Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Jabar]

The idea of 'reverting' to Islam, hence the arguments that Avraham was a muslim, so forth, are fine in the context of personal religious adherence, but in the context of any argument to the concept, are very flawed. You're basically using the /text, to justify your own position, as opposed to presenting actual evidence of such,
//there are actual arguments for the idea that you're presenting, but the koran/islam, isn't one of them. The actual arguments rely on basically no 'added' material , textually, and sometimes practice oriented, and the 'change' ,merely in language or slight expression //of the same concept//, being presented. Islam has none of the pre-requisites for such an argument.

What do you refer to evidence as?

 

[Skwim]

Well, that's a misunderstanding of the term Agnostic.
It's close, but no cigar.

Agnosticism was coined to mean NO KNOWLEDGE.. A gnosis... gnosis being knowledge.. about GOD.
So, an agnostic is someone who doesn't know or thinks that he cant know anything about a god.

And I would say that if we have NO KNOWLEDGE of something, we can't BELIEVE in it, so we are atheists, too.
There are degrees of atheism and agnosticism.. people are all over the map.

A LOT of people misconstrue agnostic to mean something like "sitting on the fence" or 50/50. but that's just a misuse.

Yeah, let's stick to the original meanings of words and forget their current meanings and usages.

AWFUL
Ever wonder why “awesome” means excellent but “awful” means really bad when they both derive from “awe”? In Old English, awe meant “fear, terror or dread.” From its use in reference to God the word came to mean “reverential or respectful fear.” By the mid-1700s, awe came to mean solemn and reverential wonder, tinged with fear, inspired by the sublime in nature—such as thunder or a storm at sea. Originally, awful and awesome were synonymous, but by the early 19th century, awful absorbed the negative aspects of the emotion and the word was used to mean frightful or exceedingly bad.

EGREGIOUS
Egregious now describes something outstandingly bad or shocking, but it originally meant remarkably good. It comes from the Latin egregius, meaning "illustrious, select"—literally, "standing out from the flock," from ex-, "out of," and greg-, "flock." Apparently the current meaning arose from ironic use of the original.

FURNITURE
Furniture originally meant equipment, supplies or provisions, in the literal or figurative sense. For example, in a 1570 translation of Euclid’s Elements of Geometry, there is mention of “Great increase & furniture of knowledge.” Gradually, the meaning narrowed to the current sense: large moveable equipment such as tables and chairs, used to make a house, office, or other space suitable for living or working.

GIRL
Girl once meant a child or young person of either sex. In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer says of the summoner, “In daunger hadde he at his owene gise/ The yonge girles of the diocise.” In modern English, that’s, “In his own power had he, and at ease/ Young people of the entire diocese.”

NICE
A few centuries ago if a gentleman called a lady “nice,” she might not know whether to flutter her fan or slap his face. Nice entered English via Anglo-Norman from classical Latin nescius, meaning ignorant. Then it wandered off every which way. From the 1300s through 1600s it meant silly, foolish, or ignorant. During that same time period, though, it was used with these unrelated or even contradictory meanings:

Showy and ostentatious, or elegant and refined
Particular in matters of reputation or conduct; or wanton, dissolute, lascivious
Cowardly, unmanly, effeminate
Slothful, lazy, sluggish
Not obvious, difficult to decide, intricate.​

source​

In any case, I'll stick with current usage as described in our dictionaries.

Full Definition of agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>​

Merriam - Webster online dictionary

____________________________________________________

agnostic
Pronunciation: /aɡˈnästik
noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.​

Oxford Dictionaries.




.

​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Agnosticism was coined to mean NO KNOWLEDGE.. A gnosis... gnosis being knowledge.. about GOD.
So, an agnostic is someone who doesn't know or thinks that he cant know anything about a god.
And I would say that if we have NO KNOWLEDGE of something, we can't BELIEVE in it, so we are atheists, too.
There are degrees of atheism and agnosticism.. people are all over the map.

While I agree that too many people have the wrong idea, but at the same time, I have zero knowledge of what lies outside of the observable universe, but nevertheless I believe it probably does go on for at least good while longer than what we have seen, and I am not aware of any scientists who claim there is nothing outside of what we have seen. I have no knowledge of intelligent alien life forms, but I believe it's likely they are out there somewhere.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, but at that time period, Islam was not the same. However, not just submitting to God, and following the footsteps of the Prophets was also one as they believed in God and, plus righteous deeds. So, yes people submitting to God and not just that but doing righteous deeds and following the footsteps of prophets.

And you don't see calling that 'Islam' as misappropriation, given that none of the people ACTUALLY PERFORMING THESE DEEDS would have referred to it as Islam, as evidenced by all known documents of the era?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am absolutely convinced no gods exist. Certainty is attainable. I am living proof.

To be clear, I was only suggesing that I don't think certainty is possible. There are plenty of other people who are certain, and I wouldn't call them agnostic.

I am always concerned that we sometimes get a little too loose with the definitions. Once I argued for days with a group evangelical Christians over some matter only to realize that our different definition of faith was preventing any understanding.

I think there is merit in that. For me, though, it requires some flexibility on my part, and a clear agreement on terms. So, if you were to say 'Let's talk about atheistic position, and use Dawkins scale as reference point' I wouldn't refer to myself as agnostic in any sense. Instead I'd be a 6 (De-facto atheist) I think. But if left to my own devices, I call myself an agnostic atheist, due to the concept of not knowing for certain.

 

[Willamena]

..

Yeah, let's stick to the original meanings of words and forget their current meanings and usages.

AWFUL
Ever wonder why “awesome” means excellent but “awful” means really bad when they both derive from “awe”? In Old English, awe meant “fear, terror or dread.” From its use in reference to God the word came to mean “reverential or respectful fear.” By the mid-1700s, awe came to mean solemn and reverential wonder, tinged with fear, inspired by the sublime in nature—such as thunder or a storm at sea. Originally, awful and awesome were synonymous, but by the early 19th century, awful absorbed the negative aspects of the emotion and the word was used to mean frightful or exceedingly bad.

EGREGIOUS
Egregious now describes something outstandingly bad or shocking, but it originally meant remarkably good. It comes from the Latin egregius, meaning "illustrious, select"—literally, "standing out from the flock," from ex-, "out of," and greg-, "flock." Apparently the current meaning arose from ironic use of the original.

FURNITURE
Furniture originally meant equipment, supplies or provisions, in the literal or figurative sense. For example, in a 1570 translation of Euclid’s Elements of Geometry, there is mention of “Great increase & furniture of knowledge.” Gradually, the meaning narrowed to the current sense: large moveable equipment such as tables and chairs, used to make a house, office, or other space suitable for living or working.

GIRL
Girl once meant a child or young person of either sex. In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer says of the summoner, “In daunger hadde he at his owene gise/ The yonge girles of the diocise.” In modern English, that’s, “In his own power had he, and at ease/ Young people of the entire diocese.”

NICE
A few centuries ago if a gentleman called a lady “nice,” she might not know whether to flutter her fan or slap his face. Nice entered English via Anglo-Norman from classical Latin nescius, meaning ignorant. Then it wandered off every which way. From the 1300s through 1600s it meant silly, foolish, or ignorant. During that same time period, though, it was used with these unrelated or even contradictory meanings:

Showy and ostentatious, or elegant and refined
Particular in matters of reputation or conduct; or wanton, dissolute, lascivious
Cowardly, unmanly, effeminate
Slothful, lazy, sluggish
Not obvious, difficult to decide, intricate.​

source​

In any case, I'll stick with current usage as described in our dictionaries.

Full Definition of agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>​

Merriam - Webster online dictionary

____________________________________________________

agnostic
Pronunciation: /aɡˈnästik
noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.​

Oxford Dictionaries.




.
​

What is ultimate reality?

 

[Skwim]

..

What is ultimate reality?

As used here it appears to be god or a supreme being of some kind.


.

 

[LuisDantas]

and your persistent denial is one stance ....less

One can hardly accept what is not real.

 

[Ouroboros]

ooops......

apparently you have no sense of a timeline

But time doesn't exist...

 

[Nefelie]

.

~~~ To Jabar ~~~

My dear, I see from your profile that you are only 15 years old. So, for starters, I’d like to congratulate you for your courage to “go against” so many well read adults here and still “holding your fort” pretty good... Meaning that you are still trying to defend your point of view in a pretty much mature manner. Good for you

Now that that has been said, I’d like to encourage you to take a few moments and think about all that has been said to you here. Try not to involve your beliefs, just consider the arguments presented.

And, while doing so, remember that no one is trying to change your religion, alter your faith in Allah or proselytize you to something else. Only to consider that some things are just not exactly as you understand them to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

Take care

.

 

[Nefelie]

I don't know every possible god concept that there is to know. So.. if you have a new one, bring it..

It's a case by case thing with me.

So far, no gods seem real.

Welcome to the conversation

This isn’t about a “new god concept”. It’s about an “old concept”. About 3 thousand years old

Short version (to catch up) : Do you believe that there are certain natural laws that rule the universe and everything in it? Starting from your own body till whole galaxies? If so, you are not an atheist

As a Pantheist I am guessing that you believe God is in everything, but you don't really believe in a personal God? I am assuming this deity created the universe? I'm sorry if you already answered these questions and I missed the answers.

You are confusing Pantheism with Panentheism.

As a Pantheist, I believe that the universe it self is “god” (“divine” is a more appropriate word) AND everything in it. Including you

I understand you perceive God as natural, just as I once understood ghosts to be natural; but if God is part of the natural world is he still a conscious being, and where would that consciousness reside? Does he have any affect upon the world? Also, what do you mean by "It/they can’t be. It’s illogical to be.."

Try not to differ “god” from anything else. That’s the hard part. If you manage to grasp the idea that everything is divine, including yourself, then it is very easy to understand where this consciousness is ( = everywhere, starting from you), how does it affect the world ( = it IS the world and it is affecting it the same way you do), and so on.

Give it some thought

.

 

[`mud]

Ohhhhh.......from the mouths of children,
guidance ?
~
'mud

 

[Jabar]

Evidence in the religious context can be almost anything; the legitemization of said evidence, will vary on the argument being presented, and who is having the dialogue, or debate. // a theist, will often accept different ''evidence'', than a non-theist, for example.//

The Qur'an does provide evidential information. Because it is divine, the book itself shows it is divine.

 

[Jabar]

And you don't see calling that 'Islam' as misappropriation, given that none of the people ACTUALLY PERFORMING THESE DEEDS would have referred to it as Islam, as evidenced by all known documents of the era?

I'm sure there are documents but it does not matter. What would you rather believe in: A divine book? or man-made document?

 

[Demonslayer]

A LOT of people misconstrue agnostic to mean something like "sitting on the fence" or 50/50. but that's just a misuse.

This from blastcat, I wish more people understood this. I also wish more people had avatars like blastcat's lol.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The 'agnostic' part of your self described label, is thusly arbitrary, since 'atheist', covers the position.
ie you aren't just describing your type of 'atheism', your making the term ''atheism'', used in that manner, to have no specific meaning

You can decide whatever you like, but I'm not sure by what authority you wish to decide on what I should be labeling myself.
You could tell Robert Flint he was wrong if you like, also, but I don't think he frequents these boards.
Either way, I'm comfortable both with what I label myself, and the rationale behind it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm sure there are documents but it does not matter. What would you rather believe in: A divine book? or man-made document?

You're sure there are documents? You, sir, are talking through your hat. The closest I am aware of in terms of likely practices are the Hanifs, but they were not Islamic in any meaningful way.

 

[Demonslayer]

but I'm not sure by what authority you wish to decide on what I should be labeling myself

The authority of almighty GAWD, that's who!

 

[Thief]

Apparently you do not read scriptures.

and now you will squirm for the argument you cannot support

 

[Thief]

But time doesn't exist...

check the dictionary....
you will see a lengthy column of definition....

and my 'worthy' opponent has no sense of 'time'