Atheism , Agnosticism and Theism

[mattflanders]

I think your view of muslim charity is a little warped. I can assure you: there are beggers in muslim countries, lots of them.
Yes, muslims give money to charities, but mostly in the month of ramadan and around the Festival of Sacrifice. Just like christians give more to charity around Christmas.

 

[Puntie]

I think your view of muslim charity is a little warped. I can assure you: there are beggers in muslim countries, lots of them.
Yes, muslims give money to charities, but mostly in the month of ramadan and around the Festival of Sacrifice. Just like christians give more to charity around Christmas.

Well as someone who has travelled extensively in the Middle East and North Africa I can honestly say there are a lot less beggars there than there are in Europe and not just during Ramadan. Iran especially basically have none! Secondly, being an a good Catholic Irishman (ha) and a man that works with NGOs in both Ireland and abroad I can tell you that people DO NOT give more at Christmas than any other time, in actual fact they give less money! Christmas is the worst time to try and get people to donate as they feel they have less to give!

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Well as someone who has travelled extensively in the Middle East and North Africa I can honestly say there are a lot less beggars there than there are in Europe and not just during Ramadan. Iran especially basically have none!

Zakat, one of the Five Pillars of Islam, requires that one make donations to the poor. Often, the figure of 2.5 percent of one's wealth is given (one's house and transporation vehicle is not included, and frankly, beyond that, I don't know how things are calculated ... I imagine it has a lot to do with income, but I'm not sure).
When I was in Pakistan, I saw no beggars at all, and I was told their absence was a result of the practice of zakat. The government collects and distributes the money.
In Morocco, there were beggars, certainly, but not nearly the number that now seem to line the streets of many North American cities.
So I don't doubt that Puntie is right.

 

[deleted15807]

Zakat, one of the Five Pillars of Islam, requires that one make donations to the poor. Often, the figure of 2.5 percent of one's wealth is given (one's house and transporation vehicle is not included, and frankly, beyond that, I don't know how things are calculated ... I imagine it has a lot to do with income, but I'm not sure).
When I was in Pakistan, I saw no beggars at all, and I was told their absence was a result of the practice of zakat. The government collects and distributes the money.
In Morocco, there were beggars, certainly, but not nearly the number that now seem to line the streets of many North American cities.
So I don't doubt that Puntie is right.

This sounds similar to the Christian Jubilee.

The concept of the Jubilee is a special year of remission of sins and universal pardon. In the Biblical book of Leviticus, a Jubilee year is mentioned to occur every fifty years, in which slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven and the mercies of God would be particularly manifest.

Jubilee (Christian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Islam appeals to be because unlike Catholicism their is no heirarchy. Everyone is equal including the Imams.

yeah, sure, the ruling Imams of Iran have no more authority than the average Mo on the street...

Really... what are you smoking in that hooka?

Islamic nations routinely put people to death... often women, thru beheading and stoning.

If all are equal... then who , exactly, is interpreting the Koran to come up with Sharia?
Why wouldn't the accused's, differing interpretation of scripture be JUST as valid as the Imam's?

Why could one muslim, Khomeni, mark another muslim, Rushdie, for death... if all are equal?


Wake up... Islam is just another command and control structure... getting a group of folks to think alike, and enforcing that they act alike.. for the sole purpose of empowering an elite... and for justifying hatred and violence toward outsiders.

 

[Rowan Ravenseed]

I'm Pagan, Pagans believe many things, some pagans believe in Yahweh (I do) Some pagans believe in Allah (I do) some pagans believe in Buddha (I do) some Pagans beleive in Christ (I do) some pagans believe in Krishna (I do) Some pagans believe in Vishnu, Kali, Ganesha and Brahma (I do) Some pagans believe in Horus, Bast, Iris and Osiris (I do), Some pagans believe in Zeus, Helena, Aphrodite (I do) Hmmm i think your getting my point so ill cut it short..... Pagans Generally Believe in whichever diety they feel suits thier lifestyle....... some pagans dont believe in Diety at all but this post isn't just about Diety is it... its about thiesm.

Personally myself i Believe that this universe is so vast no one man.....nor any number of men could possible ever know the whole truth of the universe, I also believe that given how many and varied we are as humans no one way or varied combinations of ways could possibly ever properly reflect the truth about the universe.

I believe that the universe is so vast and so all encompassing that its quite possible for all beliefs to be truth without conflicting with each other. So in saying that I choose to believe in all ways and all things that way I will not miss any opportunity to learn something new.

When we belittle anothers belief system we are only denying ourselves the chance to know them and ourselves a little better.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

I read this on another forum, and I thought it might be useful to post it here:

Agnosticism:

The first distinction to be made is the difference between epistemology and metaphysics. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge, and this field seeks to answer questions of validity, truth value, justification, and coherence. Metaphysics is the philosophy of reality, and seeks to answer questions regarding matter, existence, causality, time, etc.

Atheism, lexically, means "not-theism," or a "lack of theism." Atheism and theism are metaphysical positions since they try to answer the question of the existence, nature, or reality of God.

Agnosticism was a term coined by Professor Thomas Henry Huxley, AKA "Darwin's Bulldog" as evolution was in its infancy as a field of science. Lexically, agnosticism is derived from the Greek term for knowledge, "gnosis." Gnosticism was also a term for a sect of Christians that believed they had access to secret knowledge of God. Clearly, agnosticism/gnosticism are epistemic terms that try to answer whether one can have knowledge about the existence, nature, or reality of God.

Likely part of the motivation for using the term was an attempt to shield himself from accusations of atheism. However, agnosticism/gnosticism lie on a wholly different dimension apart from atheism/theism. One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist. Agnosticism is not a third alternative.


Negative Atheism/Nontheism versus Positive Atheism/Antitheism:

Negative Atheists, AKA nontheists specifically "do not believe that God exists." This is a crucial way of wording the matter. Just as one lacks a belief in elves, conspiracy theories, etc. without evidence, Negative Atheists/Nontheists lack a belief in the existence of God until one provides sufficient evidence. This is merely a consistent application of the Principle of Parsimony/Burden of Proof. It's possible that God exists, but without evidence they discount the entity just as they would for every other unproven idea.

Real life example: Early physicists believed aether was a medium that light needed to pass through space as waves. Early chemists believed phlogiston was a substance that gave a chemical combustible properties. When later experiments turned up no evidence for either, scientists abandoned these ideas.

Positive Atheists, AKA antitheists specifically "believe that God does not exist." That is, unlike negative atheists, positive atheists have a positive affirmation that it is impossible for God to exist in reality. This stems from internal contradictions in the God concept, or properties of the concept of God that makes it impossible to reconcile with what we know of nature.

Real life example: By definition, it is impossible for a square circle to exist.

Most people tend to think that all atheists are Antitheist in nature, or mistake negative atheism for agnosticism. Not so.

Personally, I am a negative atheist by this definition.


My question to the theists in the thread, is do you believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent, and if so, how do you reconcile that with free will?

 

[deleted213967]

I believe that the universe is so vast and so all encompassing that its quite possible for all beliefs to be truth without conflicting with each other.

Wait till you find out what treatment the Koran reserves for those guilty of apostasy...

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I
Personally myself i Believe that this universe is so vast no one man.....nor any number of men could possible ever know the whole truth of the universe, I also believe that given how many and varied we are as humans no one way or varied combinations of ways could possibly ever properly reflect the truth about the universe.

I would agree with this.

I believe that the universe is so vast and so all encompassing that its quite possible for all beliefs to be truth without conflicting with each other.

This is entirely, provably, incorrect.
Its the wooliest of wooly thinking... and basically seeks to make ALL ideas equivalent.

Everything about your life that is of value... everything about modern society that has made you safer, healthier, and longer lived... more knowledgable, less ignorant, and more capable of exerting an effect on the world around you... everything that you find entertaining, relaxing, and worthy... is entirely made possible by the simple fact that only ideas that can be proven are valid.
Refrigerators keep your food safe, nutritious and fresh... enhancing your life and health in ways you aren't even aware of... and they exist because of the process of evaluating and discarding ideas that are invalid.

When we belittle anothers belief system we are only denying ourselves the chance to know them and ourselves a little better.

Sorry... that is a nice, warm, psychobabble myth that we might wish were true... but its not.

If you think the world is flat... you're a moron. If you think evolution is not true, you may be a harmless ignoramus... but if you try to get that belief system inserted into science education, you not only undermine the meaning and purpose of evidentiary reasoning, you actually THREATEN the economic future of the entire nation, by seeking to make future generations of children just as scientifically irrelevant as you are.

In the case of an activist creationist... they are not only ignoramuses...they are DANGEREOUSLY ignorant.

Seriously... As much as we may value the rights of the individual... those rights do not include accepting ideas that are simply wrong, as if they are of equal value as ideas that have been demonstrated to be right.

You are not living in an anarchistic utopia... this is a society entirely reliant on science and technology.

The greatest threat to human survival is the mixture of sophisticated technology, with people too stupid, or ignorant to understand it.

Accepting other people as valuable does not mean you have to accept ignorance and superstition as valid.

The entire society is threatened when the "belief" of vaccinations causing autism causes parent too ignorant of the history of infectious disease to refuse to have their children vaccinated.

Antibiotic hand cleansers SELL well because ignorant consumers "believe" germs are bad and killing them is good.
But they are wrong... antibiotic cleansers are simply accelerating the evolution of antibiotic resistance in germs. And they kill the "good" germs whose presence keeps bad germs form having a survivable niche.

Recent research proves that germicidal cleansers INCREASE the number of staph infections in hospitals.


It is not at all uncommon to fid that what "feels" true, is in fact, killing us.


Sorry... "every belief is valid and should be respected" is the argument of the often wrong... its the argument that homeopathy, or prayer, is just as good a way to treat appendicitis as an appendectomy.

Beliefs without proof KILL people... all over the world.

And the guys who flew the planes into the buildings were acting entirely upon "beliefs."

Fuck everyone's unsupported 'beliefs'... including mine.

The only thing that matters is what you can demonstrate to be valid.

If there is such a thing as truth... then, by definition, somethings must not be true.

The world of ideas is no different than the world of living things... It's a competition for survival.
And weak ideas will be destroyed by those ideas that are better.