Humanism: On what basis they believe what they believe?

[gnostic]

My humble submission is that Atheism has been looking for good and appealing and attractive words to be meaningful to use just as a cover/label, else it is the same thing.
There is no valid merit in any form of Atheism (be it Agnosticism/Communism/Secularism/Skepticism etc or whatever), which already does not exist in the truthful Religion.

The problem is, that I don't find any religion to be truthful.

Religion relies on ones to suspend reality for the supernatural and miracles that cannot be substantiated beyond superstitious belief or blind faith.

Religious beliefs required the "leap of faith".

For instance, with Islam required Muslims to believe in Muhammad to be a prophet and that he speak for God, and yet there are no evidences to support his claim. Muslims would point out that the Qur'an to be the only evidence one would need, but the Qur'an is the reason why I am skeptical in the first place, because of its unreliability and distortions of any truth it might have.

And Mirza Ghulam Ahmadi is no better than Muhammad for his own self-proclaimed of being a messiah. And you don't have to be atheist or agnostic to be skeptical of Miza's claim, because the majority of Muslims around the world are just as skeptical of Miza and his religion. The only people who accept Mirza's claims are just the Ahmadis.

Skepticism are not the domain of atheism or agnosticism.

 

[paarsurrey]

The problem is, that I don't find any religion to be truthful.
Religion relies on ones to suspend reality for the supernatural and miracles that cannot be substantiated beyond superstitious belief or blind faith.
Religious beliefs required the "leap of faith".
For instance, with Islam required Muslims to believe in Muhammad to be a prophet and that he speak for God, and yet there are no evidences to support his claim. Muslims would point out that the Qur'an to be the only evidence one would need, but the Qur'an is the reason why I am skeptical in the first place, because of its unreliability and distortions of any truth it might have.
And Mirza Ghulam Ahmadi is no better than Muhammad for his own self-proclaimed of being a messiah. And you don't have to be atheist or agnostic to be skeptical of Miza's claim, because the majority of Muslims around the world are just as skeptical of Miza and his religion. The only people who accept Mirza's claims are just the Ahmadis.
Skepticism are not the domain of atheism or agnosticism.

There is no compulsion in accepting Muhammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. My question is even if one denies a particular revealed religion; why should one accept Skepticism , atheism or agnosticism without positive evidence/s?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

There is no compulsion in accepting Muhammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. My question is even if one denies a particular revealed religion; why should one accept Skepticism , atheism or agnosticism without positive evidence/s?

There are no positive evidences for any claim of Muhammad or Mirza, and that's the whole reason why anyone would be skeptical of Muhammad or Mirza.

And you are still missing the point, paarsurrey. You don't have to be agnostic or atheist to be a skeptic. No, Sunni believed in Mirza's claim to be the second messiah, hence Muslims can be skeptics too.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except when it does.

Which happens so depressingly often as to make its worth questionable.

 

[icehorse]

There is no need of any clergy whatsoever to understand Quran. One could read it and understand it correctly.
Regards

Well when I read Abrahamic scripture (Quran, Bible), I feel like I understand it just fine, and I don't like the messages.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

I'd say learn lessons from history and reasoning and act in a way that minimizes harm.
Though m a Hindu, buddhist n Taoist, humanism requires no religion.

 

[icehorse]

This is precisely the point I was making.
I am sceptical of human reason as we are collectively pretty dumb animals.What we think at the time is reasonable, often turns out not to be.
If humans collectively are capable of being reasonable, I agree with you. It would shatter my [non-religious] worldview.
One of the few things we can reasonably assert about the human condition is our collective inability to be reasonable.

Reason and reasonable are two very different things.

 

[Augustus]

Reason and reasonable are two very different things.

Can be, or it can just be the adjectival form.

Fortunately it works with both meanings.

 

[icehorse]

Often "being reasonable" requires a suspension of reason, go figure.