tintingz:
What's your point here?

My point is, have you wondered why you call "strong evidence" the contents of a book that you refer to as mythical?

budaatum:

My point is, have you wondered why you call "strong evidence" the contents of a book that you refer to as mythical?

I was assuming if the myths in the book which obviously is an empirical evidence to the people in the stories were to be done today. Imagine how very convincing I would be that there is a supernatural existence.

tintingz:


I was assuming if the myths in the book which obviously is an empirical evidence to the people in the stories were to be done today. Imagine how very convincing I would be that there is a supernatural existence.

But those so called myths in the book were most definitely not "obviously empirical evidence to the people in the stories", since nothing can be obvious to the people in the story who themselves would be mythical, or at least some of what's written about them must be mythical, like Zeus and Aphrodite and GoT, for instance.

But lets say the sea actual splits before me, or the sun stands still or I and everyone see a chariot come down from the sky, I'm sure we'd investigate before coming to conclussion especially since our diverse human natures would make us all describe what we saw differently. I mean, I for one would wonder if my drink had been spiked so I lost track of time and dreamed an aeroplane was a chariot, while some will likely fall to the ground and shout "miracle", or "angels", or "aliens".

Claiming "supernatural existence" would indicate how shallow I reason, is what I think, and would strongly advice myself to stop being so stupidly lazy and use my brain more.

budaatum:

But those so called myths in the book were most definitely not "obviously empirical evidence to the people in the stories", since nothing can be obvious to the people in the story who themselves would be mythical, or at least some of what's written about them must be mythical, like Zeus and Aphrodite and GoT, for instance.

But lets say the sea actual splits before me, or the sun stands still or I and everyone see a chariot come down from the sky, I'm sure we'd investigate before coming to conclussion especially since our diverse human natures would make us all describe what we saw differently. I mean, I for one would wonder if my drink had been spiked so I lost track of time and dreamed an aeroplane was a chariot, while some will likely fall to the ground and shout "miracle", or "angels", or "aliens".

Claiming "supernatural existence" would indicate how shallow I reason, is what I think, and would strongly advice myself to stop being so stupidly lazy and use my brain more.

Sigh Okay.

tintingz:
You can be a skeptic without being a zombie. The concept of skepticism in philosophy and science is to question, doubt everything before concluding on a matter.

So maybe you should tell us better why someone has to be both?

OK, take this example. If you receive a prescription from the physician, do you exercise skepticism over the efficacy and action of the medication? Do you go, "I'm sick, the doctor gave me this medicine, but before I use the medicine or while I use it, I want to confirm if and how this medicine will work"?

You don't. And that's zombiesm. No one can be constantly skeptical. In some areas, you're zombie, in other areas you're more cautious and skeptic. It depends on a number of factors.

The fundamental principles in science is to question, without questioning the science is meaningless.

The idea of science is logical.

Questioning is just one step in the scientific method. And it isn't even the first step. My point is that skepticism in itself can't be credited to the scientific advance in the west. There are several other components.

And as I mentioned before, no one can be all skeptic or all zombie. It depend on subject matter and vary by degree. And thus, if you look closely at the western countries, you can see that these people are no better skeptics than Muslims, they're also zombies in certain subjects including history and politics.

Skepticism in my context is about philosophical arguments.

Alright. Every argument boils down to some philosophy at the end of the day. Even simple arguments like "Who should do the dishes?"

Of cos some non-religous people suffer delusion too. The majority people that shows a delusional symptoms are Religious people.

Define delusion then. There are some kinds delusions associated with religious folks, but everyone really suffer delusion.

Again, my topic is about philosophical matter.

If one can be skeptical if Buhari went to school why can't one be skeptical if Muhammad received revelation from his god?

I asked him, would you believe me if I told you I saw a winged green flying rabbit? He said no that I'm likely psychotic and then I asked him was Muhammad psychotic when he saw angels and rode of flying donkey? He said no. You see the problems with his reasoning?

So the point of my topic is philosophical base.

Let's define zombeism for the sake of clarity. Zombiesm is basically accepting and living by ideas without scrutinizing them for accuracy. Just rejecting claims of Muhammad flying on horses and seeing angels don't make you a skeptic. And accepting such claims don't necessarily makes you a zombie. Regardless of your conclusion, you are zombie if you didn't scrutinize the claims and you're skeptic if you did.

Now, as to my statement; "Everyone is both skeptic and zombie to varying extent depending on the subject." This is a response to the question of whether a person can be skeptic on all philosophic issues. As for individual philosophic issues like whether Muhammad did see angels and fly on horses, I agree that you can either be skeptic or zombie, not both.

Nah. If you read more of philosophy you would see there are many holes when it comes to "God" a supernatural being. Till date there are still philosophical debates among religious people and non-religous people. This shows there's no objective conviction in the matter of religion, god, supernatural, truth, morality, purpose, etc.

So how did "most" religious people verified their faith to attain certainty? Can they demonstrate this logically and evidentially in an objective level?

If this is true then there should be religion or world view that has to be objectively true and there won't be need for philosophical questions as there's an answer, so which is the true Religion here?

OK, your assumption is this; Anyone who still bear religious beliefs haven't questioned such beliefs, and is thus a zombie.

That is not true. All skeptics do not share the same conclusion on a particular subject. If you want to argue about the evidence, don't forget that skeptic have different standard for evidence. What doesn't pass as evidence for you, may pass for another skeptic.

usermane:


OK, take this example. If you receive a prescription from the physician, do you exercise skepticism over the efficacy and action of the medication? Do you go, "I'm sick, the doctor gave me this medicine, but before I use the medicine or while I use it, I want to confirm if and how this medicine will work"?

Medication is built under questioning, trials and testing, it's not like the doctor just prescribed a treatment for me, he's prescribing a medication that has been tested severally and details are given. And in medics patients are allowed to ask questions. So I don't know how this is zombiesm?

You don't. And that's zombiesm. No one can be constantly skeptical. In some areas, you're zombie, in other areas you're more cautious and skeptic. It depends on a number of factors.

No. That's not zombiesm. Zombiesm is when I told you to bring 21 white cows and you must do it and don't question the gods.

Questioning is just one step in the scientific method. And it isn't even the first step. My point is that skepticism in itself can't be credited to the scientific advance in the west. There are several other components.

I think questioning is the second step in science. To start a theory or hypothesis one has to question. Why is the rainbow with multiple colors, what causes the rainbow? That's how theories starts. It's still fundamental.

And as I mentioned before, no one can be all skeptic or all zombie. It depend on subject matter and vary by degree. And thus, if you look closely at the western countries, you can see that these people are no better skeptics than Muslims, they're also zombies in certain subjects including history and politics.

Yes ofcos there are still zombies in the west but the west are far more developed because they're scientific inclined and relevant for centuries till date.

Alright. Every argument boils down to some philosophy at the end of the day. Even simple arguments like "Who should do the dishes?"

True but in this case I'm talking about the religious aspect of philosophy.

Define delusion then. There are some kinds delusions associated with religious folks, but everyone really suffer delusion.

Delusion : A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Delusion : an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
Source: Google

Every humans aren't perfect,. Imperfect me tries to question any new information or experience and try to rationalize it, there are some set of people that believes anything pertaining their beliefs cannot be questioned.

Let's define zombeism for the sake of clarity. Zombiesm is basically accepting and living by ideas without scrutinizing them for accuracy.

Ok, you got the definition right.

Just rejecting claims of Muhammad flying on horses and seeing angels don't make you a skeptic. And accepting such claims don't necessarily makes you a zombie. Regardless of your conclusion, you are zombie if you didn't scrutinize the claims and you're skeptic if you did.

A Christian can reject Muhammad rode on a flying donkey and term it false and believe Jesus walked on water or levitate to the sky, that's delusion and irrational except such Christian can demonstrate why one is true and the other isn't true. This argument is usually goes In circles, sentiments, hypocrisy.

A skeptic won't believe in any until it's proven.

Now, as to my statement; "Everyone is both skeptic and zombie to varying extent depending on the subject." This is a response to the question of whether a person can be skeptic on all philosophic issues. As for individual philosophic issues like whether Muhammad did see angels and fly on horses, I agree that you can either be skeptic or zombie, not both.

Ok.

OK, your assumption is this; Anyone who still bear religious beliefs haven't questioned such beliefs, and is thus a zombie.

It's not an assumption, it's a doctrine in the belief especially the Abrahamic. You can't question Allah nor his Prophets.

That is not true. All skeptics do not share the same conclusion on a particular subject. If you want to argue about the evidence, don't forget that skeptic have different standard for evidence. What doesn't pass as evidence for you, may pass for another skeptic.

The question you should ask is what is evidence?

tintingz:
Medication is built under questioning, trials and testing, it's not like the doctor just prescribed a treatment for me, he's prescribing a medication that has been testeid severally and details are given. And in medics patients are allowed to ask questions. So I don't know how this is zombiesm?

Doctors do make mistakes in prescription. And several medications that initially passed clinical trials have been withdrawn from manufacturing after years of utility in healthcare. So, this is zombeism, admittedly a pardonable one.

But the gist is that everyone is zombie in one area or the other. For some people, this area is their faith. But even the zombie theist would tell you that their faith have been tried and verified by generations of sages and scholars.

I think questioning is the second step in science. To start a theory or hypothesis one has to question. Why is the rainbow with multiple colors, what causes the rainbow? That's how theories starts. It's still fundamental.

OK.

Yes of cos there are still zombies in the west but the west are far more developed because they're scientific inclined and relevant for centuries till date.

You mean far more developed because there is less zombeism in religion among the people in the west?

No. It is more complicated than that. Scientific development takes intelligence, determination, hard work and the will change lives & be self-sufficient. If you spread skepticism in the Muslim world today, it will make almost no difference in their scientific achievement.

A Christian can reject Muhammad rode on a flying donkey and term it false and believe Jesus walked on water or levitate to the sky, that's delusion and irrational except such Christian can demonstrate why one is true and the other isn't true. This argument is usually goes In circles, sentiments, hypocrisy.

A skeptic won't believe in any until it's proven.

Agreed. But remember, what is unproven to one skeptic, may be proven to another. Proof is if kind of subjective.

It's not an assumption, it's a doctrine in the belief especially the Abrahamic. You can't question Allah nor his Prophets.

OK, what is your view on a Muslim like Al-baqir? You can judge from his content and methodology. Doesn't he seem skeptical in his approach and opposed to zombiesm?

The question you should ask is what is evidence?

I didn't ask because I know it only leads to no where. I preached Qur'anism for 6 years. I thought I had all the evidence to convince sunnites. Where have that led me?

usermane:


Doctors do make mistakes in prescription. And several medications that initially passed clinical trials have been withdrawn from manufacturing after years of utility in healthcare. So, this is zombeism, admittedly a pardonable one.

But the gist is that everyone is zombie in one area or the other. For some people, this area is their faith. But even the zombie theist would tell you that their faith have been tried and verified by generations of sages and scholars.

Isn't the same medics that question the medication and conduct another trial before it's withdrawn from manufacturing? Didn't they admit there's an error or fraud after another trial and investigation? This still doesn't still fall under zombiesm.

How did theists verified their beliefs? If there's scrutiny in thier beliefs why aren't any objective proof for their beliefs? Atleast science can proof their claims objectively, what's theists got to show than belief? Do you know what belief and faith means?

You mean far more developed because there is less zombeism in religion among the people in the west?

No. It is more complicated than that. Scientific development takes intelligence, determination, hard work and the will change lives & be self-sufficient. If you spread skepticism in the Muslim world today, it will make almost no difference in their scientific achievement.

If muslims become philosophical skeptics i bet you most will become irreligious or less Religious. The west is an example . I will say it again skepticism led to Greek philosophers knowledge, led to medieval muslim scientists knowledge then to the Western knowledge who are still dominating science today.

Agreed. But remember, what is unproven to one skeptic, may be proven to another. Proof is if kind of subjective.

Can you please explain this better?

OK, what is your view on a Muslim like Al-baqir? You can judge from his content and methodology. Doesn't he seem skeptical in his approach and opposed to zombiesm?

Kinda "appear" skeptical tho but a circular argument.

Let me give you a tip, I criticize Batman because I believe in Superman.

I didn't ask because I know it only leads to no where. I preached Qur'anism for 6 years. I thought I had all the evidence to convince sunnites. Where have that led me?

Only a delusional and dishonest person will reject an evidence.

usermane:

If you spread skepticism in the Muslim world today, it will make almost no difference in their scientific achievement.

I can't see how this can be true, and think you say so because you are unaware of the paradigm shifts that skeptism has caused in Islam since its beginning.

A skeptic who questions by applying the senses (the scientific method), will come to conclusions most couldn't believe even if they wanted to, and would be the wiser for it.

Taqī ad-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah (January 22, 1263 - September 26, 1328), was a Muslim Skeptic. Here's a book you might want to consider on the topic. Sorry I can't find a free pdf, but I found this shed some light despite its anti-skeptic beginning.

tintingz:

If muslims become philosophical skeptics i bet you most will irreligious or less Religious. The west is an example . I will say it again skepticism led to Greek philosophers knowledge, led to medieval muslim scientists knowledge then to the west knowledge who are dominating science today.

I'm delighted you note that skepticism increases knowledge. Many Muslims have been philosophical skeptics and remained religious, just as Christians too, albeit both of the philosophical sort as opposed to 'believers'.

I'd go further and add that unskeptical people, as in, those who unquestioningly believe, are zombies. They are more likely found amongst Nigerians, regardless of religion, than in even Hope Probe to Mars UAE, and in fact, anti-skeptism is why we live in the dark since we have not yet learnt to question and say "Let there be light".

So, God or whatever, please continue to bless tingz the skeptic as he blesses everyone else with skeptism!

budaatum:

I'm delighted you note that skepticism increases knowledge. Many Muslims have been philosophical skeptics and remained religious, just as Christians too, albeit both of the philosophical sort as opposed to 'believers'.

I'd go further and add that unskeptical people, as in, those who unquestioningly believe, are zombies. They are more likely found amongst Nigerians, regardless of religion, than in even Hope Probe to Mars UAE, and in fact, anti-skeptism is why we live in the dark since we have not yet learnt to question and say "Let there be light".

So, God or whatever, please continue to bless tingz the skeptic as he blesses everyone else with skeptism!

Yes, like i said one can be less Religious. There are Religious philosophers.

@tintingz

If you had gone out, and then on your way home, you saw people running, and then you got a call from your parent telling you that you should stay back because there is a robbery going on in your neighbourhood, would you believe your parents like a zombie and take to your heels and find a sanctuary like those already fleeing or would you argue with them based on your skepticism to philosophically prove to you that there is indeed a robbery going on? Or better still, would you rather go confirm what is really happening so as to have physical evidence that there is indeed a robbery going on?

budaatum:

I can't see how this can be true, and think you say so because you are unaware of the paradigm shifts that skeptism has caused in Islam since its beginning.

A skeptic who questions by applying the senses (the scientific method), will come to conclusions most couldn't believe even if they wanted to, and would be the wiser for it.

Taqī ad-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah (January 22, 1263 - September 26, 1328), was a Muslim Skeptic. Here's a book you might want to consider on the topic. Sorry I can't find a free pdf, but I found this shed some light despite its anti-skeptic beginning.

We're talking about the present, not the past. Intelligence and diligence are the keys to scientific development. The skepticism you keep referring is product of intelligence.

sino:
@tintingz

If you had gone out, and then on your way home, you saw people running, and then you got a call from your parent telling you that you should stay back because there is a robbery going on in your neighbourhood, would you believe your parents like a zombie and take to your heels and find a sanctuary like those already fleeing or would you argue with them based on your skepticism to philosophically prove to you that there is indeed a robbery going on? Or better still, would you rather go confirm what is really happening so as to have physical evidence that there is indeed a robbery going on?

You actually asked this question in this 21st century where I can easily confirm?

Skepticism has to do with an act of doubting, questioning.

tintingz:


How did theists their beliefs? If there's why aren't any objective proof for their beliefs? Atleast science can proof their claims objectively, what's theist got to show than belief? Do you know what belief and faith means?

If you're asking for objective proof, then you getting this all wrong. Outside the physical sciences, there is no such thing as objective proof. Proof is all subjective and relative.

If muslims become philosophical skeptics i bet you most will irreligious or less Religious. The west is an example. I will say it again skepticism led to Greek philosophers knowledge, led to medieval muslim scientists knowledge then to the west knowledge who are dominating science today.

You continue to undermine the role of intelligence and diligence in scientific development. Fair enough.

tintingz:


You actually asked this question in this 21st century where I can easily confirm?

Skepticism has to do with an act of doubting, questioning.

Would you, at that point in time, doubt and question your parents or believe them like a zombie? I have actually presented a 21st century scenario, a phone call from your parents.

usermane:


If you're asking for objective proof, then you getting this all wrong. Outside the physical sciences, there is no such thing as objective proof. Proof is all subjective and relative.

It depends on what you mean by subjective.

E.g is the sun we see actually proof of it existence? Am I existing?

This has to do with philosophy than science.

Science deals with natural phenomena, so how can scientific evidence be subjective and relative? Kindly Give examples.

You continue to undermine the role of intelligence and diligence in scientific development. Fair enough.

Sorry, explain.

sino:


Would you, at that point in time, doubt and question your parents or believe them like a zombie? I have actually presented a 21st century scenario, a phone call from your parents.

Ofcos i will question them.

How did they know or where did they heard it from? In a respectful way.

Then I can also confirm from different source.

tintingz:
Ofcos i will question them.

How did they know or where did they heard it from? In a respectful way.

Then I can also confirm from different source.

Respectfully or not, their answers and those you would be confirming from are based on their experiences or hearsay , moreover you are seeing people running, and you are limited at that moment to believe these people like a zombie. The logical thing to do would be to heed the advice of your parents to stay back, else, you would only be foolish to continue your journey home because you are a skeptic.

The fact here is that holding on to skepticism as the means of reaching the truth in all things is impossible. Even at the point of believing your parents (if you would after your interrogations), it is based on rational thinking innate in every man. It would be pointless arguing and doubting your rational decision to do the right thing in the above scenario cos you have at your disposal evidences which are nothing more than personal experiences, hearsay and you witnessing the effects of the robbery but not the robbery itself. At the end of the day, no one is really a zombie! But trust me, some people can be foolish though, like one who would go ahead with the journey in the above-mentioned scenario claiming skepticism.

usermane:


We're talking about the present, not the past. Intelligence and diligence are the keys to scientific development. The skepticism you keep referring is product of intelligence.

Skeptism is actually doubt, and is the result of the use of the mind, initially, to think, and then to seek knowledge, which might result in intelligence, or stupidity, depending on the understanding one has of the knowledge one finds.

Exploiters tend to reduce knowledge people have by keeping books in languages the people can not understand, by making sure there's no electricity so people can't access contrary information, blowing up schools so they can't be taught, and making sure people believe what they are told, amongst many other things. The person who doubts all this will seek knowledge and gain intelligence (understanding).

When one reads a thing and doubts its validity, we say one is skeptical to what one read. It is the attempt to resolve the doubt that makes one seek knowledge. The proper understanding of the knowledge one finds is what then makes one intelligent. If one does not understand the knowledge, one can become more stupid.

And this is one of those, as it was in the past so it also is now, which is why we, now, must be aware of it so those tricks don't work on us.

sino:


Respectfully or not, their answers and those you would be confirming from are based on their experiences or hearsay , moreover you are seeing people running, and you are limited at that moment to believe these people like a zombie. The logical thing to do would be to heed the advice of your parents to stay back, else, you would only be foolish to continue your journey home because you are a skeptic.

The fact here is that holding on to skepticism as the means of reaching the truth in all things is impossible. Even at the point of believing your parents (if you would after your interrogations), it is based on rational thinking innate in every man. It would be pointless arguing and doubting your rational decision to do the right thing in the above scenario cos you have at your disposal evidences which are nothing more than personal experiences, hearsay and you witnessing the effects of the robbery but not the robbery itself. At the end of the day, no one is really a zombie! But trust me, some people can be foolish though, like one who would go ahead with the journey in the above-mentioned scenario claiming skepticism.

I don't really get your argument.

My questions alone is the skepticism here, the fact that you asked questions shows you're being skeptical and wanted to confirm if it isn't fake news or false alarm. If people are running from a robbery it's very easy to confirm as you're obviously close to the scene, the effect of a robbery is an evidence of something going on. So I don't see your argument here.

If my parents called that there is a robbery, I've to asked where they get that information from, it's a logical thing to do, fake news are spread everywhere and one shouldn't be zombie believing in any information even from your parents! No one is perfect and fake news without confirmation have put many people in trouble.

If you hear heavy gun shots, why would anyone wants to witness the scene? You run for safety (the first rule). It's left for the police and media people to do their job, they're there to cover the scene and give you report in details with "evidence".

Ofcos one can't be skeptical everytime, we're not literally a programmed robots, humans aren't perfect, we do irrational things unintentionally and intentionally but when it's persistence, it's problematic. My arguments here is about philosophical skepticism. How you believed Muhammad rode on a flying donkey and there isn't a flying green rabbit in the cosmic is something delusory. What logical argument do you want to show for it? Why are you betraying your skepticism and shooting yourself in the foot?

I maintain that skepticism brought advanced and reliable knowledge.

tintingz:


I don't really get your argument.

Perhaps you read again from the beginning, it is clearly stated.

My questions alone is the skepticism here, the fact that you asked questions shows you're being skeptical and wanted to confirm if it isn't fake news or false alarm. If people are running from a robbery it's very easy to confirm as you're obviously close to the scene, the effect of a robbery is an evidence of something going on. So I don't see your argument here.

Finally, of course @bold, I have been pointing out to you the certainty of cause and effect, and the fact that it doesn't require philosophical skepticism to arrive at such conclusions...

If my parents called that there is a robbery, I've to asked where they get that information from, it's a logical thing to do, fake news are spread everywhere and one shouldn't be zombie believing in any information even from your parents! No one is perfect and fake news without confirmation have put many people in trouble.

The robbery is happening in your neighbourhood where you and your parents reside! This isn't about fake news or a stranger spreading information on social media!

If you hear heavy gun shots, why would anyone wants to witness the scene? You run for safety (the first rule). It's left for the police and media people to do their job, they're there to cover the scene and give you report in details with "evidence".

I'm sure I didn't mention anything about you hearing gun shots.

Ofcos one can't be skeptical everytime, we're not literally a programmed robots, humans aren't perfect, we do irrational things unintentionally and intentionally but when it's persistence, it's problematic. My arguments here is about philosophical skepticism. How you believed Muhammad rode on a flying donkey and there isn't a flying green rabbit in the cosmic is something delusory. What logical argument do you want to show for it? Why are you betraying your skepticism and shooting yourself in the foot?

You are the one who believes that there is no logical reasoning behind faith, and so it must be zombiesm. You think that you can arrive at the truth of all matters by only philosophical argumentations. Apparently, this is false as there are matters that are fundamental knowledge, just like the cause and effect as portrayed above in the robbery scenario. Also even in the definition of skepticism and philosophical skepticism to be precise, there is the uncertainty clause of not arriving at true knowledge, this is even corroborated by authorities in skepticism. And this has always been my argument.

For starters with regards to your questions, which I had answered before, we both know for certain that your flying rabbit in the cosmic is indeed a figment of your imagination, else you wouldn't be here asking me to prove that it doesn't exist!

I maintain that skepticism brought advanced and reliable knowledge.

And I am telling you that what you are doing here isn't what brought about these advances and reliable knowledge in the world today.

sino:


Perhaps you read again from the beginning, it is clearly stated.

Finally, of course @bold, I have been pointing out to you the certainty of cause and effect, and the fact that it doesn't require philosophical skepticism to arrive at such conclusions...

What's your point here?

You asked a question that's not about the topic. I've said it countless times this topic is about philosophical skepticism on religion matter, you're talking about parents and robbery. Maybe if I'd ignored your post, you won't be strawmaning further.

The robbery is happening in your neighbourhood where you and your parents reside! This isn't about fake news or a stranger spreading information on social media!

Your question is confusing.

Was the robbery happening in my residence that my parents called? And was I in the residents that I saw people running? Cus why would my parents called me to stay back when I'm in the residents?

I can't seem to get what you're picturing.

I'm sure I didn't mention anything about you hearing gun shots.

So what's making people flee?

When I see "people fleeing" In your analogy I was assuming a scene with heavy gun shots or something loud.

You didn't give good picture of what you're saying.

You are the one who believes that there is no logical reasoning behind faith, and so it must be zombiesm.

What's logical reasoning behind faith?

You think that you can arrive at the truth of all matters by only philosophical argumentations. Apparently, this is false as there are matters that are fundamental knowledge, just like the cause and effect as portrayed above in the robbery scenario. Also even in the definition of skepticism and philosophical skepticism to be precise, there is the uncertainty clause of not arriving at true knowledge, this is even corroborated by authorities in skepticism. And this has always been my argument.

Can you define philosophy?

And where did I even said we can know the truth of all matters? Is there any mention of absolutism in this argument?

Stop strawmaning mister.

For starters with regards to your questions, which I had answered before, we both know for certain that your flying rabbit in the cosmic is indeed a figment of your imagination, else you wouldn't be here asking me to prove that it doesn't exist!

Don't use "We", tell me how you know for a "fact" it is my figment of imagination that a flying green rabbit exist in the cosmic?

And was Muhammad imagining when he claim he rode on a flying creature to the sky?

And I am telling you that what you are doing here isn't what brought about these advances and reliable knowledge in the world today.

So what's it?

tintingz:

I maintain that skepticism brought advanced and reliable knowledge.

The first few chapters of Genesis are in fact the result of skeptism. There were various creation myths vying for position at the time, until the two in the Bible were codified, but the fact that there are two shows the skeptism at play even then.

Ref: The Two Creations in Genesis

tintingz:
And was Muhammad imagining when he claim he rode on a flying creature to the sky?

I have the feeling it is not meant literally but metaphorically, perhaps with early Arabic meanings which might have been lost in time, don't you think? Or you really think it meant Mohammed literally "rode on a flying creature to the sky"? If so no one with a brain would read it past primary two, I'd have thought.

budaatum:

I have the feeling it is not meant literally but metaphorically, perhaps with early Arabic meanings which might have been lost in time, don't you think? Or you really think it meant Mohammed literally "rode on a flying creature to the sky"? If so no one with a brain would read it past primary two, I'd have thought.

There are two sets of Muslim opinion on that.
One set is Muhammad went to the heavens on a Pegasus type creature literally in the flesh.
The other is that the journey was in a spiritual or dreamlike state and not literal. But most often people believe it was literal.
Though his companions didn't notice or see anything like that, that night.

IMAliyu:

There are two sets of Muslim opinion on that.
One set is Muhammad went to the heavens on a Pegasus type creature literally in the flesh.
The other is that the journey was in a spiritual or dreamlike state and not literal. But most often people believe it was literal.

I am of the opinion that believers are lazy and ignorant. Its a flaw for which I intend to burn in the hottest region in hell. Good thing is there'll be space as it wouldn't be crowded by the "most often people" who would definitely end up in heaven.

budaatum:

I have the feeling it is not meant literally but metaphorically, perhaps with early Arabic meanings which might have been lost in time, don't you think? Or you really think it meant Mohammed literally "rode on a flying creature to the sky"? If so no one with a brain would read it past primary two, I'd have thought.

It's imaginary or a lie.

budaatum:

The first few chapters of Genesis are in fact the result of skeptism. There were various creation myths vying for position at the time, until the two in the Bible were codified, but the fact that there are two shows the skeptism at play even then.

Ref: The Two Creations in Genesis

Yeah it was a Circular reasoning.

tintingz:


It's imaginary or a lie.

Is it now?

I think it could also be myth, or hallucinations - of the writer, and/or the reporters, or copied from similar stories elsewhere, or it could have been mistranslated with its meaning or implication lost in time, and so on and so on.

The skeptic would not conclude "it's", until conclusive evidence is seen or not. Either ways, the skeptic would continue to consider the significance of the evidence, as in why would such a narrative be in such a book, and what could it mean, and what does it imply to oneself and others, and on and on until the skeptic is enlightened or runs mad.

What skeptics would or, (since no one is perfect), should never do is form an opinion inside their own head and stick with it, because, as soon as they do that they become believers of the crap they create in their heads due to their lack of or insufficient skeptism.

tintingz:


Yeah it was a Circular reasoning.

You jump to conclussion too quick for my skepticism!

Please try, if you would, to list or at least consider some other reasons for the two stories.

tintingz:
What's your point here?

You asked a question that's not about the topic. I've said it countless times this topic is about philosophical skepticism on religion matter, you're talking about parents and robbery. Maybe if I'd ignored your post, you won't be strawmaning further.

"Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry" is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge or certainty.[1][2] Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny of possibility of all knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgement due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3] This is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism


You may read further in the link provided... And please do take note of the classification and types of skepticism.

So for further clarifications, the robbery scenario was introduced to show that it would be quite futile to engage in your philosophical skepticism when evidences available are enough to make rational decisions or conclusions. If you would insist on being a skeptic at that point in time, you are inadvertently advocating for radical skepticism.

Your question is confusing.

Was the robbery happening in my residence that my parents called? And was I in the residents that I saw people running? Cus why would my parents called me to stay back when I'm in the residents?

I can't seem to get what you're picturing.

It is quite simple, your neighbourhood could be the next house or the first house on your street. You don't need to overthink this.

So what's making people flee?

When I see "people fleeing" In your analogy I was assuming a scene with heavy gun shots or something loud.

You didn't give good picture of what you're saying.

Again, you need not assume... But even at that, if I had included you had heard gunshots, would that have been enough evidence for you to conclude that it is true? Could you not be skeptical and assume it could have been bangers or something of sort and the people running were just being hysterical and not being skeptical enough to ascertain the source of the sounds they are hearing like you would?

The real question here is, what sort of evidences would be enough for a philosophical skeptic like yourself?! Or would the fear for your dear life make you abandon all your philosophical argumentations and flee like a 'zombie'?!

What's logical reasoning behind faith?

If I'm not mistaken, Muslims on this section have in many ways presented this while addressing so many of your questions... You may go back and read some of them.

Can you define philosophy?

And where did I even said we can know the truth of all matters? Is there any mention of absolutism in this argument?

Stop strawmaning mister.

I have given a definition above pertinent to this discussion, make use of it, if you will.

If we cannot know the truth about everything, why then does it make you continue to argue when I tell you that our knowledge is limited when it comes to matters of the unseen?! Why does it then bothers you that we believe in the unseen based on the meaningful available evidences of what we can see which justifies our beliefs?

Don't use "We", tell me how you know for a "fact" it is my figment of imagination that a flying green rabbit exist in the cosmic?

And was Muhammad imagining when he claim he rode on a flying creature to the sky?

Okay, first, you are an atheist, you do not believe such creatures exist. But if you claim you do, then you need to present the evidences that proved to you that this exist based on your philosophical skepticism. Now I know you cannot, and furthermore, it would be futile arguing this with you!

Now when it comes to Islam and the belief in the unseen, it doesn't start with a random person claiming to see something out of the physical realm without meaning and you being special and worthy to have been chosen to see the supernatural. Even in our reality, you have to be special to experience certain privileges... As already established, we do not require only physical evidences to arrive at a rational and informed conclusion to believe a matter and conclude that it is true. Of course, when the Prophet SAW narrated his supernatural journey to Jerusalem and up into the heavens by a supernatural creature in a night, during his era, some people were doubtful, not particularly about the creature, but about the travel to Jerusalem based on their experiences of travel back then and said with confidence that no man can travel to Jerusalem from Mecca, a journey of months, in a single night. But the facts here remains that God isn't restricted to what can be created and how events can happen at any point in time. And, man, who was created by God, has now invented planes that can travel from Mecca to Jerusalem in few hours and rockets that can go up into space and other planets...I have seen what man can do, I believe God created man, the universe and all that exist, why would I now doubt what God can do and how God chose to do it?!

I know your next move is to deny the existence of God and still claim it was an imagination or a lie, but that is irrelevant to me cos you claim to be a philosophical skeptic and what you claim is also subject to this your skepticism and the reason you are still here day and night doubting and being uncertain...

So what's it?

What you are doing here is attacking Islam and Muslims day and night, making mockery of our beliefs, insulting us by equating us to Zombies and thinking you are superior because you are now an atheist. But unfortunately, thus far, you have not brought any meaningful thing to show for your enlightenment that you might want to claim other than more doubts and uncertainties.