☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 121934" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">If i was slightly more pessimistic. I might just say "yup, everything is either illogical or pointless" and leave it at that lol. But this is the first valid point i've run into in a while (im not counting the 1+1=windows and mis-understandings of proof by contradiction). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Lol i also said a logical god is a beutiful thing but u opted not to pick up on that <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. I've explained why I called god "pointless" i assumed you have read up on it but I assumed wrong (its not your fault, theres alot of messages in this thread). Anyways "Pointless" is a placeholding nikname I have given because I dont see a point for a logical god to exist. A logical god cannot sustain heaven and hell, does not require your prayers, hasnt given us an absolute moral system and he cannot punish us for not believing in him... pretty much every way in which you can think of him, he is not. Hes essentially the figuritive embodiement of logic, math, and science then. And if thats case, why not cut the middle man and get straight to the logic, math and science.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">To use an anology. The role of "God" in the creation of the universe is "pointless" if the big bang theory is right. The question is "what created the big bang" to which the answer by many religious people is "God." But that answer begets the question "what created god" and w/e answer you can think of to explain that can be instead, directly used to explain the creation of the universe. Therefore the concept of God is pointless in the creation of the universe. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Essentially what im saying wen i say pointless is "not needed." I think a logical god is "not needed" if that makes more sense to you. Because we can jus eliminate god from the picture entirely and deal with logic directly. If you think otherwise, i would love to hear what reason a logical god may have for existing? </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span>Its too bad that whatever Descarte's preached (famous as he was) ended up being largely ignored in favor of John Locke's empircism which makes no mention of God. If this is a debate about Descartes Rationalism vs Locke's Empiricism we wont agree with much <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. I'm an empiricist, i believe in "innate truths" like you do. But I don't believe God is one of those innate truths—but if he is, I have no objection, he just has to be logical like i said. </p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">If morality is a form of logical analysis, it can be at times—largely flawed. But i agree with the general idea that Religion can be seen as something that once had the ability to increase the survival rate. But i think its defunct now but that has more to do with religion and god being out-dated evolutionary off shoots. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Yuh, i think the God of yesterday is, today, largely redundant and energetically unfavorable to be perpetuated in social medium. I think the concept of god is detrimental/counterproductive and I believe it is slowly being rooted out (not through natural selection like a gene, but through a similar process whereby society/culture is naturally selected). The reason why it is being rooted out seems (in my mind) to coincide with the better educating of the public. Thats why the concept of god didnt die out to begin with, people who were unarmed with basic logic simply accepted the concept much like a child willingly accepts the concept of santa clause. But its a good thing that the human race is growing up now <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">She herself is not pointless to others, in the same way that Santa clause is not pointless to childern. But the idea of lookin at tea leaves to tell the future and the idea of santa claus itself is pointless. Neither of the two things are true—you have to will urself into believing them to be true inorder for them to mean anything to you. God is in the same boat. For people like me, once you realize that a logical God cant send u to hell, cant put u in heaven, cant really do anything that God was advertised as doing—then he becomes pointless. For others, ones who believe there prayers work, that an after life awaits them, that they have morals to uphold in his name—the concept of god is not pointless to them, but their god is not logical in the objective sense, its only logical to them and for no other reason then "they believe hes logical"</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Is truth dependant on belief? No. I could believe god does exist, and i could be wrong. Similarily, I could believe god does not exist, and i could be wrong. I can believe in alot of stuff, but I dont know if that stuff is true or false. And of the stuff I know to be true, like 2+2=4, that stuff cannot be false so I cannot say that "I believe 2+2=4" becuase belief (like the word faith) implies a liklihood of being wrong. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I believe in the theory of evolution, I believe its possible for god to exist although I believe god does not exist and I believe the canucks will win the stanley cup <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> (but i can be wrong about all of those, thats why its more fitting to say "believe"). However I cannot say the same for 2+2=4, proof by contradiction, or the laws of physics (i do not believe in those concepts in the same way I believe in the earlier concepts because These concepts cannot be falsified—they are not theories, or idea's, which can be falsified). That stuff is true regardless of belief—innately true. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 121934, member: 5962"] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3] If i was slightly more pessimistic. I might just say "yup, everything is either illogical or pointless" and leave it at that lol. But this is the first valid point i've run into in a while (im not counting the 1+1=windows and mis-understandings of proof by contradiction). Lol i also said a logical god is a beutiful thing but u opted not to pick up on that :P. I've explained why I called god "pointless" i assumed you have read up on it but I assumed wrong (its not your fault, theres alot of messages in this thread). Anyways "Pointless" is a placeholding nikname I have given because I dont see a point for a logical god to exist. A logical god cannot sustain heaven and hell, does not require your prayers, hasnt given us an absolute moral system and he cannot punish us for not believing in him... pretty much every way in which you can think of him, he is not. Hes essentially the figuritive embodiement of logic, math, and science then. And if thats case, why not cut the middle man and get straight to the logic, math and science. To use an anology. The role of "God" in the creation of the universe is "pointless" if the big bang theory is right. The question is "what created the big bang" to which the answer by many religious people is "God." But that answer begets the question "what created god" and w/e answer you can think of to explain that can be instead, directly used to explain the creation of the universe. Therefore the concept of God is pointless in the creation of the universe. Essentially what im saying wen i say pointless is "not needed." I think a logical god is "not needed" if that makes more sense to you. Because we can jus eliminate god from the picture entirely and deal with logic directly. If you think otherwise, i would love to hear what reason a logical god may have for existing? [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]Its too bad that whatever Descarte's preached (famous as he was) ended up being largely ignored in favor of John Locke's empircism which makes no mention of God. If this is a debate about Descartes Rationalism vs Locke's Empiricism we wont agree with much :P. I'm an empiricist, i believe in "innate truths" like you do. But I don't believe God is one of those innate truths—but if he is, I have no objection, he just has to be logical like i said. [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3] If morality is a form of logical analysis, it can be at times—largely flawed. But i agree with the general idea that Religion can be seen as something that once had the ability to increase the survival rate. But i think its defunct now but that has more to do with religion and god being out-dated evolutionary off shoots. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3] Yuh, i think the God of yesterday is, today, largely redundant and energetically unfavorable to be perpetuated in social medium. I think the concept of god is detrimental/counterproductive and I believe it is slowly being rooted out (not through natural selection like a gene, but through a similar process whereby society/culture is naturally selected). The reason why it is being rooted out seems (in my mind) to coincide with the better educating of the public. Thats why the concept of god didnt die out to begin with, people who were unarmed with basic logic simply accepted the concept much like a child willingly accepts the concept of santa clause. But its a good thing that the human race is growing up now :). [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3] She herself is not pointless to others, in the same way that Santa clause is not pointless to childern. But the idea of lookin at tea leaves to tell the future and the idea of santa claus itself is pointless. Neither of the two things are true—you have to will urself into believing them to be true inorder for them to mean anything to you. God is in the same boat. For people like me, once you realize that a logical God cant send u to hell, cant put u in heaven, cant really do anything that God was advertised as doing—then he becomes pointless. For others, ones who believe there prayers work, that an after life awaits them, that they have morals to uphold in his name—the concept of god is not pointless to them, but their god is not logical in the objective sense, its only logical to them and for no other reason then "they believe hes logical" Is truth dependant on belief? No. I could believe god does exist, and i could be wrong. Similarily, I could believe god does not exist, and i could be wrong. I can believe in alot of stuff, but I dont know if that stuff is true or false. And of the stuff I know to be true, like 2+2=4, that stuff cannot be false so I cannot say that "I believe 2+2=4" becuase belief (like the word faith) implies a liklihood of being wrong. I believe in the theory of evolution, I believe its possible for god to exist although I believe god does not exist and I believe the canucks will win the stanley cup :P (but i can be wrong about all of those, thats why its more fitting to say "believe"). However I cannot say the same for 2+2=4, proof by contradiction, or the laws of physics (i do not believe in those concepts in the same way I believe in the earlier concepts because These concepts cannot be falsified—they are not theories, or idea's, which can be falsified). That stuff is true regardless of belief—innately true. [/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top