amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
This isn't meant to be a very comprehensive poll, but maybe this is a valid bifurcation.. curious how this might be answered.. and perhaps there is a debate in this, not sure
Last edited:
-
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!
a poll to atheists on the nature of their disbelief: textual consistency vs. plain disbelief
- Thread starter amorphous_constellation
- Start date
Texts don’t matter that much in my religious upbringing. Unless one wanted to become a pundit (priest) I suppose
Yazata
Active Member
I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. (I typically consider atheists a little dim.) But I sense that the question applies to me too.
Well, I wasn't raised in a conventionally religious home. So there was never any single religious text that I grew up believing held the secrets of the universe. Not the Bible, not the Quran, not the Gita. I was very aware that all of these texts were historical products of particular cultures that captured the religious intuitions of authors in very different circumstances. So not only did I expect the books to contain internal contradictions, I fully expected them to contradict each other at important points. (That doesn't mean that I consider religious texts to be worthless. Far from it.)
My path to agnosticism didn't have anything to do with the texts and was far more philosophical, more along the lines of Thomas Huxley's reason for originally coining the word. I simply didn't believe that any human being possessed the secret of the universe. I doubted very strongly that anyone ever would.
I felt that way as a small child and throughout my life I haven't encountered any convincing reason to change that view.
In our contemporary world, it isn't so much religion but rather science (especially physics) that purports to reveal all of the secrets. I remain a bit of a skeptic. It seems to me that as many questions are being begged as being answered.
Last edited:
Forget the texts. When you are introduced to the concept of God, god or gods (okay, let's toss in goddesses, too), you are generally instructed in what those terms actually mean. Usually, you'll also be told what those terms IMPLY, but if you're smart, you'll take that journey of discovery yourself. And then (at least in my case) decide you're an atheist.
I'm an atheist, and I typically consider agnostics indecisive, or possibly craven.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Both in my case, but first and foremost the texts or whatever remains there are in any shape or form, as this is where we learn about the Gods in the first place. Without these it would be very unlikely to even know they existed at all. From this follows the inconsistencies and contradictions found in these texts along with any unverifiable claims they make. And finally the whole concept of a personal or caring God, as there seem to be a great deal of lacking evidences for such being.
I don't really think one can split these up.
Sorry, I wasn't sure how to vote, but I'll give you the quick snapshot here, maybe it is informative.
My original shift from my Christian (Church of England) upbringing to agnosticism was due to inconsistencies not only in texts, but in how they were interpreted, and how their messages were actually practiced.
However, I would never claim to have enough knowledge of scriptures from varying religions to say the same more broadly. So for the most part my atheism doesn't hinge on what texts say. I could envisage a text which is consistent, and has what I think is very positive and effective messages and lessons, and yet still I'd perceive it simply as a book containing wisdom. Not a sign of God.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
From my days with and without religion and spirituality (or so have you), I never considered the bible and any religious text worthy of basing my life and worldview on. I guess that's the crux of why I don't believe in beliefs that focus on religious text.
The nature of my disbelief is lack of belief in god, disagreement with human sacrifice, and not seeing the bible as a map to my life and interpretation of it.
The inconsistency of the texts is evidence that people aren't talking about a real phenomenon, but the reason I am an atheist goes beyond the texts to the complete lack of convincing arguments there is any deity and my belief in the philosophical position of physicalism.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There's a big difference in producing texts and producing results.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I consider agnostics honest, as they never experienced, from first hand, God to exist or not. And they are humble enough to accept this. They are not cowards who pretend they know (whether God exists or not).
Or perhaps a little more honest? Craven hardly enters into my consciousness when thinking about such things but doubts do all the time - but then I am not a scientist. But I am mostly an atheist at heart, so I don't consider them dim either.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I voted second but then changed my view and did not vote. If I disbelieve existence of God, it is because of what I have read in scientific texts about creation or evolution or the arguments provided in Hindu scriptures. Therefore I must agree that my disbelief is because of the text.
So, texts make me disbelieve, theistic scriptures by being inconsistent and atheistic texts (scientific and others) being consistent.
So, texts make me disbelieve, theistic scriptures by being inconsistent and atheistic texts (scientific and others) being consistent.
I'm an agnostic atheist, and am struggling to identify why you two are swinging your cods about.
Okay, then. Is it humble, and not cowardly, to pretend to know whether Superman actually exists, outside of comics and movies? I mean, you may never have experienced him personally yourself, but really, how would you know?
So are you agnostic about super powers like ability to fly, x-ray vision, and the like?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
There are Supermen. I have experienced. But as per definition, God is a bit more than Superman. Maybe a combination of Superman + Superwoman
Coincidentally you just happen to mention 2 things that I have seen and experienced first hand, so, I'm not agnostic about these 2, these 2 I know to be true as a fact.
I have met someone who is able to appear in different locations in a flash, without the red cape, just natural, so I'm not agnositic about that. This I know to be a fact.
But God, as others describe it, I don't know all about that, but as I have experienced things so incredible, I will never deny things to be impossible, just because I'm unable to perform it my self. Agnostic is the right view for me.
I don't suppose you'd care to provide any evidence, or some way for the rest of us to examine that last claim, would you?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
.
Sure I would (and try to write it down how I experienced it myself. I don't understand it though).
In 1990 I met Sai Baba, and witnessed some amazing miracles. I am blessed with quite a few "challenges" in physical health, such as Crohn's disease, spastic bowels, kidney trouble to mention a few.
These can act up very painful. I can't take Big Pharma pain medication, as they are killing my kidneys. As Sai Baba claims to be able to take your karma (pain) away (like giving you His 'morfine') until you can take care of it yourself (cure the diseases by diet, yoga, meditation etc; which doctors say is impossible in my case, and Sai Baba confirmed that my troubles are almost impossible to heal myself or by normal doctors). If you surrender to Him, He promises to take care of you, so I decided to do 'just' that and prayed "please Sai Baba will you be my doctor?".
Since that day my pain gradually subsided. Sometimes I don't follow His given diet advice (not easy such restricted food choice), as I was used to eat everything in large amounts and I'm also an emotional eater; this is getting a bit better now, but took ages to overcome. And sometimes He let me experience He 'just' gives His 'morfine' and He did not cure those diseases.
I remember twice having such horrible pain attacks and cried out for Sai Baba to rescue me.
Once it were kidney stones, and He came to me in Holland, and hit me quite hard on my back (whole body moved). After that the pain was gone and when I went to the toilet and collected the urine, there were all very small stones/gravel in it, so He took care of my problem.
On another occasion I had tremendous pain attack in my right side of the body. Sai Baba came also to my rescue and asked "what is your ptoblem?", I replied "I think it's my liver (as the pain was on the right side). But Sai Baba said "No! It's your intestines". Then He massaged the right side of my body and afterwards the pain was gone.
For 10 years I suffered root canal pain". Sai Baba did not take that pain away. After ca. 8 years I could no longer bear the pain anymore, and then He appeared in my dream and said "it is okay for you to go to the dentist". I went and the dentist had to take out 5 teeth and do lots of repair
. What a relief. Since that day I go straight to the dentist when I have pain (maybe wait a day of 2, hoping some magic happens, but of normally it does not, as I asked Sai Baba to be my doctor, I suddenly remember. I did not extend it to being my dentist as well. And I am so grateful that He is my doctor, because that pain is much more severe than the worst root canal pain days I ever had (though it sometimes did come close in these 8 years). And I don't even ask now for Him to be my dentist as well, esp. after He told me "it's okay to go to the dentist".Those are a few of my personal experiences. I can't give "real proof" (He never wrote something on paper as normal doctors do). And never took an x-ray or something like that, He 'just' cured me. For me, to have it experienced myself, it's enough proof.
I know for a fact that it is true, and I don't expect others to believe it. I am glad I had all these "challenges" in life, otherwise I would never have gotten such perfect proof in life, that there is indeed such an incarnation available who is omniscient, omnipresent and quite a bit (omni) potent. At least to me this pain was crucial to be cured and taking this pain seems quite 'potent' to me (though not omnipotent).
I consider my self lucky and fortunate that He helps me so much. And provided so much proof. Because I don't find it easy to believe something, unless I have seen it (or experienced it) myself. At least I am convinced that Sai Baba is like a God man to me. About God, like Abrahamic religion, creating the universe, I don't know. I still have no first hand experience. I did beg Sai Baba to show me though. Once He came in my dream, and explained quite a bit. But very mischievously He took the knowledge He gave me in the dream away, and poof it was gone when I woke up (no time to scribble it down quickly
).
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Seems like so far, 100% of disbelievers aren't concerned with mere claims written on paper, nore is our disbelief a result of that.
I voted before seeing the results, so this is quite interesting to me.
Indeed, mere text matters little.
Off course, the fact that the text is an obvious collection of false (in the literal sense at least) myths and legends, doesn't really help in its credibility.
Nonetheless, scriptures are mere words on paper. They are claims. And claims require evidence.
It's the complete lack of verifiable evidence, that fuels my disbelief.