Agnosticism and Origins

but I'll try a short answer.If GOD spoke to to the Hebrews and made a compact with them, it did not preclude GOD sending Jesus to reach others.What is to prevent GOD from also speaking to still more through Mohammed? He did it twice before, what is there to say it could not happen a third time? Or fourth? Or fifth?Is GOD incapable of saying things in ways designed to reach the listener?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for your reply. Hmm... well I just don't know. I'm sorry it had to happen that way.

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps, but what about all the peoples who believed in god's that demanded child and virgin sacrifices? Those god's don't seem worth worshiping to me... ...well, I'd say I think hell is more like the final end of existence in the destruction of the universe by fire... So it's basically the same as what you believe will happen to you now except you will actually "meet your maker" before this happens. I realize you have reasons usually based on God's character not jiving with reality, but I tend to think these reasons are based on false premises and lack of understanding. I guess the biggest thing, which is being discussed in the psychology topic, is the lack of purpose and meaning without God. And, if God were to exist, I don't see how it would be healthy at all.

Thank you for your reply. The reason is that after God's creation the Bible is the second greatest evidence of God and his plan. For those who need evidence to believe, this removes a huge bit of evidence.Sorry for such a short response. I've got to go.

I'm sorry if I've dragged it off topic. Like I said, I was getting a bit tired and I tend to get a bit distracted and ramble even more than normal when I feel drowsy.I'm not too sure it is that off topic though, because 'dawg was asking for agnostics to try and explain their position, and the 'How do we know?' question is a very large part of my attitude towards religion. However, just in case it does drag the topic into areas it shouldn't go I will try and keep my answers brief too. I suppose my question in answer to this would be:How do we know that it happened at all? There's no real reason why it couldn't have just been human beings using a tried and tested formula (ie the existance of omnipotent beings/being) to influence other people.

That's a good question and IMHO, the basis for all agnostic beliefs. It's always possible to question whether GOD ever spoke to people. But religious people take the position that in at least their case, it really is GOD speaking.Some religions can say GOD did speak to humans, but he did it only once and that was to us. I say most religions because some religions simply cannot do so with any logical base.Christianity and Islam both base their belief on the assumption that earlier GOD spoke to others, namely the Jews. While the Christians may well say that when GOD later spoke through Jesus it was the last time GOD spoke to people,or the Muslims say that when Allah spoke through Mohammud it was the last time GOD spoke to people, they cannot do so and still maintain that GOD can be active in the world.If they believe that GOD can still influce things, answer prayers, send prophets or speak through the Holy Ghost, they cannot logically deny that GOD can and does still speak to people.If the above is true, then they cannot preclude GOD appearing as any form, any force, any name, as needed to reach folk, to deliver a message of hope and salvation.JMHO & YMMV.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please don't think I'm igoring you, you've raised a couple of points that I think are quite important and I'd like to reply to them, I'm just a bit busy today.(The same goes for Jar, if only to find out what all those letters meant at the bottom of your last post )

Just My Humble OpinionandYour Mileage May Vary... and as for replying to that other one, it is probably hopeless to try to reason. (JMHO)

Just My Humble OpinionandYour Mileage May Vary... and as for replying to that other one, it is probably hopeless to try to reason. (JMHO)

No worries, I'm going to be busy the next few days as well, its getting back to school time.

But they can both be wrong!{note 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 can't both be right either but that doesn't guarantee one of them is correct}Heraclitus said, "you can't step in the same river twice." I don't remember who pointed out that if that is true then "you can't step in the same river once".And much of the efforts of bibical apologists to demonstrate the bible contains no contradictions is based on another possiblity, and that isthe Bible and the Bible can't both be right.But the time I've spent on this forum is leading me to suspect that there are people who will need to believe the Bible is literally true the whole of their lives and as annoying as I find some of them I also suspect we are all better off if they do.But what a relief it is to get back to the Buddha who taught that a raft is neccessary to cross over to the other shore but once there you have no further need of it.I guess General Semantics is a bit dated and Korzbyski's brilliant insights have been absorbed into other disciplines. There are many who will need to believe there is a Big Guy in the Sky watching them and watching over them. But there is a deeper reason why the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon etc are false in the deepest sense and that is because of Korzybski's fundamental insight that Jar is so fond of repeating, "the map is not the territory". The truths that religion wants to address can not be adequately addressed by language. Lao Tzu knew this when he said that the Way that can be named is not the true Way. There was a fascination with words in the ancient world. Forget ToE it is semantics that demonstrates the impossiblity of the Bible being true because language can't express accurately some of the key existential truths. This is why silence is the voice of God, words can only falsify but in silence can be direct knowing of being.Those who take the Bible literally make the error that zen master cautioned against, they are mistaking the finger for the moon.Beyond religion, atheism, agnostism lies the silent presence of being.lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 08-22-2004 05:31 AMThis message has been edited by lfen, 08-22-2004 05:33 AM

Eventually, I get round to replying ,I think this statement of yours has the most relevance to my position: I would say that the healthiest belief to have is that we will never know everything, and it is that ever-lasting ignorance that will drive society forward. There’s a book that I read about a year ago, that I would strongly recommend reading if you get the chance. It’s’ called ‘The Meaning of it All by Richard Feynman, and is comprised of a series of three lectures that he once gave on the nature of science and society. In it Feynman describes the need to always keep the ‘door of knowledge’ ajar, and to have a very distinct idea of what we don’t know. The way I read this was that in cases where the door is shut, as if to say We know everything about that! then science stagnates (as well as society as a whole). I believe that too firm a belief in religious dogma is a sure fire way of slamming the door shut.And as for: I’ve read bits of them both, and although I find the Koran a bit more entertaining (probably as a result of underexposure, and a relative lack of revision to the text), neither of them truly represent what I see in the modern world. They both reflect the values and prejudices of the past, and I prefer secular humanism.

I suppose this sums up my feelings on the matter.Although some people would think that agnostics have a distinct lack of focus in their faith, I would disagree. I have a very strong belief in something similar to the Golden Rule (or as I would put it Ooook's law of 'Youwouldn'tlikeitwouldyou?'), but my faith runs out when I'm asked to believe that God ever spoke to anyone.

yeah - I like the Koran as well - the stories seem to have a bit more "go" to them.

quote:

---

What was the biggest thing that caused you stop believing in God?

---

There was no one thing, it was a process.I was raised a Catholic, so I always accepted all of science and never took the Bible as literaly true.I found the sexism in the Bible and in my religion to be very distatsteful, and eventually, over about 10 years ending in my mid twenties, realized through logic that there was no way anybody could know which religuion was right, and that there was no way to really know if the supernatural existed or not.

quote:

---

When did you stop believing in God?

---

I never had a very strong belief. I believed because I was raised to, but I guess I finally stopped somewhere around 22-24 years old.

quote:

---

When did you start believing in evolution?

---

I always accepted the scientific evidence for evolution, just the same as I accepted the evidence for any other scientific theory.My becoming an Agnostic had nothing at all to do with science and everything to do with religion and logic.

quote:

---

Do you think God: a) probably does not exist b) probably does exist c) is unknowable d) it doesn't matter

---

I think that God/gods probably does not exist, but nobody can know for sure.Additionally, even if God/gods do exist, there is no reason to believe that we could ever comprehend it/them.

quote:

---

If God should exist, how would you feel about him?

---

It would depend upon the nature of the God/gods.

quote:

---

But belief in evolutionary origins and absence of the flood might cause me to doubt everything I've ever accepted as true from the Bible.

---

...and this is what is ultimately tragic and brutal about Christian sects which require their followers to swallow as literally true the stories of the Bible.Instead of taking the Bible as filled to the brim with Truth about our relationship with God and with each other, they water it down to be a list of facts to be memorized and blindly, dumbly accepted in spite of glaring, obvious and voluminous physical evidence to the contrary.It would be a shame for you to lose your faith because of the requirement of your particular sect that you remain ignorant.Just because a bunch of people told you that God was a certain way or wanted you to believe that their lies about nature were true doesn't mean they are right.