# The Problem With Agnostics!



## Randip Singh (Sep 29, 2009)

The problem with agnostics I have read is they are neither Theists or Atheists. They sit on the fence and agree with everyone, thus creating a muddle and confusing themselves and everyone else. Anyone else have any views on this?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 29, 2009)

lol, the problem is that you think that agnostics agree with everyone.

*Agnosticism* (Greek: α- _a-_, without + γνώσις _gnōsis_, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 29, 2009)

Bhagat ji

Excellent point. I will think about it.


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 29, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> lol, the problem is that you think that agnostics agree with everyone.
> 
> *Agnosticism* (Greek: α- _a-_, without + γνώσις _gnōsis_, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]



They keep mentioning Truth, but what is truth to them? Their definition of Truth, has not made Agnosticism a religion in itself?

Sikhs think "higher than truth is truthful living".


----------



## Sinister (Sep 29, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> The problem with agnostics I have read is they are neither Theists or Atheists. They sit on the fence and agree with everyone, thus creating a muddle and confusing themselves and everyone else. Anyone else have any views on this?


 
Yes of co{censored}!

It’s the moderate voices in society who are the ones that make a ‘muddle of things’ and ‘confuse’ everyone. But the ones screaming from minarets, ringing large bells from steeples, and playing small melodious chime instruments to stimulate and appease stone deities have it all figured and sorted out. 

Last time I checked, objective examination of every stripe of culture and philosophy has never led to any confusion...but simply a greater understanding of the interactions of society and functioning of reality.



Randip Singh said:


> They keep mentioning Truth, but what is truth to them?


 
The language you use is through and through. There is no “them” or "they", sadly it's only "us". A human is boundless and contradictory yet routinely mistaken to be categorical and consistent in their beliefs.​ 
I cannot tell you what "their" truth is, but I can tell you what i think of this world and yonder...that is if you permit me and in turn obligate yourself to litsen and comprehend.​ 


Randip Singh said:


> Their definition of Truth, has not made Agnosticism a religion in itself?
> 
> Sikhs think "higher than truth is truthful living".


 
Sikhs all over the world think alot of things at any given time. I bet a hardy majority of them also think Harbhajjan Mann a grand actor.

Now,
everyone is entitled to be stupid, but lets not abuse the priveledge. So i will conclude with a relatively true statement; Harbhajjan Mann does indeed suck.

and that is the truth for us... but may not be for them


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 29, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> They keep mentioning Truth, but what is truth to them? Their definition of Truth, has not made Agnosticism a religion in itself?


Truth = a fact that has been verified 
I don't know how that could make anything a religion ...unless you totally make it up and claim to be right, which agnotics don't do. 



> Sikhs think "higher than truth is truthful living".


Um... Is truthful living higher than God (truth for sikhs)?

Sinister ji


> There is no “them” or "they", sadly it's only "us". A human is boundless and contradictory yet routinely mistaken to be categorical and consistent in their beliefs.


I nominate your post as the best post ever!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 29, 2009)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting, but I'm afraid I must take issue with the statement statement.



> Truth = a fact that has been verified.



It has actually been proven (deductively!) - that there are truths that cannot be verified.  Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem states that in any complete arithmetical system, there are true statements that cannot be proved.  To be exact,



> _Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)._



I will not bore the good members here with any of the mathematics.  The point is that there are truths that cannot be verified.  It seems this is true in life, as well as in mathematics.

I must admit to a certain grudging respect for agnostics.  There is a sort of intellectual honesty in coming to the conclusion that it's impossible to know.

But they miss out on so much!  I know that in my life, my beliefs has given my life meaning, purpose and joy.  Who would want to live without those?

SICL  :ice:


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 29, 2009)

Mai ji

I am so glad that you posted this. Truths and facts are not synonymous. Truths are deduced, sometimes from a priori assumptions that themselves may not be verifiable. A truth may be logical, mathematical, scientific, pragmatic, relational, semantic or subjective. That is the short list. Philosophers look at the nature of truth in many different ways. In the field of epistemology (the study of the nature of knowledge) three types of truth are explored: logical (by deduction), ontological (according to purpose or motive), and moral. According to Leibnitz truth may be either necessary (a logical outcome from a series of propositions) or it may be contingent (as a matter of fact).

Truth statements do not even have to be related to anything real or actual. As in the syllogism: All snorks are bollywoggles, Lulu is a snork, therefore Lulu is a bollywoggle. A fun kind of logic game that kids play in 5th grade. 

Link related to epistemology http://www.radicalacademy.com/prcminicourseepistemology1.htm
Link related to Leibnitz  http://www.angelhaunt.net/leibniz/truth.html


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 29, 2009)

Narayanjot ji, 



> Truth statements do not even have to be related to anything real or actual. As in the syllogism: All snorks are bollywoggles, Lulu is a snork, therefore Lulu is a bollywoggle. A fun kind of logic game that kids play in 5th grade.


Yeah, lol.

An oft overlooked part of the explanation of deductive logic says that "Deductive logic, correctly applied, always yields a true result, _if the premises are true.  _Of course, there goes the fun.  I think it's better for 5th graders to enjoy their game.  Enough time for logic and "matters of consequence" later in life.

I think my single favourite scene in the whole of the Christian Bible takes place during the trial of Jesus when Pontius Pilate, who is quite an interesting, complicated character, washes his hands and asks,_ "What is truth?"

SICL  :ice:  
_


----------



## Sinister (Sep 29, 2009)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> But they miss out on so much! I know that in my life, my beliefs has given my life meaning, purpose and joy. Who would want to live without those?
> 
> SICL :ice:


 
And there lies the rub, where the atheist would argue the exact opposite of what you have stated and just be as right or valid in their statement about vague and subjective words such as 'meaning', 'purpose' and best of all 'joy'.

Does a person need to establish a belief in god to bring meaning, purpose and joy to their lives?

And if so; how is a belief or non-belief in god justifiable on those self-serving grounds? 



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> Who would want to live without those?
> 
> SICL :ice:


 
The answer is...nobody. And I dont think any human being on this planet exists without some purpose, joy, and meaning in their lives...and that is a truth.


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 29, 2009)

Sinister ji

Did Mai ji say that? Where? She said "my beliefs..." bring her joy. Belief in  God happens for more reasons that the self-serving ones you have listed. Though I am sure that somewhere some one has said so. 

A good thread topic actually. Why Do People Believe in God?


----------



## harbansj24 (Sep 30, 2009)

But then Maiji, are not true Sikhs also truly agnostics? Because while believing in God no true Sikh claims to know the ultimate truth. Or he never claims to understand God in His entirety or rather even a infinitesimal  fraction of it!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 30, 2009)

Strange thing.  I have never felt the need to justify my belief in a Supreme Being.  It has always been a presence in my life, always there, rather like one can feel the sun's warmth while in a darkened room.

If others believe or disbelieve, that is their thing and I wish them well, as long as they don't try to coerce me to believe as they do.  I have found Theists who are coercive;  I have found Atheists who are coercive; off-hand, I don't think I have found any Agnostics who are coercive.  Score one for the Agnostics.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 30, 2009)

harbansj24 said:


> But then Maiji, are not true Sikhs also truly agnostics? Because while believing in God no true Sikh claims to know the ultimate truth. Or he never claims to understand God in His entirety or rather even a infinitesimal  fraction of it!



I think it boils down to which definition of agnostic you're using.  I have found two that have quite different meanings.

The first:



> *a. * One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
> *b. * One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.



And the second:



> *:* 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



The first concerns the existence of God, which I think Sikhi does not dispute.  We leave that to the Buddhists and the Jains.

The second concerns the knowability of God, and I would agree that we believe that God, in Its totality, cannot be known by us in our present form.

I would not call myself an agnostic, however, because of the confusion.  I think most people accept the first definition.  I am certain of the existence of Akaal Purakh and of certain of its characteristics (Mool Mantar, for example);  I do not, of course, claim to know It in Its totality.  I admit that sometimes I get beyond myself, but my hubris does not extend that far!


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 30, 2009)

Mai ji

The second definition is I believe the one that philosophers use in discourses on topics related to the nature of God. The idea of stipulating a powerful but unknowable entity is usually the kick-off before discussing a specific issues, such as arguments for monotheism. In this context, agnosticism is not a personal position as theism would be. Rather it is a neutral starting point for weighing arguments for/against monotheism, or panthesism, etc. Thanks for the mental stimulation -- even though it is after midnight and I can barely type my name, let alone participate.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 30, 2009)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Mai ji
> 
> The second definition is I believe the one that philosophers use in discourses on topics related to the nature of God. The idea of stipulating a powerful but unknowable entity is usually the kick-off before discussing a specific issues, such as arguments for monotheism. In this context, agnosticism is not a personal position as theism would be. Rather it is a neutral starting point for weighing arguments for/against monotheism, or panthesism, etc. Thanks for the mental stimulation -- even though it is after midnight and I can barely type my name, let alone participate.



And don't forget panentheism, one of my newer vocabulary words (still unknown to my spellchecker, too.) which seems to describe Sikhi.

Narayanjot ji, what you say absolutely true.  I think ordinary people, not being philosophers, tend to use the first.

But it really doesn't matter as long as all in the discussion are clear about which definition they are using - and stick to it.

Certainly the second gives rise to more interesting discussions.

Now, dear ji, please go to bed and get some sleep.  I promise that SPN and this thread will still be here in the morning, even if you get some rest.


----------



## Sinister (Sep 30, 2009)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Sinister ji
> 
> Did Mai ji say that? Where? Belief in God happens for more reasons that the self-serving ones you have listed. Though I am sure that somewhere some one has said so.
> 
> A good thread topic actually. Why Do People Believe in God?



*Rude comment deleted Narayanjot Kaur*

but now that you have asked me a question I feel obligated to answer: why do people believe in god

maybe because they are weak and cannot accept the uncertainty of their situation or accept the limits of their rationality. maybe they seek and pine for control figures and leadership. maybe they want to fit in a community and have a sense of belonging and religion provides that but with preconditions. maybe they are fiscally profiting from such a belief. just gullible?. maybe they like to play dress up? they adhere to theistic beliefs for social reasons...dont want to be an outcaste? a sense of security? maybe they want answers? maybe they are sick of guessing/pondering and want to put their minds to rest? closure? a need for 'communion'? maybe they are distressed and desperate believing a higher power can change them on a personal level. ignorant? fear of death? fear of aging? maybe they just want to help others and believe the best way to do such is through religious organization? maybe religion is an avenue to make them more humble? maybe it improves them morally? maybe they were told to do so by an authoritative figure in their life and it has become ingrained as a norm? maybe it makes them happier people? maybe they hallucinated and encountred an extraterristereal event, maybe it makes them stronger somehow? maybe they believe in god cause the chicken crossed the road.

agnostics can be of two kinds
i) i dont know what to think about god
ii) i dont care about the subject and will avoid it.

and everyone is an agnostic


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 30, 2009)

Sinister ji

I have deleted one post by you and another by me in order to return the conversation to topic. It is always more effective to discuss issues. That is true for both you and me. I trust that you will continue to discuss agnosticism without resorting to personal slurs.


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 30, 2009)

Sinister said:


> Yes of co{censored}!
> 
> It’s the moderate voices in society who are the ones that make a ‘muddle of things’ and ‘confuse’ everyone. But the ones screaming from minarets, ringing large bells from steeples, and playing small melodious chime instruments to stimulate and appease stone deities have it all figured and sorted out.
> 
> ...



BTW

This is not my view on Agnostics, just what I picked up on a link and blogs.

but the view on Harbhajan Mannis my own.


----------



## harbansj24 (Sep 30, 2009)

Mai ji & Narayan jot ji,

What I meant by saying that true Sikhs are Agnostics is that Sikhs though firm believers in God and the qualities described in Mool Mantar do admit that they do not and cannot never acquire the capability to know their creator anywhere near its entirety.

Anyway we can on along that path infinitely and still not get to the ultimate post. But we have to carry on because the progress achieved by mankind so far has been because of this continuous quest!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 30, 2009)

OK, harhansj24, I have no argument with that.  

Except that I do believe that someday, the quest will end.   Someday, with the Kirpaa and Parsad of Akaal Purakh, we'll go home  remerge with our Husband.

  :happy:

:ice:


----------



## AusDesi (Sep 30, 2009)

Agnosticism is about knowledge or the lack of it. So they don't really agree with everyone. its more like well show me the proof which proves or disproves god.


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 1, 2009)

Yes Maiji, and when that happens then we (mankind) will cease to exist in its present form!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 1, 2009)

harbansj24 said:


> Yes Maiji, and when that happens then we (mankind) will cease to exist in its present form!



And this game will be over...I wonder what will happen next??? :meditation:


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 1, 2009)

Then HE will start another game!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 1, 2009)

harbansj24 said:


> Then HE will start another game!



The Mind Boggles!!   :worship:


----------



## Lee (Oct 1, 2009)

I'm afraid brothers and sisters that i sghall have to disgree with the Op's initial thought.
Agnostics as far as belife in God goes, say that there is no proof one way or the other and so take (to my mind) the only logical route of witholding judgement on that particular question.

Both Atheists and Theists have made their minds up and so both are gulity of 'unreasonable' supposition.

Agnosticism is far away from fence sitting and owes it postition to logical thought, all in all not a bad thing, to my mind.


----------



## AusDesi (Oct 1, 2009)

harbansj24 said:


> What I meant by saying that true Sikhs are Agnostics is that Sikhs though firm believers in God



You contradict your own point. Once you say 'I believe there is a god' you are no longer an agnostic because as Lee ji says Agnostics withold their judgement on the existence of god.


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 1, 2009)

Lee ji & AusDesi ji,

I have made myself clear, that Sikhs believe in God but admit they do not understand him in HIS entirety. Collins Dictionary defines it as:
A person who holds that knowledge of Supreme being, ultimate cause etc is impossible.

I have taken it to mean that God is not completely knowable. There can be philosophical discussions on it. Narayanjot ji and Mai ji can hold fort on that.


----------



## Lee (Oct 1, 2009)

harbansj24 said:


> Lee ji & AusDesi ji,
> 
> I have made myself clear, that Sikhs believe in God but admit they do not understand him in HIS entirety. Collins Dictionary defines it as:
> A person who holds that knowledge of Supreme being, ultimate cause etc is impossible.
> ...


 
Harbans ji,

Let us see where following that logic takes us.

I like learning, I like to learn about whatever it is that takes my fancy from one day to the next.  In every concivable way I am indeed a 'jack of all trades'. My knowledge though is restricted to a laymans knowledge about mostly eveything I know about.

For instane, I am interested in qunatum sciences, but my knowlegde only goes so far before it all goes over my head.

Am I then Agnostic about quantum sciences?


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 1, 2009)

English language has developed so far only because of such creative inputs. So far Agnostics is only about mans know-ability of God.

But can we say that the entire mankind will only understand Quantum physics only this far for all times?


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 1, 2009)

Lee said:


> I'm afraid brothers and sisters that i sghall have to disgree with the Op's initial thought.
> Agnostics as far as belife in God goes, say that there is no proof one way or the other and so take (to my mind) the only logical route of witholding judgement on that particular question.
> 
> Both Atheists and Theists have made their minds up and so both are gulity of 'unreasonable' supposition.
> ...



Hi Lee,

Interesting view, but in Sikhism we say God is within us and we have to tune ourselves (like a radio) to realise what God is. God is in effect Truth.

Therefore is we meet these God tuned people is it not reasonable to say we have seen God?

I think in Sikhism God is for all intents and purposes like "The Force" in the Star Wars films.

If you give in to Lust, Anger, Greed, Egotism and Materialism, you are in effect trying to manipulate God....and from what I have seen, like the Star Wars films, this usually ends up in tears. Siths always betray each other.

So when I see people chosing Love (rather than lust), Patience/Tolerance (rather than Anger), Moderation (rather than Greed), Humility (rather than Egotism), and Detachment* (rather than Materialism), I see God........in the George Lucas world this is a Jedi and they all care for one another and everyone else. Like the Sikhs they are Guardians of the people.

Guru Nanak states "Higher than Truth is Truthful Living", therefore when I see people actually practicisng this truth I see God.

*Note when I say detachment I do not mean renunciation.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 1, 2009)

> If you give in to Lust, Anger, Greed, Egotism and Materialism, you are in effect trying to manipulate God....and from what I have seen, like the Star Wars films, this usually ends up in tears. Siths always betray each other.
> 
> So when I see people chosing Love (rather than lust), Patience/Tolerance (rather than Anger), Moderation (rather than Greed), Humility (rather than Egotism), and Detachment* (rather than Materialism), I see God........in the George Lucas world this is a Jedi and they all care for one another and everyone else. Like the Sikhs they are Guardians of the people.



I read it somewhere, can not remember where that the Star Wars is based on Sikhi thought that George Lucas researched and developed the idea from.


Tejwant Singh


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 1, 2009)

Lee ji  (Oh, that sounds like a song!  Shall we dance?),:afriends2:



Lee said:


> Harbans ji,
> 
> Let us see where following that logic takes us.
> 
> ...



I think "agnostic" does not refer to that which is unknown, but that which is unknowable.  Although _your _intellect may be incapable of grasping quantum mechanics, there is nothing that prevents _somebody's _human brain from this understanding.

Akaal Purakh    is different in that the human brain/mind is incapable of grasping It in more than a superficial way, incomplete;  only the most infinitesimal part is available to our sort of intellect/consciousness. Any more than that tiny bit would destroy us in our present form.

And, again, welcome.

:ice:


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 1, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> I read it somewhere, can not remember where that the Star Wars is based on Sikhi thought that George Lucas researched and developed the idea from.
> 
> 
> Tejwant Singh



Yes, that was my post, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away,


 but it seems to have been circulated to everyone around the world.

I should have asked for 1 penny from everyone who read it. I would have at least £10 by now


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 1, 2009)

The thing is, even an Atheist believes in some sort of higher power. His higher power is Science.

The Theist, believes in a higher power God.

The Agnostic, is neither here nor there?


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 1, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> The thing is, even an Atheist believes in some sort of higher power. His higher power is Science.
> 
> The Theist, believes in a higher power God.
> 
> The Agnostic, is neither here nor there?



Actually Randip Singh ji, some Atheists do not even believe in Science.  They believe in their own selves or maybe Ayn Rand.

As for - off topic, but what the heck?! - science fiction has been an important part of Sikh history in North America.  Many NAs first heard about Sikhs on Star Trek's episode, the Space Seed.  OK, he had the unlikely name of Khan Noonien Singh  and was a mona played by a Latino, - and he was an ARCH VILLAIN, the most villainous villain on Star Trek until the Borg -  but it was a start.






And it is also rumoured that the Klingon emblem was adapted from the Khanda and the Klingons were adapted from US.






And now I have totally given myself away.  Yes, I'm a Trekkie (NOT one of those newfangled Trekkers, I'm an old school purist) a nerd and possibly a geek.  I don't think I'm a dork, though.

And, believe it or not, there is a website,  Sikhs in Science Fiction  Sikhs in Fiction

:ice:


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 1, 2009)

A wonderful example of UK and Canada sharing dominion over intergalactic affairs. When do we hear from the Federation, or are you it?


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 1, 2009)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> A wonderful example of UK and Canada sharing dominion over intergalactic affairs. When do we hear from the Federation, or are you it?




Narayanjot ji,
FYI,  Commander William Thomas Riker is the highest ranking Canadian in the whole series.  

I believe that Randip Singh ji of the UKmay not be a nerd or a geek.  One is permitted to be a fan of Star Wars without belonging to nerddom or geekdom, but Star Trek, you know... 

I'll let you know immediately when the Federation contacts me.  No, I'm not the Federation, although I was once - inaccurately - called the Maharani Harinder of Khalistan (my initials).:rofl!!:

BTW, check out the turban in that picture.  :crazy:

:ice:


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 2, 2009)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> Narayanjot ji,
> FYI,  Commander William Thomas Riker is the highest ranking Canadian in the whole series.
> 
> I believe that Randip Singh ji of the UKmay not be a nerd or a geek.  One is permitted to be a fan of Star Wars without belonging to nerddom or geekdom, but Star Trek, you know...
> ...



On the contrary, I am well aware of the dastardly Kanoonien Singhs plans.......his beard seems to have been lost in a freak accident 

Back to Atheists, then if they believe in themselves, then that is their higher power.


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 2, 2009)

Found my original post:

http://www.sikh-hist...ic;f=9;t=000402

Hi All just been watching the Star Wars films and was thinking about he uncanny resemblance between the Religion of the Jedi’s and the Sikhs:

• Jedi’s don’t believe in Material Attachment (Moh), Greed (Lobh), Lust (Kaam), Krodh (Anger), (Hankaar)Egotism or false pride. Jedi’s believe in control of these basic carnal emotions and so do Sikhs.
• Always are armed with their lightsaber (Sikhs with their Kirpan), and never parted.
• Sikh’s believe in a code of conduct and a code of dress, as do the Jedi’s;
• Sikh’s believe in protecting the weak and poor and always standing up for Justice. So do the Jedi’s;
• Jedi’s have women warrior’s , who are equals of men. So do Sikhs (Mai Bhago etc)
• Sikh’s have a Council of the wise. Sikhs have a “Panchayat” and the Panj Pyarey
• Sikh’s concept of God is formless, and is around us and within us. The idea of the “Force” is essentially the same.

Can you come up with any more similarities or am I talking gibberish?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 3, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> The thing is, even an Atheist believes in some sort of higher power. His higher power is Science.
> 
> The Theist, believes in a higher power God.
> 
> The Agnostic, is neither here nor there?


Science as a higher power? I am not sure if I follow this...
What is your definition of higher power?



> Back to Atheists, then if they believe in themselves, then that is their higher power.


More ??? from me...


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 3, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> Found my original post:
> 
> http://www.sikh-hist...ic;f=9;t=000402
> 
> ...




No, Randip Singh ji, you are not talking gibberish.  I think many of these "advanced religions" are similar  to Sikhi simply because our ideas/way of life/beliefs are advanced.

I can't help thinking of something else along the same lines, though.  

When jedis go bad, you get Darth Vader.
When Sikhs go bad, you get KP- Gill.
How do they compare?

:ice:​


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 4, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> Science as a higher power? I am not sure if I follow this...
> What is your definition of higher power?
> 
> 
> More ??? from me...



A Higher power, is something one would use to explain (or not explain) that has occurred outside the capabilities of man.

For example my car works, I do not know how it works, but I know it is something to do with Science (combustion), which is in effect a higher power.

In this same way the Theist explains things he or she does not understand through God (as a higher power).


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 4, 2009)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> No, Randip Singh ji, you are not talking gibberish.  I think many of these "advanced religions" are similar  to Sikhi simply because our ideas/way of life/beliefs are advanced.
> 
> I can't help thinking of something else along the same lines, though.
> When jedis go bad, you get Darth Vader.
> ...



Correct.

Whenever a Sikh runs on "self will" they go to the Dark Side.

I think I mat start a seperate thread on Sikhism and Jedi belief.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 4, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> Correct.
> 
> Whenever a Sikh runs on "self will" they go to the Dark Side.
> 
> I think I mat start a seperate thread on Sikhism and Jedi belief.




Great idea!  Then I won't have to feel guilty about being off topic!  (The Jedi Problem is quite different from the Agnostic Problem, eh?)

:ice:


----------



## Lee (Oct 5, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> Hi Lee,
> 
> Interesting view, but in Sikhism we say God is within us and we have to tune ourselves (like a radio) to realise what God is. God is in effect Truth.
> 
> ...


 
Hey Randip ji,

When I use the word unreasonable, I mean without objective proof.  We are all subjects to such unreasonable belifes so please do not think I attach any negativity to the word.

A belife in God and a belife that no such thing a God exists are both unreasonable suppositions, but then I can live with my unreasonable belife.:yes:


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 7, 2009)

Randip Singh ji


> In this same way the Theist explains things he or she does not understand through God (as a higher power).


I bet I dont have to tell you that this position leads to no answer... no explanation. God cannot be considered an explanation becuase He is even more complicated than the phenomenon that you are trying to explain etc. You are left with nothing but an infinite regression.

Lee ji writes:


> a belife in God and a belife that no such thing a God exists are both unreasonable suppositions, but then I can live with my unreasonable belife.


I say exactly both are unreasonable but when you say you don't know whether a God exists or not, that IS reasonable.

So referring to both your reply and Lee ji's reply:
Wouldn't an atheist/agnostic position be better than a theist position?


----------



## Lee (Oct 9, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> Randip Singh ji
> I bet I dont have to tell you that this position leads to no answer... no explanation. God cannot be considered an explanation becuase He is even more complicated than the phenomenon that you are trying to explain etc. You are left with nothing but an infinite regression.
> 
> Lee ji writes:
> ...


 

Well who can judge what is better other than the individual?  I would say that the agnostic stance more logical, and for some people better.  But then I know plenty of people happy in their beliefe and disbelife.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 9, 2009)

Lee said:


> Well who can judge what is better other than the individual?  I would say that the agnostic stance more logical, and for some people better.  But then I know plenty of people happy in their beliefe and disbelife.


I agree with what you say but here I am specifically referring to a reasonable or an unreasonable position. The agnostic/atheist position is better because it's more reasonable. I am not concerned with how happy it makes someone. Doing certain drugs (for no medical reason) makes one happy... is it reasonable to continue to do so?  I don't think so. Although, I would generally agree that the individual knows themselves best but what if they are ignorant about it? You can't assume but you can't tell people to how to live their lives either, can you? 

just thinking out loud


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 9, 2009)

I cannot make sense of this discussion until we define "reasonable" and "unreasonable."

I guess some of you must get tired of my demanding definitions, but it is my experience that many arguments are caused by people using the same words and meaning different things.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 10, 2009)

Mai ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> I cannot make sense of this discussion until we define "reasonable" and "unreasonable."


And shall I add that it is a very reasonable thing to ask?

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Lee (Oct 12, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> I agree with what you say but here I am specifically referring to a reasonable or an unreasonable position. The agnostic/atheist position is better because it's more reasonable. I am not concerned with how happy it makes someone. Doing certain drugs (for no medical reason) makes one happy... is it reasonable to continue to do so? I don't think so. Although, I would generally agree that the individual knows themselves best but what if they are ignorant about it? You can't assume but you can't tell people to how to live their lives either, can you?
> 
> just thinking out loud


 

Baghat Ji,

Let me explian when I use the words 'reasonable, or 'unreasonable' I mean reasonable as in  a belife that has logical thought, well reasoned structor behind it, and so unreasonable must be it's opposite.

To my mind any claim that 'God exists' or any claim that 'God does not exist' are both claims not founded in reason (there is no proof either way), and so both are 'unreasonable' belifes to have.

Now what I wanted to address with my last post was that the agnostic stance(I don't have enough evidance to make my mind up) is the most reasonable, or logical.  However I would not call it best, best is subjective and what is best for me may not be best for others.

So I disagree I would not say that an Atheist stance is best, only that is is unreasonable, I would not say that a Theistic stance is best, only that it is unreasonable, and I would not say that an Agnostic stance is best, only that it is reasonable.

Personaly I would claim that my unreasonable theistic stance is best for me, although not best for my wife.

The real point is not to be too concerend with reason and unreason, if you belive in an unreasonable supposition and this makes you happy, then this must be best for you.


----------

