Me Myself
Back to my username
So you would say that you "don´t know" if unicorns exist?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism - I don't understand it
- Thread starter A-ManESL
- Start date
So you would say that you "don´t know" if unicorns exist?
But what I don't understand is on what are you basing your thought if you haven't tried out both the things? You have only tried one(personal-growth seminar), and not the Islamic path. Right?
Initially the answer to this question is not told, but as time goes on it becomes self-evident that the discipline and the softening of heart plays a role for one to become receptive for the truth. You may find more information here.
I guess the situation here is similar to the square's questions to the sphere in the book Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. If you have a few hours to spare I would suggest that you read this small and entertaining book. The square is a resident of the world of two dimensions and all efforts of the sphere (who has descended in his world as a circle) to explain to him the concept of three dimensions are in vain. The sphere shows him the residents of the world of one dimension and of zero dimension too in the hope that when their ignorance is made evident to the square he will accept his own. But to no avail! Finally the sphere raises the circle to the third dimension so that it finally becomes clear to him what he was not understanding. (It's another matter that that on the square's questioning that there must be worlds of four and five dimensions the sphere becomes angry) In the same way, the truth is unclear to us because we are not in the appropriate frame of heart to understand it, (hence such questions too cannot be answered satisfactorily because we are unclear about the general framework of the truth). If we could raise ourselves to higher dimensions (or somehow got raised) and the general framework be understood by us then the answers of questions related to the truth will start making sense to us.
The problem is that this could work for any sort of belief. Wouldn't you be a bit suspect of someone claiming that the reason you don't believe unicorns exist is because you haven't tried to pray to them 5 times a day, or spend massive amounts of time with unicorn believers, or have attempted to suspend your disbelief and act as if unicorns exist? (Fake it until you make it sort of thing.)
The thing is, this sort of stuff actually does work. Hanging out with like-minded individuals make a belief seem more plausible, and going through the motions can result in convincing yourself that they are meaningful. It's a psychological trick, rather than truly offering any evidence as to the truth of the belief.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
I think you have noted the crux of the matter.
The operations of religions do look like a massive con game, with, as you say, elaborate psychological trickery.
I mean that I see things that are effective at changing people's beliefs in other context present in your description. It seems reasonable to me that they would have a similar effect in the case of Islam, too.
Why not? Are the elements I mentioned not actually present in what you described? If not, please tell me which.
If they're present but ineffective in the case of Islam, then please explain how this could be when they're effective in every other case I've encountered.
I don't really care what the intended goal is; I'm more interested in the likely effect, even if it's unintentional.
If we were to apply the same techniques that you described in your "path" of Islam to foster a belief in something that we both agreed was false, the result would be that a fair number of the people who followed that path would end up believing in that false thing... no?
If this is the case... i.e. if this path can convince someone of a belief system without that system being true, then I don't see how you can say it's a reliable path to truth in the case of Islam.
First off, people who are indoctrinated generally don't feel indoctrinated, so you saying that you don't feel indoctrinated doesn't really tell us anything useful. Maybe you are; maybe you aren't. I have no idea.
Second, if you haven't actually acquired this knowledge yourself by this method, what suggests to you that this really is the outcome of this path?
Wait... so both you and others following this path that you say leads to knowledge have ended up having wildly divergent views? How does that work, exactly?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
You left out a key part of the story. In Flatland, as I recall, there was a forbidden place where no flatlanders were allowed to go. At the end of the story (was it the book or the movie?), the flatlanders finally get to see the forbidden place, and there they see the bizarre sight of the projection of 3D objects moving into and out of their 2D world. This was objective evidence of a 3D world beyond Flatland.A-ManESL said:I guess the situation here is similar to the square's questions to the sphere in the book Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. If you have a few hours to spare I would suggest that you read this small and entertaining book. The square is a resident of the world of two dimensions and all efforts of the sphere (who has descended in his world as a circle) to explain to him the concept of three dimensions are in vain. The sphere shows him the residents of the world of one dimension and of zero dimension too in the hope that when their ignorance is made evident to the square he will accept his own. But to no avail! Finally the sphere raises the circle to the third dimension so that it finally becomes clear to him what he was not understanding. (It's another matter that that on the square's questioning that there must be worlds of four and five dimensions the sphere becomes angry
A better analogy to belief in God would be if no such forbidden place existed in Flatland, and many flatlanders had many delusions about the world (some had experiences of ghosts, some saw bigfoot firsthand, some saw the 3D sphere in their dreams, others did not).
What Falvlun said in post #122 was exactly right.
Last edited:
Difference in particulars.
A nice thread, Man. I can talk about my experience.
My father was a staunch atheist of the communist variety. He used to laugh at any claim that even hinted of a realm different from the fleshy-graspable. He used to mock homeopaths saying "Disease is caused by germs. What will sweet pills do?" He used to deride the Hindus "If your world is an illusion then do not eat" or "Stay put when a tiger attacks you".
So, despite my mother's theistic outlook, I was a strong atheist -- without much contemplation.
I have also seen the reverse in my friend's house where the father was a bit fundamentalist. Children in those households rebelled at the obvious contradictions of parochialism-sectarianisn and also at obvious comical characterisation of God.
At the age of thirty, I developed all kinds of ailments -- I had asthma, proctitis, gout, and severe skin allergy. I tried all sorts of conventional medicine but the problems got compounded. Then clutching at straw, I tried homeopathy and my proctitis of 3 years (for which I had to use steroid everyday) vanished. My Gout came under control from 4 yearly attcks to 1 episode 2 or 3 years.
So, I had to give up the acquired dis-belief of non-tangible medicine. Then I further learned even more efficaceous yoga and meditation techniques.
When my father died on my arms, I saw his breath stop and his face become blissful. Two thoughts arose: Who or what was saying "I" in my so-called father's body. And why my father would not cry out or move a finger even if I fed him all energy drinks.
Then slowly and rapidly, through next 10 years , I learned that Brahman's nature was existence, intelligence, bliss and that the Self and Brahman were the same. I learned that Allah was the Seer, Knower. Then I started thinking whether i really knew the power of cognition that propels the "I" for me?
I also learned that yoga means joining the wandering mind with its source, with the power of cognition itself -- and that is cool. It mitigates all agitations of the mind. I think I have found my God.
Last edited:
A-ManESL
Well-Known Member
First thing that comes to my mind is charity. But, to be honest, I have never experienced the "elements described" so I can't make a fair comparison. I think the way to make an appropriate comparison would be by not just listening to a description but perhaps attending that seminar.
No, for I don't think that following the Islamic path can foster or force any belief. At some level I would even say that my belief is more or less the same for the last 20 years.
That is the basis of one's religiousness. One gets an a-priory feeling of the existence of a Reality beyond the material world in the heart, and after studying the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) the feeling that this person had truly got the knowledge of that Reality. Once that is settled, then it seems logical that one should follow the way of the Prophet.
I would like to clarify something here. Often when the Quran (or much of Islamic literature) talk of faith, it is actually referring to "knowingness of God", and much is lost in translation. So the goal of these techniques, and what concerns me is actually whether knowledge (of God) is achieved or not. Hence the whole thing in a nutshell is this: Such and such a way claims to lead to knowledge. You claim that it is not so, and it leads to indoctrination (based on what you feel was a similar experience). The reasonable way to make certain of this is to try this way for some time, which you are unwilling to do, (perhaps of because of fear of being indoctrinated or, as is more likely, due to a feeling of certainty that it is indoctrination and you don't need to try, or for some other reason). I think the matter can rest at this point.
I don't think you understand. That is not true knowledge (and I am far from it) but ways of perspective of the outward aspects. Every person gets his own perspective about the outward or exoteric nature of religion (I would go further to say that in reality there are as many (outward) religions as human beings). My point was if any indoctrination was going on, it is surely reasonable that every person would develop a similar view.
Last edited:
A-ManESL
Well-Known Member
lol...so you are answering a question by asking one of your own? I'll answer, and perhaps you will be kind enough to answer mine in your turn.
I don't know if unicorns exist in some parallel universe altogether, but I am almost certain they don't exist on earth. This is not based on deductive logic but on the general feeling that had they existed they would have been discovered by now. (Although you must understand that your analogies are particularly foreign to me, because I live in a different culture; I had to search on google for unicorn to make sure it was the thing with the one horn.)
idea
Question Everything
I think there are thousands, perhaps even millions, of species that have lived here that we do not currently have cataloged. Where did the idea for the unicorn come from? it had to have been inspired by something at some point...
Google "proof unicorns are real" there's tons of stuff on the net that support the existence of unicorns.
Alceste
Vagabond
Thank you, Donald Rumsfeld.
"We know there are known knowns: there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns: that is to say we know there are things we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns the ones we don't know we don't know." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Department briefing, Fe. 12, 2002
This doesn't seem logical to me at all.
You describe someone getting a gut feeling about something, and then over time, getting more and more sure about that gut feeling.
If it's actual knowledge, we can try to verify it. For instance, does this "a priori feeling" give the feeler any insight into the real state of things? If so, it's made a prediction, so we can try to test it. If it doesn't make any testable claims, I think it's premature to call it "knowledge", because you don't really know whether or not it's true.
After all, if a feeling of certainty was evidence in and of itself, then I could reject your claims as false right now, because it certainly feels to me that there's nothing to them.
What's your point in posting this graph?
Sure, there are things that humanity doesn't know, and that we don't know we don't know... however, by definition, anything that's beyond human knowledge is something that YOU can't talk about with any actual knowledge. IOW, if you're making claims about things humanity doesn't know, then we can safely conclude that you're talking out of your butt.
Yes: a conflation of folklore, distorted tales of rhinoceroses, and "physical evidence" (i.e. narwhal horns).
That's fine - he was right.
But he'd be completely off-base if he finished that off with "... but you know that one unknown we don't know we don't know? It's purple."
That's what frustrates me when people pull out these "there's lots of stuff we don't know, so God can be there"-type "God of the gaps" arguments. It ends all conversation, because any god that exists but is in the "unknown unknowns" category has not been the focus of any religion ever.
Edit: the existence of such a god can't be disproven, but claims about what this god has done in the past, which church he wants people to go to, or what he thinks about human dietary or sexual practices can be immediately dismissed as completely made up.
How can anyone claim to put a number on unknown unknowns, when the number of unknown unknowns must necessarily be unknown?
We can't even know there are any.
idea
Question Everything
My belief in God comes from personal spiritual experiences that I have had. Personal experience is how I gain knowledge on anything...
If someone told you they saw a real unicorn, but darn, they did not have the cammera... and then a million or so other people said yes, they saw unicorns too... how many would it take before you would believe them? or if someone told you that you could see a unicorn too if you wanted, but to see it you would have to risk your life climbing over some remote mountain in some terrorist country... perhaps the hardships associated with finding the unicorn give the "sour grapes" reaction to many... you know, the Aesop's fable about the wolf who can't jump high enough to reach the grapes, and then says, "they must be sour"...
anyone can reach the grapes of coarse... but it does cost you.
idea
Question Everything
A-ManESL
Well-Known Member
I think you have misunderstood. I am not saying the feeling itself is logical, nor am I saying that over time I have got more sure about this gut feeling(rather on the contrary it is the more or less the same for 20 years). Nor am I saying that this feeling is evidence of any sort. I am just answering your question as to why I chose to follow this Islamic path. The path claims that the evidence (which is not that gut feeling) is out there and you have to follow the path to get it. I feel that the claimant was saying a true thing. Once that is taken as an axiom (or in the words I used "settled") it is logical to follow the path.
Last edited:
idea
Question Everything
Mormons call it a "gut feeling" too... although I have experienced more than just a gut feeling...
The Spirit's voice is described as as a whisper...
(Old Testament | 1 Kings 19:11 - 12)
11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
those who seek it learn to meditate / calm their emotions / quiet their mind / really listen... it is there, beneath it all. Many have turned to and found the same voice.
The Spirit's voice is described as as a whisper...
(Old Testament | 1 Kings 19:11 - 12)
11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
those who seek it learn to meditate / calm their emotions / quiet their mind / really listen... it is there, beneath it all. Many have turned to and found the same voice.
Last edited:
Enough that "unicorns exist" becomes more plausible than "unicorns don't exist".
But a million people saying "yeah... I saw a unicorn, but darn it, I didn't have a camera!" would be rather suspicious. A million times and never a photograph? How would this be possible?
If the unicorn is such a sure thing, then of course they'd be able to provide evidence for their claim that there's one at the end of the journey.
I find it hard to believe that you'd accept every claim that you come across. Surely you have some way of separating the ones worth considering from the ones that aren't, don't you?