Jose Mujica - Atheist
-
Peace All.
Reason (and Science), Faith (and religion) are they different? Can they have a common ground?
Reason that does not lead to faith in a Supreme Authority does not reveal the entire truth. It is flawed since it cannot be fully traced, backed up and verified.
How irrational and ironic! Laws and systems do not exist without a supreme intelligence and an omnipotent source to establish them. If they were haphazardly set, how would they constantly perform in such sophistication, precision, consistency, coordination and harmony?
Also; Faith without reason does not reveal the entire truth. Faith without reason is also flawed and fake since it can not be fully traced, backed up and verified.
Another irony is that the majority of those who believe in God go to the other extreme and abolish all forms of reason! Their spiritual path becomes illogical and mystical. It is based on superstition and concepts that contradict both commonsense and the physical laws of this world. Without questioning or verifying, they repeat their ancestral religious practices or follow their opinions and traditions even if they contradict the scripture they claim to uphold. Thus, they lead a life with a fake spirit and unauthentic identity that has nothing to do with the title of their faith..
This systematic opposition between the truth of faith and truth of reason is absurd.
The truth stands by itself as ONE, VERIFIABLE and COHERENT TRUTH with no conditions or contradictions. If something is not true, then it has to be false and unverifiable.
Reason, by itself, cannot and will not stand behind or justify creation, life and death.
Blind, man-made faith that does not acknowledge science cannot stand behind or explain why we are here.
There has to be one supremacy and one intelligence, a source and a founder of all facts, scientific and religious. That is God, the Creator, the Designer and the Artisan. He is that ONE, VERIFIABLE and COHERENT TRUTH.That is why the truth of reason & science and truth of faith are one and the same; they describe the same reality.
There are those who grasp only the "seen" and "heard" of this world.
Then, there are those who properly grasp the reality of this journey on earth (2257), its meaning and purpose (5155-57, 904, 4439, 1419, 1585). They witness the complete and verifiable one truth that sound reason must lead to true faith, to one God, one source and authority of all laws and values. They see, hear, comprehend and perceive the phenomenon of God.
They persevere to redeem their souls and securely return to God in peace, contentment and dignity.And of course there is the "Freedom " to choose , which everyone is entitled to.
Yes indeed; Reason and Faith
"... The darkness sacramental of the Eucharist is unfathomable. Besides, if it were intelligible, it would not be divine. If the God we serve could be understood by reason, he would not worth to be served, said Tauler *; ... if the works of God were such that the intelligence of man could easily grasp them, they cease to be wonderful and could not be described as ineffable. "
- John Tauler, theologian of the 14th
This excerpt, by Joris-Karl Huysmans, in his book, "En route", describes the struggle of the majority of people with the concept that faith coincides with reason. The dichotomy between faith and reason is disastrous as it leads to an illusory perception of this world.
GOD bless you all.
Peace. -
Believe it or not, there are those who insist that I must go around killing everybody in sight since I no longer believe in God. Some theists seem to think that the lack of a God automatically makes someone a criminal. I think the religious inclinations of the prison populations throughout the globe demonstrates well that the lack of belief in such Gods does not make it easier for atheists to be criminals.
That's because they're being told as such by those around them..
Some Russians believe all Capitalists are evil (as they're being doctrined as such since their USSR childhood)
And some Americans believe all Communists are evil (as they're being doctrined as such since childhood)Buddhists are Atheists.
Buddhist are NON-THEIST, Sidharta never said "There's no God" or he ever discussed God in the first place.
As thus there's no burden for him to prove the non-existence of God.
He did however belief in the existence of Law of Karma (Thus he explained in great details on prove of the existence of such law)If Sidharta stated "He do not believe in God" (which he didn't) thus he need to explain what's his definition of God in the first place.
In the same manner as you said "you believe in the non-existence of God" and now you said "Buddhist are Atheist".
The burden to provide proof of those two hypothesis laid upon you.The trouble is that everyone is defining their God and we are just creating tonnes of contradictions and just for the sake of defining God, we have created the dilemma of "religions" again. Just like there are countless religions, there will be then countless definitions of God that do that agree with each other. Anyway, my condition stays the same. I can only accept the one I have evidence for.
To me is not a trouble at all, there is and always will be countless of religions as there will always be countless definition of God.
Can you give me your definition of Kuxartylopifoton?
I'll asked the same question before answering What is Kuxartylopifoton?
In the same manner, I do not have a definition of God.
Then don't mention it at all, or stated that you do believe in the non-existence or existence of God.
Because you don't have any definition of God in the first place.The same manner with "Kuxartylopifoton".
I can't say that I believe in the existence or non-existence of Kuxartylopifoton.
Because I don't have any definition of Kuxartylopifoton in the first place.the generic idea of God that I do not believe in is the creator God who supposedly originated the heavens and the earth.
When I am talking about God in general, you can assume that I am referring to the creator God who supposedly originated the heavens and the earth, the universe.
Now this start to go somewhere.
So at least God to you is "the creator who originated the heavens and the earth"For all I know, the claim is that this entity exists and I am not convinced that it does. A Roman Catholic and you may disagree on how to define God, but that makes no difference for me as I will still need evidence for the existence of your God.
Now my next question is
What's the satisfied condition to you as a prove that "the creator who originated the heavens and the earth" does exist?Some condition that I proposed IF such thing exist is that
- It must exist even before space and time existed. (before the Big Bang)
- It must exist even after space and time no longer exist.
Or in other words it doesn't have any dependency towards space and time.
Yet space and time have dependency towards it.
Or do you believe space and time have no dependency towards anything???Or you're expecting (x,y,z,t) coordinate in order to satisfy your condition of existence?
Because if that's the case then God existence is (,,,∞I accept that your God exists if your define your God as
- An apple
- An orange
- A river
- The sun
- etc.
All of the above requires space and time to exist.
As thus to me the above are not God.- An old man who impregnated a Jewish woman to give birth to his only son who he send to the slaughter so that he may forgive the sins of humanity which he himself put on them in the first place!!
The old man impregnating Jewish woman could probably be exist. But certainly he also have dependency towards time and space.
- A being that looks like a Taco and craps ice-cream outside of space and time
If it's outside space and time how can it looks like a taco?
- A being that just chills outside of space and time
If it's outside space and time how can it "chills"?
To respond to a theist and tell them about my opinion on the matter of their God's existence, I have to first know what they are talking about.
TRUE, the same goes with the Atheist.
You have to know what they're talking about.
You have to know what is it that do not exist.If Mujica believes God is "a man who copulated jewish virgin without ruining her virginity and his sperm bring forth a half-god man to this world".
Then I'm the same as Mujica, an ATHEIST.After knowing that they are a talking about the creator/maintainer/caretaker of the universe who takes personal interest in the lives of one sub-species of apes among many species of apes who happen to be one species themselves out of millions of species who live on a planet that's one out of 8 planets that orbits it's sun which in turn is one out of hundreds of billions of stars in our milky way which is one galaxy out of hundreds of billions of galaxies out there!! Talk about the height of arrogance and self importance!! A belief without any evidence which makes you feel as though an entity like that takes personal interest in your life, what you eat, how you talk and especially "who you sleep with"!!
it's not impossible at all, the 'caretaker' could have high interest to all of the things.
From Big Bang cosmology, we know that the universe expanded from a singularity. We are limited in our knowledge regarding that expansion due to the current limits of our knowledge we can not probe beyond a certain point close to the point in time when the singularity started to expand.
True, even "singularity" itself violate all of the known physical law that we already know.
We cannot explained how "singularity" itself could exist.
Where singularity is infinite (∞ mass and zero (0) volume.
Yet singularity (∞,(0) does exist isn't it?According to the 'physical law' of time and space, zero volume = non existence..
Although having mass violate that definition.
If that's what you mean by "Non Existence" (Zero Volume), then I agree with you God does not exist.A chinese who lived 2600 years ago explained the same conception, everything in nothing and nothing in everything.
Which puzzled it's readers for many centuries.Salam / Peace
-
It's not his beliefs that is important. What is important is what he does, i.e. doing good for others. He is a perfect example of a human being. I think God (if there is one) would put him over most religious trash anyday.
Most Atheists are ten times better in helping people than the religious will ever be. Nowhere in history has there been any atheist that only helps other atheists only. The Christians only speak for the Christians that gets persecuted, the same with Muslims. But with atheists it's different. They speak for anybody regardless of their faith. Some days the pope was very good at speaking for Christians only in the Middle-East while he gave little care for the Bosnian Muslims that were massacred by Bosnian-Serbs (Christian terrorists).
Christian charity probaly goes to Christians only, and Muslim charity only goes to Muslims only. Saudi-Arabia is great at giving money to the South-Asian countries because it considers them 'Muslim' meanwhile it gives very little to the non-Muslim countries when they are often facing a worser situation. Many suffer of several diseases and starvation in Africa but no funds goes to them from the 'Muslim' countries. Why? Because they are not Muslims or their countries isn't. Well actually funds do go to the African countries but only to the North-African countries because they are considered 'Muslim countries'. Saudi-Arabia is on a per-capita basis, the biggest worldwide donor though the aid has only been given to Muslim countries. Most of that 'aid' is quite shocking too. For example Saudi-Arabia actually spends millions and billions of dollars on religious schools in other countries which does not benefit those countries at all but infact ruins them further. But not only on religious schools, even on religious ideologies such as Wahabbism which also ruins the countries further.
Jose Mujica is a great example of a person that helps anybody regardless of their faith. Therefor if anyone serves as a good example of a human, it is truly him. He is deserving of the oil that the Saudi regime holds. Religious morons never deserve any funds. Thank God they were removed from the European states, now let's do the same in the Middle-East. When the religious extremists are finally removed from all states then there will be millions like Jose Mujica which is what the world needs.
I'm one of those that donate to charity (which goes to anybody regardless of their beliefs) but I don't do it for 'paradise' or God. I could care less about religion and God. I do it because it helps others.
-
When we say things like that somebody will not attain salvation because he or she is an atheist we forget the names of God. Why does He say in the Qur'an that such and such are his names, like al rahman, al rahim, al3dl al haqq, etc. etc. all the asma' al husna? For wasting time?
What does it mean that those are His names or names of His? Are they empty words?
If somebody serves truth, kindness, justice, etc. out of sincere feeling or dep conviction, how can we say he or she does nto believe in God? Of course he or she does Those are names of God. He or she may not know some abstract concept linked to a word known as God, but he or she does believe in God as reflected or defined in real names of His. He or she is s believer, however he or she, according to popular culture, does have to say that he or she is an atheist because idea of "God" that they get from their environment is not a real gthing for them. Probable in mane cases it is not real either for many who use it. However those names of God, that person serve, are real for him or her.
Salaam
-
Peace,
Jose Mujica is Uruguayan president known to be the poorest president (wealth) in the world today. He rejected to stay in presidential palace and stays in his simple farm house with his wife and 3 legged dog. Donates 90% of his salary to charity (mostly for public housing), flies in economy class and drives a wolskwagan beetle from 1987. He wears lived-in clothes and well used footwear. Water in his house comes from a well. He is known to be a down to earth person who lives a very modest lifestyle.
Above all, he is known to be an atheist. Now, my question is, how does he fit into God's world or commandment? As we all (if not most of us) believe, Believing in God is the most important thing, will it be fair to say that he may not achieve salvation just because he is an atheist? To me, He seems to be an perfect example of humanity in current world and knowingly or unknowingly following God's path.
I would like to request you to kindly put your opinions in most humble manners please. I am very sensible person and does not like to be attacked even by words. This is only my curiosity and I am trying to learn from the best ones with knowledge.
The Qur'an actually seems to say that God knows the heart of people (as he made it and how he made them to be) and will be the final determiner of where they are placed. It could be argued perhaps that, what you see on the surface does not necessarily represent what is inside of him, and he could be worse than you think or better. His "Atheism" might not be what you expect, or he may have things inside of him that would gross you out if you knew.
If God wanted him to be a Muslim, he would be a Muslim, and he may be secretly or saved anyway.
Lots of possibilities in this case, but one basic thing the Qur'an seems to say is, you love them, they don't love you, you don't know what is in their hearts, sometimes they seem alright and inside of them is grotesque and unbelievable malice and corrupt thoughts that would shock anyone, God knows, God is the final judge, and God could easily make him a Muslim but if God has genuinely kept a person astray that is God's will.
-
When we say things like that somebody will not attain salvation because he or she is an atheist we forget the names of God. Why does He say in the Qur'an that such and such are his names, like al rahman, al rahim, al3dl al haqq, etc. etc. all the asma' al husna? For wasting time?
What does it mean that those are His names or names of His? Are they empty words?
If somebody serves truth, kindness, justice, etc. out of sincere feeling or dep conviction, how can we say he or she does nto believe in God? Of course he or she does Those are names of God. He or she may not know some abstract concept linked to a word known as God, but he or she does believe in God as reflected or defined in real names of His. He or she is s believer, however he or she, according to popular culture, does have to say that he or she is an atheist because idea of "God" that they get from their environment is not a real gthing for them. Probable in mane cases it is not real either for many who use it. However those names of God, that person serve, are real for him or her.
Salaam
Yeah, really good, I'm an "Atheist" too, I don't believe in what most people are calling "God" at all.
I'm A theist. lol
Really though, he's going to roast like a swine, bwuahaha.
As for the names, though I loved your idea, I find that those names are simply the "logical truths" and I can explain how!
When one says God is THE MERCIFUL, that does not mean "the most Merciful" as if some people are merciful and God is just more merciful than others. It can be considered a meditative statement to realize God is THE only merciful one, as the "source" of all that we call mercy, and also that whatever is given to us is given from the depths of total freedom, having no need to give it and no way of being paid back at all, that is Ultimate mercy, and none of God's qualities are anything short of Ultimate Truth that is simply logical when one thinks of how it is true.
God is literally The Compassionate, which no one else can ever be, because any creation only has access to their own unique experience of "being themselves", while God has access to all the information, which is the experience of each person as God has created it, and Compassion literally means to suffer along with or to feel as the other person feels, and those "feelings" are all part of the information in the experience, which God has created, controlled, and is aware of and has the full view of or access to, because the information is all there is, there isn't some extra view that God is blocked from the direct information which is all we are.
So again, these "praises" are not how one might imagine if they think carefully, they are just the literal fact of the matter!
-
I usually refer nowadays to something similar to Pantheism.
pan?the?ism\pan(t)-th-i-zm
noun
1 a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universeThe force is the Sustainer (Rabb).
That is very close to how I perceived my Maker before I became somewhat biased by religions.
I highly doubt I ever become an atheist by definition though. That would require a very degraded perception of reality and delusion.
Be well
-
Sorry, I have not read all the 8 pages of this discussion, so maybe it has been mentioned already.
But I often hear thisThe Quran stresses on this fact again and again that if someone does not believe in one GOD, then no matter how righteous the person is in this worldly life, and no matter how many good deeds the person has in his records, it'll be of no avail to him/her in the end.
However, the "good" deeds of the unbelievers is an insertion, the Qur'an only speaks about deeds (ل. As I understand it, that means "great deeds" that give honor, like discovering a new place or building a palace etc. These deeds will vanish for the unbelievers. There are no good deeds of the unbelievers, as unbeliever in the Qur'an is equal to unrightous behaviour.
-
Yeah, really good, I'm an "Atheist" too, I don't believe in what most people are calling "God" at all.
I'm A theist. lol
Really though, he's going to roast like a swine, bwuahaha.
As for the names, though I loved your idea, I find that those names are simply the "logical truths" and I can explain how!
When one says God is THE MERCIFUL, that does not mean "the most Merciful" as if some people are merciful and God is just more merciful than others. It can be considered a meditative statement to realize God is THE only merciful one, as the "source" of all that we call mercy, and also that whatever is given to us is given from the depths of total freedom, having no need to give it and no way of being paid back at all, that is Ultimate mercy, and none of God's qualities are anything short of Ultimate Truth that is simply logical when one thinks of how it is true.
God is literally The Compassionate, which no one else can ever be, because any creation only has access to their own unique experience of "being themselves", while God has access to all the information, which is the experience of each person as God has created it, and Compassion literally means to suffer along with or to feel as the other person feels, and those "feelings" are all part of the information in the experience, which God has created, controlled, and is aware of and has the full view of or access to, because the information is all there is, there isn't some extra view that God is blocked from the direct information which is all we are.
So again, these "praises" are not how one might imagine if they think carefully, they are just the literal fact of the matter!
What I am saying is that LITERALLY, how one worships the Merciful is by showing mercy, if you like letting the Merciful show mercy via us. He is indeed the one merciful, any mercy is a reflection of His being Meciful. That is His name, if we believe in Mercifullnness we certainly believe in the Meciful, because the only way mercy cnshow is by somebody being Merciful, name the One Merciful by Himself. Merciful, kind, whtever are not ttributes are His names, if we practice kindness we are worshping His kindness, His being the Kind.
No good person does not believe in God , but he or she may not believe in a concept of "God" that appears to him or her as a figment. In fact, when they reject figments, they are raising Al Haqq.
Salaam
-
What I am saying is that LITERALLY, how one worships the Merciful is by showing mercy, if you like letting the Merciful show mercy via us. He is indeed the one merciful, any mercy is a reflection of His being Meciful. That is His name, if we believe in Mercifullnness we certainly believe in the Meciful, because the only way mercy cnshow is by somebody being Merciful, name the One Merciful by Himself. Merciful, kind, whtever are not ttributes are His names, if we practice kindness we are worshping His kindness, His being the Kind.
No good person does not believe in God , but he or she may not believe in a concept of "God" that appears to him or her as a figment. In fact, when they reject figments, they are raising Al Haqq.
Salaam
Yep, I really liked the idea.
-
However, the "good" deeds of the unbelievers is an insertion, the Qur'an only speaks about deeds (ل. As I understand it, that means "great deeds" that give honor, like discovering a new place or building a palace etc. These deeds will vanish for the unbelievers. There are no good deeds of the unbelievers, as unbeliever in the Qur'an is equal to unrightous behaviour.
This is basically correct. I earlier spoke of affinity and everything is about affinity in Being (allah).
If one has faith in Being good then that can show some innate faith.
Be well
-
Salamun alaikum.
For the convenience of those who are new to this thread, I have discussed my view on this topic at the below thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607143.msg361414#msg361414
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman