Why do you consider Islaam a religion at all?
-
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!
Why no God?
- Thread starter Mikail Hakeem
- Start date
illykitty
RF's pet cat
Why no god? It's pretty easy for me to see how the concept of an omni-god came about.
People didn't understand natural phenomena, so ascribed power to it, just like certain humans have more power. Then it became more sophisticated, they added values and qualities, more abstract ideas to them. Then there was the idea of one god being above all the other gods that is, being the father, more powerful and a sort of king. Or there's also the worship of one specific god over all others. Over time, people inflated that one god as a combination of power, knowledge and presence. Sometimes with claims of greatest love (which doesn't sound that way to me).
Even omni-gods differ. The differences between them reflect people's cultures, social norms and traditions.
It's kind of like two children arguing about their mothers. He claims his mom makes the best cookies, the other child responds his mom makes the best cookies AND best cakes, the first child replies that his mom does all of that and she knows everything, etc. You can easily see how the human mind can make up things and inflate them to ridiculous claims of power and such. That's cult 101.
People didn't understand natural phenomena, so ascribed power to it, just like certain humans have more power. Then it became more sophisticated, they added values and qualities, more abstract ideas to them. Then there was the idea of one god being above all the other gods that is, being the father, more powerful and a sort of king. Or there's also the worship of one specific god over all others. Over time, people inflated that one god as a combination of power, knowledge and presence. Sometimes with claims of greatest love (which doesn't sound that way to me).
Even omni-gods differ. The differences between them reflect people's cultures, social norms and traditions.
It's kind of like two children arguing about their mothers. He claims his mom makes the best cookies, the other child responds his mom makes the best cookies AND best cakes, the first child replies that his mom does all of that and she knows everything, etc. You can easily see how the human mind can make up things and inflate them to ridiculous claims of power and such. That's cult 101.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Until the traffic is bad and then it doesn't show at 12.
The evidence for the existence of the sun is robust. Do you know of anybody having trouble believing that one exists? Good evidence is irresistible.
Most of the world rejects Jesus. Most rejects Allah. Most reject Brahman. There is a reason why these two areas are so different.
This is why "there are several hundred thousand gods accepted by different religious people, but only one periodic table accepted by different scientists" (anonymous Internet poster quoted)
It's not a matter of liking religion or not. Unbelievers have no use for religion.
Incidentally, people like you and people like me disagree about the existence of gods. Either one of us is seeing something that isn't there, or one of us is not seeing something that is.We can decide between these two with a test. This is from a previous post:
Here's a good question: How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?
How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was me that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?
Easily. I test them. I ask somebody to put a red sock in my left hand and a green one in my right hand, socks that look identical to me and are thus indistinguishable. Then I interview a number of people not in communication with one another who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.
When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that the sock in my left hand is red and the other half tell me it's green, or that both are red or green, I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.
Those are the kinds of answers I get from people that tell me that tell me about God, and why I don't believe them. I think that they are telling the truth as they understand it, but they are only experiencing their own minds and projecting some of its content onto external reality.
From the pen of the poet:
Always, no, sometimes think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream. I think, er, no, I mean, er, yes, but it's all wrong. That is I think I disagree
How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was me that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?
Easily. I test them. I ask somebody to put a red sock in my left hand and a green one in my right hand, socks that look identical to me and are thus indistinguishable. Then I interview a number of people not in communication with one another who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.
When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that the sock in my left hand is red and the other half tell me it's green, or that both are red or green, I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.
Those are the kinds of answers I get from people that tell me that tell me about God, and why I don't believe them. I think that they are telling the truth as they understand it, but they are only experiencing their own minds and projecting some of its content onto external reality.
From the pen of the poet:
Always, no, sometimes think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream. I think, er, no, I mean, er, yes, but it's all wrong. That is I think I disagree
My wife gave up raising and releasing monarch butterflies because she found it too tragic that both protozoa (OE, or Ophryocystis elektroscirrha) and tachnid flies parasitized and blighted them in the cocoon.
Agreed. It's like God is watching a movie of a baseball ball game that from God's perspective, has already been played. We understand that the players may not know what the next pitch will be or what the final score will be, but if God did, then they have no choice but to play their parts as already scripted.
I've seen that argument before. It's not an argument for free will. It just moves the determining cause of that will from a god to another cause. An omniscient god need not be omnipotent to say that if He has prior knowledge of outcomes, that there was no free will.
Actually, there are pretty good arguments that free will is an illusion, merely the experience of receiving desires from extra-conscious neural circuits which the conscious self apprehends as the body executes those desires. As long as the self feels like the author of those desires and experiences no resistance to expressing them, the self considers itself to possess free will despite playing a passive role in the process.
That's actually a description of the robot that Christians tell us that their God doesn't want.
Would you object to learning that that was the case if it were?
I wouldn't. It would change my understanding of myself, but not diminish the conscious experience. I'm just as happy being a hitchhiker and voyeur in this body as being its captain as long as the rules don't change and things continue as they have in the past.
beliefs should be testable, questionable. If they don't offer a practical purpose, or service, they are just beliefs without real life applications.
I'm going to quote this because it hasn't gotten the attention it deserves:
Myths like these are so pervasive in Western culture that we're hardly even aware of them. Gods know I was unaware of it until I did some research on a largely unrelated topic in college. That topic was examining the academic study of magic, which led me to read various works in anthropology as the practice of magic is a phenomena of human culture. I was shocked at the words used in some of these early works and the unchecked ethnocentrism. Early writers straight up refer to animistic peoples as "savages" or "primitives." This, in part, to support the story they wanted to tell: the story of human ideologies being some linear progression from "primitive" to "advanced."
It's complete rubbish.
But it's worse than that, and Augustus doesn't dive into this point very much (probably wise, if I'm honest). When we tell stories that view human ideological history as some sort of linear progression from "primitive" to "advanced," it teaches people to look down their noses at the "savages" who still hold to "outdated" ideas. It fosters the creation of needless hostility and prejudice. If only the role such narratives served was limited to psychological comfort and hope. Frankly, if your story of comfort and hope requires put-downs of other peoples and cultures, you need a new story.
Myths like these are so pervasive in Western culture that we're hardly even aware of them. Gods know I was unaware of it until I did some research on a largely unrelated topic in college. That topic was examining the academic study of magic, which led me to read various works in anthropology as the practice of magic is a phenomena of human culture. I was shocked at the words used in some of these early works and the unchecked ethnocentrism. Early writers straight up refer to animistic peoples as "savages" or "primitives." This, in part, to support the story they wanted to tell: the story of human ideologies being some linear progression from "primitive" to "advanced."
It's complete rubbish.
But it's worse than that, and Augustus doesn't dive into this point very much (probably wise, if I'm honest). When we tell stories that view human ideological history as some sort of linear progression from "primitive" to "advanced," it teaches people to look down their noses at the "savages" who still hold to "outdated" ideas. It fosters the creation of needless hostility and prejudice. If only the role such narratives served was limited to psychological comfort and hope. Frankly, if your story of comfort and hope requires put-downs of other peoples and cultures, you need a new story.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
For us, the future doesn't exist yet, but for God it already exists. This is compatible with free will. All decisions in the past were made with free will, but we know what happened.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That proves the point I was trying to make, that life is not written in marble and it can change at any time. We create our own destiny as we make decisions and act on them. God knows what is written on the Tablet of Fate before it is written because God is omniscient.
The fact that God is omniscient and knows what the future will be is not what causes the events to happen.. Free will decisions human make cause things to happen. For example, more people were on the road that day so traffic was bad so the bus was late. The fact that God knew that would happen (since God is omniscient) is not what caused it to happen. God's knowledge surrounds all things, before during and after their existence, but it is not the cause of their existence. It is identical with the reality of things.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The reason Prophets were described differently in different scriptures is because of the receptivity of man at the time of revelation. Mankind evolves spiritually over time so as time goes on mankind can understand more Truth from God. Jews believe that Moses was just a prophet and Muslims believe that Muhammad was just a prophet because that is all they were able to grasp at that time those scriptures were written. Also, that served the purposes for those times to understand Prophets that way, as ordinary men who received communication from God. Jesus is a different matter because Christians made Him into a God and a Son of God with their doctrines, when He really was never more than a Prophet/Messenger. The gospel writers quoted Jesus and referred to Jesus as a Prophet, not as God. This is consistent with what Baha’is believe about Jesus:
Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Matthew 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
Matthew 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
A Prophet is the same thing as a Messenger of God or a Manifestation of God according to Baha’i. They are just different descriptors. All of the Prophets were equal in stature. Baha’is believe that they are more than ordinary men since their souls were pre-existent in the spiritual world before they were born into this world, whereas the souls of all other humans do not come into being until the moment of conception.
Manifestations of God are made from the substance of God Himself. There is no way we can understand what that means their nature is a mystery. Suffice to say they have both a divine station and a human station and that is why they can act as mediators between God and man.
Sure, the deist God does not intervene at all and the God of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha’i) is a personal God who has an interest in and a connection to His Creation. Nobody can ever know what God is doing, although all religions have their beliefs. I believe God is omnipresent so God knows everything that we are thinking at every moment, but that does not mean God interferes with our free will choices.
The way I see it, God can override a free will choice we are trying to make, which simply means that the action we intended will not result and we will have to make another choice upon which we act. So in that sense God is like a gatekeeper of choices and he blocks some and lets others through. Since we can never know what God is doing it is best not to think about it and act according to our own morality, knowing that God is in complete control at all times, so whatever we do we do at God’s behest.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Let me ask, why would you feel god intervenes in your free will if he calls the shots as your creator and god?
What is wrong being a "slave" to god?
What is special about free will?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
My long answer.
I disagree. Each religion is different. Thats beauty in and of itself. Make them one, you loose the beauty. All black. De ja vu.
Thats not freedom of choice. Either you are free to make decisions without it being filtered or you live by god's will making decisions that are not your own but the will of god.
I disagree. Each religion is different. Thats beauty in and of itself. Make them one, you loose the beauty. All black. De ja vu.
Its not free will if god can override it. Free will gives you the choice to do X without needing to worry How god will intervene. The choice is yours and so are the benefits and consequences. Its not a choice when god steps in. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Thats not freedom of choice. Either you are free to make decisions without it being filtered or you live by god's will making decisions that are not your own but the will of god.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Obviously we have evidence for the existence of the sun because that is subject to scientific inquiry because it is part of the material universe that can be studied.
The rather obvious reason why only 33% of the world population is Christian and only 22% of the world population is Muslim and Hinduism is about 15% of the world population is that their beliefs are mutually exclusive. I understand your point though; it cannot be verified which one of these is “the Truth from God” the same way the periodic table can be verified. How then can we know which one if any is true?
Some might not have any use for religion but the reason some have no use is because they have made up their mind that they just do not like religion given their past experiences with religion. Of that data set, some would like to believe in God, they just do not like religion or the idea of Prophets/Messengers of God.
Presently, I do not have any personal involvement in the organized religion but I do have a use for what the Messenger revealed, which is the religion. I fully agree that different religious beliefs and/ or personal spiritual experiences are not proof that God exists.
That is just logic 101 stuff because people all have different religions and people can have any number of spiritual experiences which are only proof to them. Moreover, all these religions and spiritual experiences are different, so how can we know which one of them accurately represents what God is like if God exists. The closest approximation we can ever have of that is from what Messengers of God reveal about God. To me it is logic101 stuff that there is no way to know anything about a God we can never see without an intermediary and there is no other way that God could communicate except through a human we can relate to.A Messenger of God is a human to whom God chooses to communicate because He has special qualifications. Thus He can receive and convey a message and act as an mediator between God and man. The only other way God could communicate to man would be directly, but there are good reasons God does not do so. That discussion would require a new thread as it is so extensive. Suffice to say there is a boatload of reasons and I have them all written up, since I have discussed this at length with many nonbelievers over the last four years.
Oh boy, you have no idea how many times I have been over this with other nonbelievers, one in particular who frequents my forum.
In brief, no, we do not have any choice except to do what God knows we will do because what God knows what we will do is identical with what we will do. God knows what we will do because God is omniscient, but God does not cause it to happen, we do. Thus we play out our own script according to what God already knows we will do. God does not play out the script by causing things to happen; we cause things to happen by virtue of the free will decisions that we make and the actions that follow. God knows how the script will play out before it plays out because God is omniscient.To say that we have no free will is the same as saying that we cannot make any of our own choices, which would means that God (or something else) is making our choices for us. If God is making our choices, that would mean we are puppets on a string, programmed robots. Here is an example of what I am trying to say:
Trailblazer said: The bus arrived at 12 o'clock because the bus driver chose to drive the bus. The exterior force was the bus driver. God did not drive the bus but God knew it would arrive at 12 o'clock because God is omniscient.
Kelly of the Phoenix said: Until the traffic is bad and then it doesn't show at 12.
Trailblazer said: That proves the point I was trying to make, that life is not written in marble and it can change at any time. We create our own destiny as we make decisions and act on them. God knows what is written on the Tablet of Fate before it is written because God is omniscient.
The fact that God is omniscient and knows what the future will be is not what causes the events to happen. Free will decisions human make cause things to happen. For example, more people were on the road that day, so traffic was bad so the bus was late. The fact that God knew that would happen (since God is omniscient) is not what caused it to happen. God's knowledge surrounds all things, before during and after their existence, but it is not the cause of their existence. It is identical with the reality of things.
Trailblazer said: That proves the point I was trying to make, that life is not written in marble and it can change at any time. We create our own destiny as we make decisions and act on them. God knows what is written on the Tablet of Fate before it is written because God is omniscient.
The fact that God is omniscient and knows what the future will be is not what causes the events to happen. Free will decisions human make cause things to happen. For example, more people were on the road that day, so traffic was bad so the bus was late. The fact that God knew that would happen (since God is omniscient) is not what caused it to happen. God's knowledge surrounds all things, before during and after their existence, but it is not the cause of their existence. It is identical with the reality of things.
Also, as I said to Carlita: I believe God is omnipresent so God knows everything that we are thinking at every moment, but that does not mean God interferes with our free will choices.
The way I see it, God can override a free will choice we are trying to make, which simply means that the action we intended will not result and we will have to make another choice upon which we act. So in that sense God is like a gatekeeper of choices and he blocks some and lets others through. Since we can never know what God is doing it is best not to think about it and act according to our own morality, knowing that God is in complete control at all times, so whatever we do we do at God’s behest.
I will also meet you halfway on this one... In the context of the neural pathways that you gave, it is true that we are compelled to do certain things like eat and sleep. Our unconscious mind also influences what we will choose to do on a conscious level. However I will not agree that we are not free to make moral choices. For example, I am free to throw my tenant out on the street or give him more time to pay the eight months rent he owes me. Below is part of a chapter on free will that addresses free will from a Baha’i point of view. If you click on the link to the chapter at the bottom, you can see the Baha’i position on how God is involved in free will decisions that we make:
Question.—Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?
Answer.—This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.
For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.
Some Answered Questions, p. 248
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
To be clear, there is no way for me to ever know if/when God intervenes in my free will decisions, but I do not mind if God intervenes and overrides a choice I am about to make and its resultant consequences, because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, so God knows more than I know about what is best for me. I am like a kid on a tricycle, but I would hope that my dad would stop me from riding out into the street and getting hit by a car.
Being a servant of God is better than being a slave because then whatever I do is a choice and I do it because it is the right thing to do, not because I am forced to do it.
What is special about free will is that it allows me to make my own moral choices and thereby improve my character, which is the only thing that will go with me to the afterlife, and which will be with me throughout all eternity.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
What is special about free will is that it allows me to make my own moral choices and thereby improve my character, which is the only thing that will go with me to the afterlife, and which will be with me throughout all eternity.
Dont want to disrespect your view. This is my point really.
Your own choices? What is different about your choice and god's?
Do You improve your character or does god?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Keep all the religions separate and people will continue to fight over which religion is right and there will never be world peace. Also, if one of them is the one that brings them all together, retains the eternal spiritual verities that are essential and discards outdated social teachings and laws, that is good for all of humanity.
I understand your point, but it is not that black and white because God does not always step in. We can make our own choices and it does not matter if God intervenes since we cannot possibly know when/if God intervenes. I never even think about it. The choices are mine but God has all power so God has the final say as to what actually transpires.
No, it is not completely free. The only way it could be is if there was no omnipotent God and humans were on their own. I lived as if there was no God for years but I prefer to know that God is watching over me.
I believe that God's will is for me is better than my will for myself, since God is All-Knowing and All-Wise adn I am not. Moreover, the more closely aligned my will is with God's will, the more smoothly my life goes. Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
This is assuming because my faith is totally different than a christian, we will go into war. Its not global. Its individual. Do you feel one day you will go to war with a pagan or satanist just because you two dont share each other's views?
Whose choice, yours or god's?
How are they different and why?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
If it exists for god, god knows it. And if god knows it, we can do no differently than what he knows we are going to do. If he knows we're going to get in our car, and be killed by a wreckless driver, it doesn't matter how much caution we "choose" to practice because we're going to die. If you graduate school, it's not something we did ourselves, but rather that future that god knows will happen. Dropping out was literally never an option. If it was. if we truly had any choice, then it is a future god does not know. But because he knows what will happen, we have no will or choice, for even open rebellion would be known.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not know what God's choices are because God is unknowable.
Therefore I cannot possibly know the difference between God's choices for me and my choices for myself. I just try to do what I think God would want me to do, live according to God's Will for me. I can only do that very generally by living according to the teachings of my religion. I cannot know exactly what God wants me to do.
I hopefully improve my character. God does not have a character because God is not a human.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Is that not what has happened throughout history, fighting over religion? I do not necessarily mean there has to be war, just disharmony and bad feelings between people. It seems to me that the people on this forum with different religions or no religion get along pretty well but that is not true on other forums or in real life. Most people with religions that have conflicting beliefs argue about them. Buddhists do not do that so much because they are outside of the Abrahamic loop and they are generally accepting of other people of other religions.
They are my choices because I make them. I cannot know how they are different from what choice God would make for me because I cannot ever know what God would do.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yes. The thing is, you and I are a part of history. If you can make difference work between you and someone else, why judge the rest of the people based on "our" past as a group?
This forum to me just as others. There is a lot of politics involved just as real life Because people online are apart of real life and other forums. No one is excluded.
Most people with religions that have conflicting beliefs argue about them. Buddhists do not do that so much because they are outside of the Abrahamic loop and they are generally accepting of other people of other religions.
Do you argue about them? The only ones I know here that argue are christians because they bring up unnecessary conversations and scripture to prove a point instead of leaning on their own expression of that same scripture. Ive incountered evangelic Buddhist. A lot of politics involved in some Japanese Buddhism as well as, and especially Tibetan.
When you generalize (people.... religions....) you exclude yourself. We have differences. Thats fine. Finding peace With our differences depends on that person not his nor his ancestor's past.