KanwuliaExtra:

I have answered all these questions and my answers are not acceptable by you.

You do not owe me any answers, so I am in no position to adjudge your answers as acceptable or otherwise. I'm just really curious about your posture, that's all. Having said that, I don't think you have fully answered my questions, and if you have, then your answers have only left me more confused, which is why I ask more questions.

I already explained that I believe in possibilities ACCEPTABLE BY ME.

As is your entitlement.

If you can describe the nature of any “God” as “nebulous”, is that not a form of characterization?

I don't think so. Something "nebulous", by definition, lack characteristics. How do you 'characterise' something without 'characteristics'?

How can I define something that is unknown to me?
You exist I presume, but DO I KNOW YOU?

This wasn't really my question. Put in different words, my question was: why are you a theist, when you admit that your god is unknown and undefined? That is, how do you believe in something you don't know exists?
Going back to your example, however, it is conceded that you cannot fully define me, but you can infer some of my characteristics from our interactions. For example, you know that I am probably human because I have thus far, sustained a coherent conversation with you, you know that I am probably an agnostic atheist from an earlier comment of mine, you also know that I am excessively curious because I keep pestering you with silly questions. So you can, in fact, partially define me. Is there any single thing that makes you believe that this god of yours exists for you to believe in it?

I am not in the “converting” business.
No need for “cyclical” arguments.
You are entitled to your opinions, and cannot ? them.

Yes, this is true for us both!

In summary:
Everyone chooses what to believe.
Life is all about choice.
Have a great day.

I wholeheartedly agree, and if there's been any misapprehensions about my intent, then I should state clearly that I do not intend to impose any sort of belief on you. I'm just a terribly curious person; but, as I mentioned earlier, you don't owe me any answers. I should also mention that there is always a non-trivial probability that someone will pick interest in the things you post on public fora, so I hope my curiosity doesn't irritate you.

AgentOfAllah:

You do not owe me any answers, so I am in no position to adjudge your answers as acceptable or otherwise. I'm just really curious about your posture, that's all. Having said that, I don't think you have fully answered my questions, and if you have, then your answers have only left me more confused, which is why I ask more questions.


As is your entitlement.


I don't think so. Something "nebulous", by definition, lack characteristics. How do you 'characterise' something without 'characteristics'?


This wasn't really my question. Put in different words, my question was: why are you a theist, when you admit that your god is unknown and undefined? That is, how do you believe in something you don't know exists?
Going back to your example, however, it is conceded that you cannot fully define me, but you can infer some of my characteristics from our interactions. For example, you know that I am probably human because I have thus far, sustained a coherent conversation with you, you know that I am probably an agnostic atheist from an earlier comment of mine, you also know that I am excessively curious because I keep pestering you with silly questions. So you can, in fact, partially define me. Is there any single thing that makes you believe that this god of yours exists for you to believe in it?


Yes, this is true for us both!


I wholeheartedly agree, and if there's been any misapprehensions about my intent, then I should state clearly that I do not intend to impose any sort of belief on you. I'm just a terribly curious person; but, as I mentioned earlier, you don't owe me any answers. I should also mention that there is always a non-trivial probability that someone will pick interest in the things you post on public fora, so I hope my curiosity doesn't irritate you.

I repeat.

KanwuliaExtra:
All religions NEVER appealed to me because of the levels of contradictions in the teachings and blatant hypocrisy of the followers.

I am happily Agnostic.
I have had peace believing what I believe to form a unique philosophical mind.

I simply take ONLY THE GOOD in all teachings or RELIGIONS and live my life.

No preaching or conversions necessary.

The only GOD I know is the one in my heart.
The one I can question without fear.
The one I don’t have to love or respect BY FORCE!

The GOD in my heart I try to understand, because IT is just as complex as I am.


If you have a mind that is filled with curiosity and refreshing perspectives, please represent yourselves.

BEFORE YOU POST IGNORANTLY, GOOGLE THE TERM AGNOSTICISM.
All other believers please respect yourselves!

E.O.D.

I have never been more confused by a thread before.

I don't understand why 'ism' is added to atheist and agnostic, as if they are a group activity or a following of some kind.

How can you Not know if there is a God but also deny a God. Agnostic/atheist

Or not know if there is a God but believe in it anyway agnostic/theist

This is too much for my pretty lil head

Dimples129:
I have never been more confused by a thread before.

I have! But this ranks up there among the more confusing ones I've seen.

I don't understand why 'ism' is added to atheist and agnostic, as if they are a group activity or a following of some kind.

You're right, it shouldn't be 'ism'-ized'! But I guess the question isn't so much about whether these are group activities as it is about whether they are ideologies. On the one hand, 'ism' is a suffix that nominalises ideological positions, and on the other hand, a person who supposedly has no ideological stance regarding the existence of god is called an 'atheist', not necessarily as a commentary on their lack of ideological stance, but as a counterproposition to the litany of other ideological positions out there (e.g. Christian, Muslim, religionist, deist, Buddhist e.t.c.); and thus, itself, an ideological position. One then readily sees that this kind of characterisation automatically demands that it be suffixed with an 'ism' when being described. In my opinion, it helps to see the word 'atheist' in light of its definition as "a non believer in a god". Now, since by definition, it is not affirming anything, it doesn't make any more sense to 'ism'-ize it than it does to name the state of not caring for iPhones 'aniPhonism'. Unfortunately, to communicate effectively, I find that I have to replace my quixotic take on things, logical as they may seem, with the freewheeling whims of colloquialism, so here we are!

How can you Not know if there is a God but also deny a God. Agnostic/atheist

Or not know if there is a God but believe in it anyway agnostic/theist

I cannot speak for the agnostic theist, as I find it an unnatural position, but as an agnostic atheist, I can say I am atheist precisely because of my agnosticism. As stated earlier, an atheist is a non-believer in god, that is, someone who lacks belief, not one who denies god's existence. If I were to expand the term: 'agnostic atheist', it would be something like: "I don't know if a god exists because I have yet to find any evidence that suggests its existence {agnostic}, as such, I have no reason to believe in a god {atheist}".

This is too much for my pretty lil head

You aren't giving your head all the credit that it deserves!

AgentOfAllah:
I have! But this ranks up there among the more confusing ones I've seen.


You're right, it shouldn't be 'ism'-ized'! But I guess the question isn't so much about whether these are group activities as it is about whether they are ideologies. On the one hand, 'ism' is a suffix that nominalises ideological positions, and on the other hand, a person who supposedly has no ideological stance regarding the existence of god is called an 'atheist', not necessarily as a commentary on their lack of ideological stance, but as a counterproposition to the litany of other ideological positions out there (e.g. Christian, Muslim, religionist, deist, Buddhist e.t.c.); and thus, itself, an ideological position. One then readily sees that this kind of characterisation automatically demands that it be suffixed with an 'ism' when being described. In my opinion, it helps to see the word 'atheist' in light of its definition as "a non believer in a god". Now, since by definition, it is not affirming anything, it doesn't make any more sense to 'ism'-ize it than it does to name the state of not caring for iPhones 'aniPhonism'. Unfortunately, to communicate effectively, I find that I have to replace my quixotic take on things, logical as they may seem, with the freewheeling whims of colloquialism, so here we are!


I cannot speak for the agnostic theist, as I find it an unnatural position, but as an agnostic atheist, I can say I am atheist precisely because of my agnosticism. As stated earlier, an atheist is a non-believer in god, that is, someone who lacks belief, not one who denies god's existence. If I were to expand the term: 'agnostic atheist', it would be something like: "I don't know if a god exists because I have yet to find any evidence that suggests its existence {agnostic}, as such, I have no reason to believe in a god {atheist}".


You aren't giving your head all the credit that it deserves!

Wow! My brother, firstly, thank you for taking the time out to explain this to me ever so clearly, may I add

Now... the irony isn't lost on me: Moniker +atheist agnostic

My understanding: You went through The Journey from Islam? Agnostic and finally Atheist.

Op on the other hand went from religion to agnostic and back to theist... (opposite of an atheist but still not 100% sure. In fact I could relate with her because it sounds like she'sfound her higher being, her personal God, Herself)

You on this hand are an atheist, you seem to dance around it

This is only my humble opinion, of course

Dimples129:


Wow! My brother, firstly, thank you for taking the time out to explain this to me ever so clearly, may I add

Now... the irony isn't lost on me: Moniker +atheist agnostic

My understanding: You went through The Journey from Islam? Agnostic and finally Atheist.

Op on the other hand went from religion to agnostic and back to theist... (opposite of an atheist but still not 100% sure. In fact I could relate with her because it sounds like she'sfound her higher being, her personal God, Herself)

You on this hand are an atheist, you seem to dance around it

This is only my humble opinion, of course

You're welcome! To be sure, I am a bona fide atheist, and unapologetic about it...there's no dancing around. I just wanted to clarify that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. The former has to do with state of one's knowledge (or lack thereof), and the other, state of one's believe (or lack thereof).

AgentOfAllah:

You're welcome! To be sure, I am a bona fide atheist, and unapologetic about it...there's no dancing around. I just wanted to clarify that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. The former has to do with state of one's knowledge (or lack thereof), and the other, state of one's believe (or lack thereof).

I'm really interested in your story... what faith did you grow up in? Would you share your thought process and experience in regards to religion and what led to you being an atheist. Only if you don't mind otherwise, it's ok

Dimples129:


I'm really interested in your story... what faith did you grow up in? Would you share your thought process and experience in regards to religion and what led to you being an atheist. Only if you don't mind otherwise, it's ok

Sorry for late reply. I'm super preoccupied with work!

I was raised a Muslim. I cannot pinpoint any one thing in particular that led me to being an atheist. I just recall that I had many suppressed doubts which festered slowly, until I could no longer deny the obvious inconsistencies in religion. And then it hit me that religion was a monumental leap of faith which never attempted to answer the very question at the root of its existence: 'Who/what is god?'. Suddenly, it became too clear that there was no foundation supporting the imposing structure of religion; and then I saw the sand castle for what it really is!

AgentOfAllah:

Sorry for late reply. I'm super preoccupied with work!

I was raised a Muslim. I cannot pinpoint any one thing in particular that led me to being an atheist. I just recall that I had many suppressed doubts which festered slowly, until I could no longer deny the obvious inconsistencies in religion. And then it hit me that religion was a monumental leap of faith which never attempted to answer the very question at the root of its existence: 'Who/what is god?'. Suddenly, it became too clear that there was no foundation supporting the imposing structure of religion; and then I saw the sand castle for what it really is!

It's not a problem at all.

I get the rejection of religion, I am with you there but what about Allah?... Or do you think religion 'invented' the idea of a God.

I don't believe in religion and it's definitions of God but I believe that a God exists. A higher being, a consious being.

Thank you for taking the time out to reply me

#NoRush take your time

Dimples129:

I get the rejection of religion, I am with you there but what about Allah?... Or do you think religion 'invented' the idea of a God.

Ignorance invented the idea of god. Then, in collusion with arrogance, it also invented religion. Man perceives himself the most creative force of nature; but the pervasive presence of natural entities far greater than anything man could ever create shatters this perception. Rather than concede that there might exist natural creative forces greater than himself, man, in his ignorance, reconciles this incongruence by inventing a supernatural entity greater than himself. This entity, he calls god. The fact that the only extant characteristic which connects every single conjecture about god is that god is vastly more powerful than man, buttresses this deduction. Otherwise, no two definition of god is the same.

I don't believe in religion and it's definitions of God but I believe that a God exists. A higher being, a consious being.

Why do you believe that?

AgentOfAllah:

Ignorance invented the idea of god. Then, in collusion with arrogance, it also invented religion. Man perceives himself the most creative force of nature; but the pervasive presence of natural entities far greater than anything man could ever create shatters this perception. Rather than concede that there might exist natural creative forces greater than himself, man, in his ignorance, reconciles this incongruence by inventing a supernatural entity greater than himself. This entity, he calls god. The fact that the only extant characteristic which connects every single conjecture about god is that god is vastly more powerful than man, buttresses this deduction. Otherwise, no two definition of god is the same.


Why do you believe that

What's the alternative

I was an atheist for a few years and I have to admit that I fell ill because my soul wouldn't align with the idea that All of this is meaningless. That I am limited by my body, mind, and emotions. That didn't sit well with me, and somehow I knew better. I couldn't stay in that 'box' so the journey continued and through experience it became clear that Allah is the truth.

Muslims lied to me by preaching that Allah is outside of me and that Love (Allah) is conditional on me being a certain way. I went step further and realised I and everything in my world are connected to Allah like the waves are connected to the ocean. Then came the final understanding (this is where I am right now) that infact if I silence my mind, I could experience being one with Allah.

So my journey was a 360 turn with benefits. Benefits being; I'm not a Muslim but I believe in Allah.

I absolutely agree with you that no 2 definitions of God are the same. I think that's because God is US and everything 'living' is God, therefore, God can't be 'described' from one perspective. Because God is an energy or a force and God is in partial. Good and bad have no real meaning... We need to break away from religions image of God. And go on our own search even if we find nothing at the end of it all.

Also, If you can only understand 'God' through the lens of religions then you will be stuck with that vision and idea of God.

Dimples129:


What's the alternative

The alternative is to not believe until tangible evidence, not presumptions, surface.

I was an atheist for a few years and I have to admit that I fell ill because my soul wouldn't align with the idea that All of this is meaningless. That I am limited by my body, mind, and emotions. That didn't sit well with me, and somehow I knew better. I couldn't stay in that 'box' so the journey continued and through experience it became clear that Allah is the truth.

I'm sorry to hear that you fell ill while you were an atheist. However, I do not accept that atheism suggests 'meaninglessness' in any way. I just find it more honest to admit that I don't know the meaning of all this, if at all one exists. I'm equally as comfortable for meaning not to exist as I am for it to, so I'm eager, but not desperate to find one. I'm ignorant and very much at peace with my ignorance.

Muslims lied to me by preaching that Allah is outside of me and that Love (Allah) is conditional on me being a certain way. I went step further and realised I and everything in my world are connected to Allah like the waves are connected to the ocean. Then came the final understanding (this is where I am right now) that infact if I silence my mind, I could experience being one with Allah.

What you've written up there is a mystical reinterpretation of modern physics. I happen to know that, in fact, every single thing in the universe is connected exactly as the ripples of waves on an ocean are. Not believing in god does not diminish the beautiful mystery that is this universe, which is why I study Physics! So it is not very clear to me why I need god to appreciate its awesomeness. And if to you, Allah is just another synonym for Love, then so be it. However, I find no use for a synonym, myself.

So my journey was a 360 turn with benefits. Benefits being; I'm not a Muslim but I believe in Allah.

Good for you, in so far as you're happy.

I absolutely agree with you that no 2 definitions of God are the same. I think that's because God is US and everything 'living' is God, therefore, God can't be 'described' from one perspective. Because God is an energy or a force and God is in partial. Good and bad have no real meaning... We need to break away from religions image of God. And go on our own search even if we find nothing at the end of it all.

God is bacteria, mosquito, maggot, rat? Well, if as you say, god cannot be defined in a way that is collectively discernable, I'm sorry to say, but the concept of god is entirely meaningless. I already know everything, living and nonliving, is a unique expression of a universal energy. I find no need to invoke a special entity to appreciate that.

Also, If you can only understand 'God' through the lens of religions then you will be stuck with that vision and idea of God.

The problem isn't through what lens I understand god, the problem is I don't understand god at all!