God is the laws pf physics?


Quote:

beleiving in God is a good explanantion for why the universe exists, and to an extent, hopw the universe came into being.


Quote:
No it's not a good explanation, it's the easy and lazy explanation! This really explains why the Muslims and Arabs are backward in terms of science and other fields....Insha'allah, put us back centuries behind the world!
[/quote]

Sorry, this is a logical fallacy, you equate easy explanantions with lazy explanantions, how so? An explanantion could be easy, but this does not assume that its wrong. If you came back back home after work, and you find a nice hot meal waiting for you, and a note that says' I love you'. you would be forgiven to think it may well of been someone such as your wife ( if yourmarried) ormaybe someone else, but you will definitely conclude that 'someone' did this.

Why would they do this? Who knows...that will be for you to investigate. But would you saysome chemical reaction occured such that the food and love note just came about by itself? No, you would go with the easier explanantion.

As I said before, go read about occams razor, this is a principle that is fundamental to science.

As for the rather silly comment about backwardness amongst Muslims and arabs, then perhaps this is an indication of why i won't enter a debate.......for you have no idea of the contributions Muslims have to science. rather what people of your ilk and character do, is look at theMuslimw orld when it is plundered and bombrded and then wonder...'heyyy....how comes these muslims arent inveting anything?!'...........I hope you can see the shallowness in the point ( bearing inmind, you claim to be a psychologist !)
All_Brains

Ameen wrote:
Yes, Muhammad ibn Abdullah is far removed away fronm your personal ethics! I'm scared to ask what youmean by the personal ethics you allude to, is the ones that are used in the west and exported abroad?! V.scary!


Well, I don't kill, order assassinations, rape, raid, steal, practice polygamy, have sex with children, French kiss little boys who are related to me, curse other people for being different, endorse slavery...Would you like me to go on?

Quote:

ermmmmm.....lol.

yes thats why i said we can learn about his names and attributes, some of them instinctually and some o fthem via text, but we cannot know the modality of such things.


You mean "Asmaa Allah Al-Husna", which were deemed incorrect in a recent Azhar study and have been now changed!? What a joke!


Quote:
No, this is partial meaning, if he sets a laws of physics, why can he not set a law for the humans?

sorry, did you mean God is the laws pf physics?


So far the conclusion I have is that God is the rules of physics "metaphorically" speaking.

Quote:

As for the rather silly comment about backwardness amongst Muslims and arabs, then perhaps this is an indication of why i won't enter a debate.......for you have no idea of the contributions Muslims have to science. rather what people of your ilk and character do, is look at theMuslimw orld when it is plundered and bombrded and then wonder...'heyyy....how comes these muslims arent inveting anything?!'...........I hope you can see the shallowness in the point ( bearing inmind, you claim to be a psychologist !)


Are you joking? Are you in denial of the economical and progressive current status of the "ummah"? It has been at least 800 years since Islam has contributed to humanity.

And this is why would people enter in a debate, to convince each other of their viewpoints. You're saying that you wouldn't enter a debate because we have different opinions? Isn't that usually the case and the reason why you would enter a debate in the first place?

I think you have some undisclosed reasons!

Now second request. Would you like to enter a debate?

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Atheism, Agnosticism, Spiritualism and Faithheadism
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home