Did God send His messangers with more than one religion?!!

[dailogue is the best]

Namaste dib,

Built on honesty? Did we enroll for your class? You asked a question, you didn't posit a statement based on the Quran and discuss it. So the question in itself was Dishonest, it had the purpose of laying in wait for your answer to emerge.

And I believe the answer is correct for you, and who knows one day it may be right for me. Just not today.

As I indicated, I believe if your answer is correct than you must move onto the next prophet, as the Bahaulla has spoken.

I make a nasty drag queen...

Peace, Wil

I said in my previous posts that I have an answer that may reject confusion and ambiguity...My intenetion was to know how others respond to my question before presenting mine..That's all..No intention of dishonesty...

It is wonderful to feel the oneness of the purpose of all the prophets, and the oneness of God that sent all those prophets..Things becomes clearer...

 

[citizenzen]

Monotheism doesn't just unite all Gods, it also unites all people.

It removes one of the obstacles that stand between human beings and peace. If we all share the same God then the rest of our differences are merely details that can be worked out... eventually.

 

[Postmaster]

btw an atheist can get it without a religion....

An Athiest doesn't leave that element of doubt or suspense that is held by agnostics. On what grounds is the rejection of a thiest held by an athiest? Haven't heard anything to convince me yet.

 

[citizenzen]

An Athiest doesn't leave that element of doubt or suspense that is held by agnostics. On what grounds is the rejection of a thiest held by an athiest? Haven't heard anything to convince me yet.

PM, this is in my opinion an accurate definition from Wikipedia (of course):
Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

An atheist viewpoint is one that looks at the world without attaching myth or dogma to it.

Doubt and suspense (and mystery) are experience by all humans, including atheists. We just don't go the next step and attach a persona to these experiences in order to objectify and explain them.

 

[Postmaster]

Does a possible theist necessarily require attached myth or dogma?

That means you would take it as a lie if someone said God spoke to them, whereas I would probably remain skeptical. It takes a certain amount of rebelion to reject, not even a position a sound scientist should take.

 

[citizenzen]

That means you would take it as a lie if someone said God spoke to them, whereas I would probably remain skeptical.

I certainly would not call it a lie.

It's a lie if you say God spoke to you when He did not. A lie requires intent on the part of the liar.

But if you "hear" a voice and attribute it to God it's impossible for me to prove that wrong or a lie.

I do not care if you need religion. In many ways it benefits me and society that you do. You can go to church every day and it does not affect me negatively in any way. It can provide people a path to a better self that otherwise they may never find.

About the only time you find atheists getting their fur up is where secular civil law is concerned. We tend to be protective of it and cherish the fact that it can serve people of all faiths (and no faith) fairly.

But other than that, be as religious as you want. Knock yourself out.

And that ain't no lie.

 

[Postmaster]

I'm just looking for reasons as to why Atheism can be a satisfactory school of thought to me. I've gone down this thought path before to not be satisfied with it. So my questions are out of intrigue then to disprove.

You say an atheist can serve both religious and the non religious, why do you find this to be so. I would be more skeptical that an atheist would support someone’s theistic views more than an agnostic or an theistic himself would. Because you adhere to a school of thought that rejects thiesm while the others don't. It's possible for you to hold some of the great points you mentioned in your previous post and leaving inconclusivness towards theism who can not be disproved asmuch as can be proved.

 

[Bandit]

Monotheism doesn't just unite all Gods, it also unites all people.

It removes one of the obstacles that stand between human beings and peace. If we all share the same God then the rest of our differences are merely details that can be worked out... eventually.

Maybe in fairy tale land.

Monothesim has not united all people nor has it removed the obstacles between those who claim it and 'we' don't all share the same god.

 

[citizenzen]

Maybe in fairy tale land.

Monothesim has not united all people nor has it removed the obstacles between those who claim it and 'we' don't all share the same god.

That's why, my shining light of joy, I used the word, "eventually".

Monotheism hasn't united all the peoples yet.

Maybe after it's actually practiced.

We'll see.

 

[Bandit]

That's why, I used the word, "eventually".

Monotheism hasn't united all the peoples yet.

Maybe after it's actually practiced.

We'll see.

if it hasn't done so by practicing it in the last 3000 years then what makes you think it will... eventually as in in another 3000 years?

 

[Bandit]

Namaste Dialogue is Best,

Or is it Dialogue leads to Islam?


We have a choice in this interfaith study don't we. Dialogue (big D) about all religons and their benefit to all, or dialogue (little d) with the purpose of bringing folks to our religion.

Which Dialogue is Best?

ROFL! Sometimes you catch me off guard with some good ones and I wanted you to know that.

 

[citizenzen]

if it hasn't done so by practicing it in the last 3000 years then what makes you think it will... eventually as in in another 3000 years?

Who knows? I think we have the capacity for it, but I'm not about to predict when that potential might be reached. I do think it's important that we do what we can to keep moving ourselves toward this goal. Isn't that part of the reason we're here at IO?

 

[Bandit]

Who knows? I think we have the capacity for it, but I'm not about to predict when that potential might be reached. I do think it's important that we do what we can to keep moving ourselves toward this goal. Isn't that part of the reason we're here at IO?

I disagree with you that it is important to move toward everyone being a monotheist when history proves it has failed at bringing people together. I would not expect everyone to have the same goals, nor the same reason for being at the same place.

 

[citizenzen]

I disagree with you that it is important to move toward everyone being a monotheist when history proves it has failed at bringing people together. I would not expect everyone to have the same goals, nor the same reason for being at the same place.

You're right.

I should have said move towards "our better nature".

Thank you for helping me move towards mine.

 

[path_of_one]

Does a possible theist necessarily require attached myth or dogma?

That means you would take it as a lie if someone said God spoke to them, whereas I would probably remain skeptical. It takes a certain amount of rebelion to reject, not even a position a sound scientist should take.

I think these are excellent points. First, it is problematic to posit that atheism is the same as agnosticism; skepticism and a lack of belief are not the same thing as rejection of any form of theism, which posits a belief that there is no God in any form.

The problem is that people confuse theism with monotheism constantly, and so being "atheist" is not true atheism, but rather a statement against doctrinally-bound monotheism. There is a reason we have all sorts of terms to describe ways of thinking about the Divine: pantheism, panentheism, duotheism, monotheism, polytheism, etc.

These are very different ways of experiencing and/or interpreting the Divine. Many pantheists and panentheists have little or no doctrine and focus on embracing the Mystery rather than defining deity; in both of these cases, the Divine is either not a persona or It is persona + more that is not persona...

So atheism is not just about rejecting anthropomorphic deities or doctrinally-bound religious traditions... by rejecting any sort of Divine, it is a belief in itself, a wholesale rejection of any sort of Divine experience or Being.

People can try to define it otherwise, but it wouldn't make any sense. We have the label of agnostic for someone who is claiming not to know (or not to care), the label of atheist is something else...

 

[citizenzen]

So atheism is not just about rejecting anthropomorphic deities or doctrinally-bound religious traditions... by rejecting any sort of Divine, it is a belief in itself, a wholesale rejection of any sort of Divine experience or Being.

People can try to define it otherwise, but it wouldn't make any sense. We have the label of agnostic for someone who is claiming not to know (or not to care), the label of atheist is something else...

It is a rare day indeed where I disagree with path_of_one.

But it always sounds so defensive when I hear the argument, "Atheists say they don't believe in anything, but by not believing in anything they really believe in something even if that something isn't anything at all."

Here is a definition that I think sums up atheism rather well...

Richard Dawkins, in An atheist's call to arms said, "An atheist is just somebody who thinks about Yahweh, the way any decent Christian feels about Thor, or Baal, or the Golden Calf. As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the Gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further."

 

[Bandit]

So atheism is not just about rejecting anthropomorphic deities or doctrinally-bound religious traditions... by rejecting any sort of Divine, it is a belief in itself, a wholesale rejection of any sort of Divine experience or Being.

People can try to define it otherwise, but it wouldn't make any sense. We have the label of agnostic for someone who is claiming not to know (or not to care), the label of atheist is something else...

Right. If one believes in something or not, it is still a chosen belief. You could say it another way to make the point...

I don't believe in any gods.
I believe there are no gods.

It is still a belief.

 

[wil]

Richard Dawkins, in An atheist's call to arms said, "An atheist is just somebody who thinks about Yahweh, the way any decent Christian feels about Thor, or Baal, or the Golden Calf. As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the Gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further."

Namaste CZ,

Gotta love the Atheist that feels a need to define 'any decent Christian'. Tis funny how so many atheists are fundies.

This decent Christian is an Atheist in an Atheists eyes because I don't believe in an anthroporphic, plague tossing, reward giving G!d, that walked through the garden talking to A&E.

This decent Christian feels that Thor, Baal, the Golden Calf and much of belief of the decent Christian G!d are simply explanations of the unknown and something to blame natural disasters on, and occasionally move the blame off of man.

 

[path_of_one]

It is a rare day indeed where I disagree with path_of_one.

It has to happen some time!

Richard Dawkins, in An atheist's call to arms said, "An atheist is just somebody who thinks about Yahweh, the way any decent Christian feels about Thor, or Baal, or the Golden Calf. As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the Gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further."

I would say that is an agnostic. And yeah, Wil has a point LOL.

As I said, there are many ways to think about God, and not all are the big beardy variety. If we are to define ourselves as a-theist (without God), that is more than saying one is not monotheist. Or not anthropomorphic-theist or what have you.

Otherwise, the terms lose any sort of definition or significance, and atheism is muddled with agnosticism.

It's not that I disagree that individual atheists vary in their conceptualization of what they are stating they don't believe in, but rather that the position of non-belief is different from the position of "I don't know" and that is different from "I don't care." And non-belief in the big beardy sky god is not the same thing as non-belief in anything divine or supernatural at all. I'm being nit-picky about the value of clear definitions. But it's my job. Really, it is. LOL How can we study and communicate about any of this if we consistently have fuzzy boundaries without any attention to detail?

 

[citizenzen]

I'm being nit-picky about the value of clear definitions. But it's my job. Really, it is.

I'm afraid you are being nit-picky. Think of how wide a scope Christians occupy, how many different sects, rituals and interpretations exist.

Now think about how narrowly you're attempting to define atheism. I find it unfair and myopic. I think you are intentionally ignoring the richness and diversity that exists in non-belief.