Can you give some examples of texts which demote critical and abstract thinking? It's hard to comment on that without knowing quite what you mean. I do believe religion has in history been manipulated sometimes by those in power to try and gain control over people and also I believe that often a religious groups can get confused betweentradition/culture and holy teaching, I'm not sure how much this is intrisic to the religions or more of a human characteristic again. I guess I can see what you mean about how some people might be happy to just trust in God over things they don't understand, rather than to ask questions and try to make new discoveries. It's hard to know what the same people would do if they weren't religious though. On the other hand I believe Einstein considered himself to be learning more about the mind of God as he persued physics, so perhaps it can work both ways.
The seventh deadly sin: Pride. You should be humble towards your God and not question him. The deadly sins as a concept in itself.
taken completely out of context, lol.
The ten commandments. Restrictive in nature.
an assumption based on ignorance. and the 10 commandments are common sense, even athiests believe this.
Yeah I know. Old testament. But that's what Christianity is built upon.
With Islam and Judaism, the whole rites and traditions thing is not prone to change or question.
not an example of "holy text", and has nothing to do with demoting critical thinking.
The more you interpret religion, the less of a theist and the more of an agnostic you are. But if you take someone else's interpretation of the original holy texts as the complete truth on religion (what most people do) you're an utter ignoramus. Offence intended to those who do it. Theology is self-education, respect to people who delve in it, especially if you drop your beliefs while at it.
not true at all. i have read the Bible from cover to cover over 7 times, and the more i interpret it, the more of a theist i become, the more i find to chew on and enjoy.
lol, this is what you give as an example of "holy text"?
try this one on for size:
study to show thyself aproved unto God.
see, this ^ is an actual quote from the "holy text" you tried to quote. and its the complete opposite of what youre trying to convey.
The seventh deadly sin: Pride. You should be humble towards your God and not question him. The deadly sins as a concept in itself.
taken completely out of context, lol.
Out of context? The seven deadly sins are a beacon of ethics for many religious people. The 7th sin is often used to downsize those who are not "humble" in front of God and pursue things that would be against his teachings -> religious people are taught to be ignorant regarding certain issues.
The ten commandments. Restrictive in nature.
an assumption based on ignorance. and common sense, even athiests believe this.
? The 10 commandments are a moral backbone of your religion and in their original form, they are quite stern. The biggest bit is only having one God, and that's Jahweh, and you should watch your mouth when saying his name. You should be careful when delving into new issues, because God may get irate at you.
Yeah I know. Old testament. But that's what Christianity is built upon.
With Islam and Judaism, the whole rites and traditions thing is not prone to change or question.
not an example of "holy text"
But an example of how people are shown, that what we have is good, and new things should not be embraced.
The more you interpret religion, the less of a theist and the more of an agnostic you are. But if you take someone else's interpretation of the original holy texts as the complete truth on religion (what most people do) you're an utter ignoramus. Offence intended to those who do it. Theology is self-education, respect to people who delve in it, especially if you drop your beliefs while at it.
not true at all.
And why is it not true? It may be quite an overstatement, but to say it's not true is 99,99% likely to be false. EDIT: And by dropping your beliefs I mean being as unbiased as possible, not abandoning your religion.
lol, this is what you give as an example of "holy text"?
try this one on for size:
study to show thyself aproved unto God.
Yes this is a quote. You can probably pull a quote about anything from the Bible and say it's the truth. This was not, however said by God, but by the apostle Paul. Slight difference there. Also it's never mentioned as any kind of dogma of the religion anywhere else. To study under the other dogmas of the Christian religion is to walk on eggshells.
see, this ^ is an actual quote from the "holy text" you tried to quote. and its the complete opposite of what youre trying to convey. You do realize the lolling is still not necessary in these kinds of internet post-flingings. They come off as arrogant, although you may have not intended them to be such. And yes. This preaching is condescending and thus arrogant... But... But... Approve is spelled with
The seventh deadly sin: Pride. You should be humble towards your God and not question him. The deadly sins as a concept in itself.
taken completely out of context, lol.
Out of context? The seven deadly sins are a beacon of ethics for many religious people. The 7th sin is often used to downsize those who are not "humble" in front of God and pursue things that would be against his teachings -> religious people are taught to be ignorant regarding certain issues.
kk, its out of context for a few different reasons.
1. pride isnt the seventh, its the first.
2. the saying that you said about being humble to God is completely unrelated to the sin that God hates, pride.
3. it has nothing to do with being ignorant and/or not questioning Him.
The ten commandments. Restrictive in nature.
an assumption based on ignorance. and common sense, even athiests believe this.
? The 10 commandments are a moral backbone of your religion and in their original form, they are quite stern. The biggest bit is only having one God, and that's Jahweh, and you should watch your mouth when saying his name. You should be careful when delving into new issues, because God may get irate at you.
yes, the 10 commandments are the backbone of the Jewish/Christian religion. its also common sense, again even athiests and agnostics agree that you shouldnt kill, steal, lie, cheat, and such. and yes, me Gods name is Holy. dont really understand how you think that demotes critical thinking, lol.
Yeah I know. Old testament. But that's what Christianity is built upon.
With Islam and Judaism, the whole rites and traditions thing is not prone to change or question.
not an example of "holy text"
But an example of how people are shown, that what we have is good, and new things should not be embraced.
not seeing how that demotes critical thinking. thats like saying that noone but religious people have traditions that dont change as theyre passed from generation to generation. me parents and grandparents arent religious at all but they sure as hell have traditions that dont change.
The more you interpret religion, the less of a theist and the more of an agnostic you are. But if you take someone else's interpretation of the original holy texts as the complete truth on religion (what most people do) you're an utter ignoramus. Offence intended to those who do it. Theology is self-education, respect to people who delve in it, especially if you drop your beliefs while at it.
not true at all.
And why is it not true? It may be quite an overstatement, but to say it's not true is 99,99% likely to be false.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
lol, this is what you give as an example of "holy text"?
try this one on for size:
study to show thyself approved unto God.
Yes this is a quote. You can probably pull a quote about anything from the Bible and say it's the truth. This was not, however said by God, but by the apostle Paul. Slight difference there. Also it's never mentioned as any kind of dogma of the religion anywhere else. To study under the other dogmas of the Christian religion is to walk on eggshells.
youre abolutely right, it was said by an apostle of the gospel of Jesus. a follower of Him who taught this doctrine. not much of a difference if you ask me. and i dont walk on eggshells. i study Christ and Him crucified, if that causes problems with other "christians belief system" such as (but not limited to) Catholicism, then im sorry, but i dont read around the text, i read the text, as its written. for what it means, not what some "priest" says it means. i dont study "dogma" or adhere to "dogma". i follow Christ, and Him alone. and if you need more examples of teaching from the Bible that teaches that you should study and/or seek truth, read the book of ecclesiastes. if anything at all, Christianity in its purest form promotes critical thinking. it doesnt demote it.
see, this ^ is an actual quote from the "holy text" you tried to quote. and its the complete opposite of what youre trying to convey. You do realize the lolling is still not necessary in these kinds of internet post-flingings. They come off as arrogant, although you may have not intended them to be such. And yes. This preaching is condescending and thus arrogant... But... But... Approve is spelled with
two p:s!!!! Get your quotes right!
i do the lolling in all me posts, and youre the only person that has ever had a problem with it, examine that. and thank you for the spelling lesson.
If you're going to give God credit for all that's right with the world, like the flowers and the trees and large, brown nipples—sorry, Pat Buchanan—then you have to admit that God is responsible for the bad stuff, too, like tsunamis and ringworm, and that bad marijuana crop in '82 that gave everyone a headache.
But I just don't get it. Why, when pointless horror strikes and God smacks us around, we go to church more! It's like we're Tina Turner and God is Ike!
How come, when things go well, it's "Hallelujah!" But when they go bad, it's still, "Hallelujah!"? People can endure an endless series of Job-like hardships: their house is shredded by a tornado, their car is in a tree, the family is wiped out... "But God spared my ceramic lawn deer, thank you, Jesus!"
And we put the blame on ourselves, and say that whatever cruel, random crap happened to us happened because "God works in mysterious ways...too mysterious for stupid me to understand."
Well, sorry, but I think a little more of myself and my fellow humans than that. I don't know the answers to the big cosmic questions. No one does. But I do know there's no reason for a cleft lip or a mine collapsing, or all that traffic on the 101.
Mysterious ways? You know what else works in mysterious ways? A microwave. It stays cool but the food gets hot! It's a mystery! Let's worship it. No, let's not. Let's not thank God for His mercy or blame Him when you die from eating bad spinach. On the fifth anniversary of the national day of prayer and remembrance, let's put the blame for September 11th squarely where it belongs: on our new enemy, Iran.
Very well put once again. I'm beginning to have hope for new posters. I think the OT section has more hope for these new posters than the Pub; mainly because the OT section remembers people better than the Pub. Though Pyrite, the buddy Jesus icon is taken I'm afraid. Quickly make a new one before people mistake you for one of the other reeferheads on this forum....not that there is anything wrong with wacky-tabacky, but Infliction has had that icon for a while, and drug talk is generally moderated in this forum for some reason. It's a damn shame, as it is my favorite topic next to these "God talks." Who said I was a reeferhead? I haven't done that shit since 7th grade or so.
But of course I'll drink until I start to piss my liver out in little painful chunks.
Arguing Religion is pointless, always. Religion is Faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or fact. Without eveidence or fact, arguements are meaningless as each side cannot support it's own arguement.
As for me... am I an Atheist? Yes, I pray to Athea, goddess of disbelief.
PlanoMM. You are again going with the "forums are a grounds for debate" mentality. If internet forums are a ground for debate, not discussion, where in the world are you going to run into constructiveness?
(C.)I'm not saying the 7 deadly sins nor the 10 commandments are bad moral dogmas. I'm not saying believing in them is false. I'm saying they have slight negative connotations towards ignorance, something which "agnostic dogmas" try to avoid at all costs.
What I tried to point out was:
A. You have to walk on eggshells, as to not hurt the foundations of your religion when taking part in theology and research thereof.
B. Religious rites and traditions may get in the way of progress and are not easily removed. To hold on to them and not progress your thinking may cause a slight case of ignorance. Now a lot of religious rites and traditions are of course just interpretations, but still a vast majority of people are upholding them.
C. The commandments thing. Look above.
Now tell me what parts of agnosticism promote ignorance?
1. There's arrogance towards religious people and towards people who act ignorantly (not trying to categorise the two as one, it's just the two separate groups agnostics may have prejudices towards). This will also eventually create a void between society and the agnostic since most of the world's countries are "religious" and also have ignorant people on top of that. Not wanting to be a part of a society that's "alien" to you can be interpreted as ignorance.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
My ignorancedar is picking up some abnormal readings from this statement. To say this as an answer to prove your point and to say I'm 100% wrong makes my bones shiver. Couldn't you at least say that it's probably not true, or highly likely false?
PlanoMM. You are again going with the "forums are a grounds for debate" mentality. If internet forums are a ground for debate, not discussion, where in the world are you going to run into constructiveness?
(C.)I'm not saying the 7 deadly sins nor the 10 commandments are bad moral dogmas. I'm not saying believing in them is false. I'm saying they have slight negative connotations towards ignorance, something which "agnostic dogmas" try to avoid at all costs.
What I tried to point out was:
A. You have to walk on eggshells, as to not hurt the foundations of your religion when taking part in theology and research thereof.
B. Religious rites and traditions may get in the way of progress and are not easily removed. To hold on to them and not progress your thinking may cause a slight case of ignorance. Now a lot of religious rites and traditions are of course just interpretations, but still a vast majority of people are upholding them.
C. The commandments thing. Look above.
Now tell me what parts of agnosticism promote ignorance?
1. There's arrogance towards religious people and towards people who act ignorantly (not trying to categorise the two as one, it's just the two separate groups agnostics may have prejudices towards). This will also eventually create a void between society and the agnostic since most of the world's countries are "religious" and also have ignorant people on top of that. Not wanting to be a part of a society that's "alien" to you can be interpreted as ignorance.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
My ignorancedar is picking up some abnormal readings from this statement. To say this as an answer to prove your point and to say I'm 100% wrong makes my bones shiver. Couldn't you at least say that it's probably not true, or highly likely false?
If you were to say that there are people within religions who often promote ignorance and discourage critical thinking, you'd certainly not get any argument from me, but then again that's not just true of people in religions. I guess any institution with a heirachy has the danger of pushing its ideas onto its members and discouraging dissent. So in that respect, if you're defining religion as "organised religion" then there probably is that tendency to promote certain ideas and ways of thinking and discourage ideas opposed to those views, but then you could argue that if what they were teaching was the truth, then they are discouraging ignorance not promoting it.
As to the religious texts,I think it's a reasonable argument to say that following such a text to the letter and taking every word literally may well lead to ignorance, but that's not necessarily a fault of the text. From my experiences of group Bible studies, it's certainly possible to approach scripture with critical and abstract reasoning, and this often leads to getting a lot more out of it than just reading and accepting it may have done.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say about the 10 commandments, surely all societies have their laws? How's God saying not to have other gods before Him and not taking His name in vein any more or less promoting ignorance than a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack?
The text on pride can lead to some very interesting discussions about what is meant by pride and how might that be a sin, what is sin and what makes a certain sin deadly. It's a good text for using some abstract reasoning and critical thought.
According to the definition that agnostics claim that you cannot know if God exists, then isn't that leading a person to ignorance about God?
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Vinzent BTW, if I'm wrong and there is a just and loving God, I'm sure he'll forgive me. I hear he's in to that. Got it from Jesus.
I hear he likes it when you make jokes about his existance too.
You wouldn't think it'd make an iota of difference to such a transcendent being, would you?
PlanoMM. You are again going with the "forums are a grounds for debate" mentality. If internet forums are a ground for debate, not discussion, where in the world are you going to run into constructiveness?
Babbuun. i dont give a flying fuck what you think about me mentality. ive been polite and friendly and respectful uptil now, i believe that ive been very constructive.
(C.)I'm not saying the 7 deadly sins nor the 10 commandments are bad moral dogmas. I'm not saying believing in them is false. I'm saying they have slight negative connotations towards ignorance, something which "agnostic dogmas" try to avoid at all costs.
and im saying that they dont have any negative connotations toward ignorance. ignorance is human, not religion. explain how agnostics that dont even bother to study religion at all are avoiding ignorance. ive already asked how many agnostics and athiests on this forum have actually read the Bible, and so far only 1 agnostic has answered with yes. explain how thats not ignorance at its purest. i refuse to read the Bible because its false, ive never read it or studied it out, but its false because i just dont wanna believe it could be true. or me friends say it is false. come on, cant you see the hypocricy there?
What I tried to point out was:
A. You have to walk on eggshells, as to not hurt the foundations of your religion when taking part in theology and research thereof.
and what ive already pointed out is that i dont walk on eggshells. there is no need to. im confident in what i believe, because ive actually studied it out. and i want truth, not a religion. truth may be harsh, but thats what i want. you cant get truth walking on eggshells.
B. Religious rites and traditions may get in the way of progress and are not easily removed. To hold on to them and not progress your thinking may cause a slight case of ignorance. Now a lot of religious rites and traditions are of course just interpretations, but still a vast majority of people are upholding them.
and as ive already pointed out, many nonreligious people also have traditions that they follow blindly. ignorance is human.
C. The commandments thing. Look above.
nothing to look above at.
Now tell me what parts of agnosticism promote ignorance?
by definition, it promotes ignorance. its a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" therefore, why try to understand, right? thats willingly ignorant.
1. There's arrogance towards religious people and towards people who act ignorantly (not trying to categorise the two as one, it's just the two separate groups agnostics may have prejudices towards). This will also eventually create a void between society and the agnostic since most of the world's countries are "religious" and also have ignorant people on top of that. Not wanting to be a part of a society that's "alien" to you can be interpreted as ignorance.
theres arrogance toward religious people because they believe themselves smarter than anyone else. as if they are the first people to ever come up with the denial of God, lol.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
My ignorancedar is picking up some abnormal readings from this statement. To say this as an answer to prove your point and to say I'm 100% wrong makes my bones shiver. Couldn't you at least say that it's probably not true, or highly likely false?
your ignorancedar, eh? lol. i think your ignorancedar is broken. you are 100% wrong because you said that if you studied the Bible you would lose your beliefs in God. that is a false statement, as me example proves. and the fact that most of the athiests and agnostics already believe that the Bible is false without even reading it in the first place only further proves me point. if they were to read it, they might just become a Christian.
im not nieve enough to actually believe that im going to convince you of anything, i just enjoy the interaction with someone of a different outlook and belief system. if this bothers you, you can always stop answering, lol.
If you were to say that there are people within religions who often promote ignorance and discourage critical thinking, you'd certainly not get any argument from me, but then again that's not just true of people in religions. I guess any institution with a heirachy has the danger of pushing its ideas onto its members and discouraging dissent. So in that respect, if you're defining religion as "organised religion" then there probably is that tendency to promote certain ideas and ways of thinking and discourage ideas opposed to those views,
What you just said promotes ignorance. By saying anything we have created and will create is going to be just as bad is a cheer to ignorance. Why not just try to think of a way to create an institution that doesn't discourage dissent? Pushing the view of the majority is what will always happen just by that majority existing. If the responsibility of the majority is to be aware of what kind of ideas they're pushing to their surroundings(something many neo-christians do nowadays as well, which I appreciate), wouldn't it be at least a bit better?
but then you could argue that if what they were teaching was the truth, then they are discouraging ignorance not promoting it.
Then again you could argue for all kinds of stuff and put thoseout there as well. I think if we promote religions, we should promote all of the religion and lifestyle philosofies with similar factual evidence. As to the religious texts,I think it's a reasonable argument to say that following such a text to the letter and taking every word literally may well lead to ignorance, but that's not necessarily a fault of the text. From my experiences of group Bible studies, it's certainly possible to approach scripture with critical and abstract reasoning, and this often leads to getting a lot more out of it than just reading and accepting it may have done. And I appreciate that some peole are actually capable of abstract and critical thinking. Like I said before, theologists are supposed to pursue knowledge wherever it may take them. This does not, however have much to do with the fact that most people are not theologists and will never be able to critically process the information. I do believe it IS the fault of religious texts that they can be taken to mean a lot of things, and there's no manual for "correct" or "generally agreed upon" interpretation.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say about the 10 commandments, surely all societies have their laws? How's God saying not to have other gods before Him and not taking His name in vein any more or less promoting ignorance than a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack? People get overcome with emotion, hormonal and neural behaviour changes as moods change. Some may act violently, others lustfully. The people instating imaginary codes of conduct in these cases are misled as well. There is no way people can expect each other to constantly act perfect. People will of course realize by these rules, that bad things happen when they act lustfully or abusively, and it may cause them to weigh their options every time they do so.
Saying God's name, however, is a rule of conduct with no real backing as to what bad things may happen. It's restrictive for no tangible purpose. Restriction generally promotes ignorance.
The text on pride can lead to some very interesting discussions about what is meant by pride and how might that be a sin, what is sin and what makes a certain sin deadly. It's a good text for using some abstract reasoning and critical thought. Yup. But again. Little kids will not be able to handle it. Nor will people who've been ignorant all their lives and don't want to change. All they see is a rule to go by or rebel against, not to study.
According to the definition that agnostics claim that you cannot know if God exists, then isn't that leading a person to ignorance about God? You can know if God exists or doesn't(maybe humans will never know it, maybe they will). But, as of yet, nobody has been able to prove it to others.I don't know if someone REALLY knows if God exists I don't know if God exists, and I don't think it's a relevant question either.
PlanoMM. You are again going with the "forums are a grounds for debate" mentality. If internet forums are a ground for debate, not discussion, where in the world are you going to run into constructiveness?
(C.)I'm not saying the 7 deadly sins nor the 10 commandments are bad moral dogmas. I'm not saying believing in them is false. I'm saying they have slight negative connotations towards ignorance, something which "agnostic dogmas" try to avoid at all costs.
What I tried to point out was:
A. You have to walk on eggshells, as to not hurt the foundations of your religion when taking part in theology and research thereof.
B. Religious rites and traditions may get in the way of progress and are not easily removed. To hold on to them and not progress your thinking may cause a slight case of ignorance. Now a lot of religious rites and traditions are of course just interpretations, but still a vast majority of people are upholding them.
C. The commandments thing. Look above.
Now tell me what parts of agnosticism promote ignorance?
1. There's arrogance towards religious people and towards people who act ignorantly (not trying to categorise the two as one, it's just the two separate groups agnostics may have prejudices towards). This will also eventually create a void between society and the agnostic since most of the world's countries are "religious" and also have ignorant people on top of that. Not wanting to be a part of a society that's "alien" to you can be interpreted as ignorance.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
My ignorancedar is picking up some abnormal readings from this statement. To say this as an answer to prove your point and to say I'm 100% wrong makes my bones shiver. Couldn't you at least say that it's probably not true, or highly likely false?
If you were to say that there are people within religions who often promote ignorance and discourage critical thinking, you'd certainly not get any argument from me, but then again that's not just true of people in religions. I guess any institution with a heirachy has the danger of pushing its ideas onto its members and discouraging dissent. So in that respect, if you're defining religion as "organised religion" then there probably is that tendency to promote certain ideas and ways of thinking and discourage ideas opposed to those views, but then you could argue that if what they were teaching was the truth, then they are discouraging ignorance not promoting it.
As to the religious texts,I think it's a reasonable argument to say that following such a text to the letter and taking every word literally may well lead to ignorance, but that's not necessarily a fault of the text. From my experiences of group Bible studies, it's certainly possible to approach scripture with critical and abstract reasoning, and this often leads to getting a lot more out of it than just reading and accepting it may have done.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say about the 10 commandments, surely all societies have their laws? How's God saying not to have other gods before Him and not taking His name in vein any more or less promoting ignorance than a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack?
The text on pride can lead to some very interesting discussions about what is meant by pride and how might that be a sin, what is sin and what makes a certain sin deadly. It's a good text for using some abstract reasoning and critical thought.
According to the definition that agnostics claim that you cannot know if God exists, then isn't that leading a person to ignorance about God?
and im saying that they dont have any negative connotations toward ignorance. ignorance is human, not religion. explain how agnostics that dont even bother to study religion at all are avoiding ignorance. ive already asked how many agnostics and athiests on this forum have actually read the Bible, and so far only 1 agnostic has answered with yes. explain how thats not ignorance at its purest. i refuse to read the Bible because its false, ive never read it or studied it out, but its false because i just dont wanna believe it could be true. or me friends say it is false. come on, cant you see the hypocricy there?
I have read and been read the Bible even as a very small child, if you remember our discussion from a month back. Also you probably haven't studied a lot of natural sciences. Not everyone has the time to study everything. You have to put things in order, and with current technology, the question of religion is just too open to fully handle or develop.
and what ive already pointed out is that i dont walk on eggshells. there is no need to. im confident in what i believe, because ive actually studied it out. and i want truth, not a religion. truth may be harsh, but thats what i want. you cant get truth walking on eggshells.
What about the people that "are religious" but aren't confident? Not every religious person is you.
and as ive already pointed out, many nonreligious people also have traditions that they follow blindly. ignorance is human.
There are a lot more global and (unfortunately) spreading traditions that involve religion than there are those that don't. Most non-religious traditions and rites borderline plain trends and are far more easily forgotten and buried.
by definition, it promotes ignorance. its a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" therefore, why try to understand, right? thats willingly ignorant.
Agnosticism is the pursuit of ultimate tangible truth. Asking as many questions as possible and trying to find answers to every single one of them. If there is no answer, specify the question. The word of the Bible may be the ultimate truth, or it may not. Logically thinking and considering all factual evidence, to say it is the ultimate truth just comes off as shifty.
theres arrogance toward religious people because they believe themselves smarter than anyone else. as if they are the first people to ever come up with the denial of God, lol.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
I'm willingly giving you your arguements here... I thought you'd go elsewhere if I already presented the arguement. Instead you go present all agnostics as arrogant ignoramuses. There are "agnostics" who do think they're smarter than others but a true agnostic's answer to "Are you smarter than religious people?" is "I don't know, and probably never will". If the way I write makes you think I think I'm smarter than you, could it not just as well be your anger, ignorance and envy kicking in? Also. If the agnostics here believed they were smarter than everyone else, why the heck are they writing on the Off-Topic section of a gaming forum?
your ignorancedar, eh? lol. i think your ignorancedar is broken. you are 100% wrong because you said that if you studied the Bible you would lose your beliefs in God. that is a false statement, as me example proves. and the fact that most of the athiests and agnostics already believe that the Bible is false without even reading it in the first place only further proves me point. if they were to read it, they might just become a Christian.
Ah I see. You interpreted my comment that way. Well I edited it immediately afterwards as well... You may want to look at it again. I never intended for it to mean "everyone who studies religion will become atheist/agnostic". Also. Agnostics do not believe the Bible is false, they observe that there is no conclusive evidence to support it nor denounce it.
The more you interpret religion, the less of a theist and the more of an agnostic you are. But if you take someone else's interpretation of the original holy texts as the complete truth on religion (what most people do) you're an utter ignoramus. Offence intended to those who do it. Theology is self-education, respect to people who delve in it, especially if you drop your beliefs while at it.
not true at all.
And why is it not true? It may be quite an overstatement, but to say it's not true is 99,99% likely to be false. EDIT: And by dropping your beliefs I mean being as unbiased as possible, not abandoning your religion.
and im saying that they dont have any negative connotations toward ignorance. ignorance is human, not religion. explain how agnostics that dont even bother to study religion at all are avoiding ignorance. ive already asked how many agnostics and athiests on this forum have actually read the Bible, and so far only 1 agnostic has answered with yes. explain how thats not ignorance at its purest. i refuse to read the Bible because its false, ive never read it or studied it out, but its false because i just dont wanna believe it could be true. or me friends say it is false. come on, cant you see the hypocricy there?
I have read and been read the Bible even as a very small child, if you remember our discussion from a month back. Also you probably haven't studied a lot of natural sciences. Not everyone has the time to study everything. You have to put things in order, and with current technology, the question of religion is just too open to fully handle or develop.
good, that makes all of 2 of you that have actually read the Bible, lol. sorry for the sarcasm, but its really hard for me to take someone seriously when they insist that the Bible is a work of fiction without ever actually reading it. to me, thats the same as me saying that its completely true without ever reading it. im a firm believer in "dont talk about something that you know nothing about."
and what ive already pointed out is that i dont walk on eggshells. there is no need to. im confident in what i believe, because ive actually studied it out. and i want truth, not a religion. truth may be harsh, but thats what i want. you cant get truth walking on eggshells.
What about the people that "are religious" but aren't confident? Not every religious person is you.
what about the people that "arent religious" but are confident that God isnt real? kindof a silly arguement isnt it? if a person wants to know the truth, its there, all they gotta do is look for it.
and as ive already pointed out, many nonreligious people also have traditions that they follow blindly. ignorance is human.
There are a lot more global and (unfortunately) spreading traditions that involve religion than there are those that don't. Most non-religious traditions and rites borderline plain trends and are far more easily forgotten and buried.
and youre basing this general statement on.....what? im just suppose to take it as fact that most traditions involve religion because.....you say so? quote some facts, please.
by definition, it promotes ignorance. its a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" therefore, why try to understand, right? thats willingly ignorant.
Agnosticism is the pursuit of ultimate tangible truth. Asking as many questions as possible and trying to find answers to every single one of them. If there is no answer, specify the question. The word of the Bible may be the ultimate truth, or it may not. Logically thinking and considering all factual evidence, to say it is the ultimate truth just comes off as shifty.
the definition that i quoted there is directly from the dictionary. you cant get around it, agnosticism is the denial of ultimate knowledge, not the pursuit of it.
theres arrogance toward religious people because they believe themselves smarter than anyone else. as if they are the first people to ever come up with the denial of God, lol.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
I'm willingly giving you your arguements here... I thought you'd go elsewhere if I already presented the arguement. Instead you go present all agnostics as arrogant ignoramuses. There are "agnostics" who do think they're smarter than others but a true agnostic's answer to "Are you smarter than religious people?" is "I don't know, and probably never will". If the way I write makes you think I think I'm smarter than you, could it not just as well be your anger, ignorance and envy kicking in? Also. If the agnostics here believed they were smarter than everyone else, why the heck are they writing on the Off-Topic section of a gaming forum?
no, no, no. i dont think ALL agnostics are arrogant ignoramuses, just some of the ones that post in this forum, lol. and believe me, youve given me nothing to be "envious" of, or jealous, lol. btw, was that a jab?
your ignorancedar, eh? lol. i think your ignorancedar is broken. you are 100% wrong because you said that if you studied the Bible you would lose your beliefs in God. that is a false statement, as me example proves. and the fact that most of the athiests and agnostics already believe that the Bible is false without even reading it in the first place only further proves me point. if they were to read it, they might just become a Christian.
Ah I see. You interpreted my comment that way. Well I edited it immediately afterwards as well... You may want to look at it again. I never intended for it to mean "everyone who studies religion will become atheist/agnostic". Also. Agnostics do not believe the Bible is false, they observe that there is no conclusive evidence to support it nor denounce it.
The more you interpret religion, the less of a theist and the more of an agnostic you are. But if you take someone else's interpretation of the original holy texts as the complete truth on religion (what most people do) you're an utter ignoramus. Offence intended to those who do it. Theology is self-education, respect to people who delve in it, especially if you drop your beliefs while at it.
And why is it not true? It may be quite an overstatement, but to say it's not true is 99,99% likely to be false. EDIT: And by dropping your beliefs I mean being as unbiased as possible, not abandoning your religion.
and youre basing this general statement on.....what? im just suppose to take it as fact that most traditions involve religion because.....you say so? quote some facts, please.
Why didn't you give examples of non-religious rites and traditions in your first arguement? Anyway, here goes:
1. Going to church every sunday. People take their time and their childrens' time to be a part of a religious community. If you do not go to Church on at least holy days, you will be looked down upon by certain members of your religious community. This will not go away easily. Also having sunday as an official western work-free day will not be going away very quickly. There are ups and downs for the aforementioned.
2. Oppression of women in Islam.
3. Jewish and muslim circumcision.
4. Zealous conversion and the general acceptance thereof in Christianity and Islam."go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19)
Those are the big ones. I'll fill in more as I think of them.
by definition, it promotes ignorance. its a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" therefore, why try to understand, right? thats willingly ignorant.
Agnosticism is the pursuit of ultimate tangible truth. Asking as many questions as possible and trying to find answers to every single one of them. If there is no answer, specify the question. The word of the Bible may be the ultimate truth, or it may not. Logically thinking and considering all factual evidence, to say it is the ultimate truth just comes off as shifty.
the definition that i quoted there is directly from the dictionary. you cant get around it, agnosticism is the denial of ultimate knowledge, not the pursuit of it.
What kind of dictionary are you using? The christian dictionary for bashing all other ways of observing life on the planet? Never would a real dictionary contain such text. The longest you can push the ignorance factor unto agnosticism is that an agnostic may think there isn't enough proof for the existence or non-existence of God so it's an irrelevant question. I do not think it is an irrelevant question since it holds too much relevance in the policies of countries today.
no, no, no. i dont think ALL agnostics are arrogant ignoramuses, just some of the ones that post in this forum, lol. and believe me, youve given me nothing to be "envious" of, or jealous, lol. btw, was that a jab?
It was indeed a jab. But yeah. You could have used "some" instead of "they" and I would have been with you right off the bat.
and youre basing this general statement on.....what? im just suppose to take it as fact that most traditions involve religion because.....you say so? quote some facts, please.
Why didn't you give examples of non-religious rites and traditions in your first arguement? Anyway, here goes:
1. Going to church every sunday. People take their time and their childrens' time to be a part of a religious community. If you do not go to Church on at least holy days, you will be looked down upon by certain members of your religious community. This will not go away easily. Also having sunday as an official western work-free day will not be going away very quickly. There are ups and downs for the aforementioned.
2. Oppression of women in Islam.
3. Jewish and muslim circumcision.
4. Zealous conversion and the general acceptance thereof in Christianity and Islam."go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19)
Those are the big ones. I'll fill in more as I think of them.
i did quote examples, me parents and grandparents, remember? nevertheless, im not the one saying that traditions=ignorance, so i shouldnt have to provide facts.
and none of those traditions that you quoted demote critical thinking, or promote ignorance. please give examples of traditions that demote critical thinking or promote ignorance.
by definition, it promotes ignorance. its a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" therefore, why try to understand, right? thats willingly ignorant.
Agnosticism is the pursuit of ultimate tangible truth. Asking as many questions as possible and trying to find answers to every single one of them. If there is no answer, specify the question. The word of the Bible may be the ultimate truth, or it may not. Logically thinking and considering all factual evidence, to say it is the ultimate truth just comes off as shifty.
the definition that i quoted there is directly from the dictionary. you cant get around it, agnosticism is the denial of ultimate knowledge, not the pursuit of it.
What kind of dictionary are you using? The christian dictionary for bashing all other ways of observing life on the planet? Never would a real dictionary contain such text. The longest you can push the ignorance factor unto agnosticism is that an agnostic may think there isn't enough proof for the existence or non-existence of God so it's an irrelevant question. I do not think it is an irrelevant question since it holds too much relevance in the policies of countries today.
dictionary.com. type in Agnosticism. read the definitions.
no, no, no. i dont think ALL agnostics are arrogant ignoramuses, just some of the ones that post in this forum, lol. and believe me, youve given me nothing to be "envious" of, or jealous, lol. btw, was that a jab?
It was indeed a jab. But yeah. You could have used "some" instead of "they" and I would have been with you right off the bat.
theres no need for jabs among friends, lol. and yes, i should have used "some" instead of "they".
If you were to say that there are people within religions who often promote ignorance and discourage critical thinking, you'd certainly not get any argument from me, but then again that's not just true of people in religions. I guess any institution with a heirachy has the danger of pushing its ideas onto its members and discouraging dissent. So in that respect, if you're defining religion as "organised religion" then there probably is that tendency to promote certain ideas and ways of thinking and discourage ideas opposed to those views,
What you just said promotes ignorance. By saying anything we have created and will create is going to be just as bad is a cheer to ignorance. Why not just try to think of a way to create an institution that doesn't discourage dissent? Pushing the view of the majority is what will always happen just by that majority existing. If the responsibility of the majority is to be aware of what kind of ideas they're pushing to their surroundings(something many neo-christians do nowadays as well, which I appreciate), wouldn't it be at least a bit better? I dont see how suggesting there's a danger of any such institutions pushing their ideas on people is promoting ignorance. There's the same danger in schools. Doesn't the use of the word "danger" suggest it might not be something I necessarily approve of? but then you could argue that if what they were teaching was the truth, then they are discouraging ignorance not promoting it.
Then again you could argue for all kinds of stuff and put thoseout there as well. I think if we promote religions, we should promote all of the religion and lifestyle philosofies with similar factual evidence. That was kind of my point. While a religion isn't forcing itself on those outside of it, it's a little harsh for someone outside to accuse a religion of promoting ignorance, when who's to say they're not bypassing a whole load of ignorance and teaching truth. It's up to individuals to join or attend and up to them how they process any teachings they receive. As to the religious texts,I think it's a reasonable argument to say that following such a text to the letter and taking every word literally may well lead to ignorance, but that's not necessarily a fault of the text. From my experiences of group Bible studies, it's certainly possible to approach scripture with critical and abstract reasoning, and this often leads to getting a lot more out of it than just reading and accepting it may have done. And I appreciate that some peole are actually capable of abstract and critical thinking. Like I said before, theologists are supposed to pursue knowledge wherever it may take them. This does not, however have much to do with the fact that most people are not theologists and will never be able to critically process the information. I do believe it IS the fault of religious texts that they can be taken to mean a lot of things, and there's no manual for "correct" or "generally agreed upon" interpretation. Then it sounds like your problem is with people who aren't capable of abstract and critical thinking and not the actual religions. What's so wrong with a text that can mean different things to different people? How is that promoting ignorance in any way?
I'm not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say about the 10 commandments, surely all societies have their laws? How's God saying not to have other gods before Him and not taking His name in vain any more or less promoting ignorance than a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack? People get overcome with emotion, hormonal and neural behaviour changes as moods change. Some may act violently, others lustfully. The people instating imaginary codes of conduct in these cases are misled as well. There is no way people can expect each other to constantly act perfect. People will of course realize by these rules, that bad things happen when they act lustfully or abusively, and it may cause them to weigh their options every time they do so. What are you saying here? We shouldn't have laws to protect people from being killed or robbed? There's no point teaching treat your neighbour as yourself types of conduct? We should let people find out for themselves that hurting others is bad? Is trying to prevent murder a restriction to abstract reasoning? Of course we can't expect anyone to act perfectly, why is anyone being misled by having a code of conduct to at least try to live up to?
Saying God's name, however, is a rule of conduct with no real backing as to what bad things may happen. It's restrictive for no tangible purpose. Restriction generally promotes ignorance. The commandment is more about abuse and disrespect of God's name. Restriction generally promotes ignorance? Interesting statement to throw out there. We're talking about thinking outside the box situations? Limitations can also be an aid to creative thinking. Whatever, I really can't see how a restriction of misusing God's name is going to stifle thinking in any way.
The text on pride can lead to some very interesting discussions about what is meant by pride and how might that be a sin, what is sin and what makes a certain sin deadly. It's a good text for using some abstract reasoning and critical thought. Yup. But again. Little kids will not be able to handle it. Nor will people who've been ignorant all their lives and don't want to change. All they see is a rule to go by or rebel against, not to study. Again, that's people you're having a problem with, not religion. This same argument applies to rules made by schools, parents, society...
According to the definition that agnostics claim that you cannot know if God exists, then isn't that leading a person to ignorance about God? You can know if God exists or doesn't(maybe humans will never know it, maybe they will). But, as of yet, nobody has been able to prove it to others.I don't know if someone REALLY knows if God exists I don't know if God exists, and I don't think it's a relevant question either. Not relevant to what? If God did exist and you could have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, would that be irrelevant to your life?
BTW, if I'm wrong and there is a just and loving God, I'm sure he'll forgive me. I hear he's in to that. Got it from Jesus.
I hear he likes it when you make jokes about his existance too.
You wouldn't think it'd make an iota of difference to such a transcendent being, would you?
quite the contrary, he cares very much what you do and say. The bible says that he knows every hair on your head...so I think he probably cares very much.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I have looked at religions and the trick to most of the popular ones are that they where written by the people from the time when we didn't have anything to come off of. The philosophers came up with the gods,but the thing is they came up with them long ago.
back then you would have said it was the wrong beliefs. The reason we have religion is because we are still as clueless and as desperate over this whole god thing as the romans or sumarians. And besides these religions that are "fair and right" are the cause of many bad things:the loss of african history,the wars in the middle east,the KKK,ect. If you think about you realise religion can be a dangerous thought and the world is better left without it.
P.S.Many religions have forced people into it
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
BTW, if I'm wrong and there is a just and loving God, I'm sure he'll forgive me. I hear he's in to that. Got it from Jesus.
I hear he likes it when you make jokes about his existance too.
You wouldn't think it'd make an iota of difference to such a transcendent being, would you?
quite the contrary, he cares very much what you do and say. The bible says that he knows every hair on your head...so I think he probably cares very much.
Soooo he'll only be forgiving if he didn't know about it?
I think what drives most aetheists to aetheism is the following choice....
If he is so forgiving then why is there a hell for those who don't believe and those who don't chose his way? He give you a second chance to repent,but Isn't that while your sufering in hell?
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
I beleive in God and I do not think I would have gotten through some that I have without him. My best friend however does not believe in God, I respect her beliefs but I honestly wish she would change her view point on religion.
I do not understand it that someone would not believe in God (the person who actualy created us and enabled us to be put here on earth in the 1st place) and sometime I wonder where non believers find the strength ( where in my life God would be) if they ever need it.
Time to come clean. I do believe in God. It's organized religion I have a problem with.
Jesus said "beware the false prophet". Organized religion, over time, is bound to be corrupted by false prophets. As religion is a matter of faith and faith is belief in the absence of proof, how do you uncover a false prophet?
Here's a few examples
A good priest is a counselor.
A bad priest is a recruiter.
A good priest preaches tolerance and love of your fellow man.
A bad priest breaks everyone down into us and them, then teaches you to hate and fear "them".
If God were to write his word for us, he would write it upon our souls. He wouldn't write it into something as corruptable as the written word.
If God wrote his message upon our souls, we do not need others to interpret his message. We merely need to seek that message inside of ourselves.
If I follow what is written in my soul, if I treat my fellows with kindness and respect, if I keep god in my heart, who cares if the world was made in 6 days or 6 billion years?
I beleive in God and I do not think I would have gotten through some that I have without him. My best friend however does not believe in God, I respect her beliefs but I honestly wish she would change her view point on religion. I do not understand it that someone would not believe in God (the person who actualy created us and enabled us to be put here on earth in the 1st place) and sometime I wonder where non believers find the strength ( where in my life God would be) if they ever need it. It is something I will never understand.
If you want her to change her beliefs, you don't really have respect for what she believes in.
Some people choose to think about such an impossible question as "Does God exist?" Call us crazy. As for finding strength, I don't need a supreme being to get me through hard times. Family, friends, and a bit of personal gumption tend to work just fine for me.
Comments
taken completely out of context, lol.
The ten commandments. Restrictive in nature.
an assumption based on ignorance. and the 10 commandments are common sense, even athiests believe this.
Yeah I know. Old testament. But that's what Christianity is built upon.
With Islam and Judaism, the whole rites and traditions thing is not prone to change or question.
not an example of "holy text", and has nothing to do with demoting critical thinking.
The more you interpret religion, the less of a theist and the more of an agnostic you are. But if you take someone else's interpretation of the original holy texts as the complete truth on religion (what most people do) you're an utter ignoramus. Offence intended to those who do it. Theology is self-education, respect to people who delve in it, especially if you drop your beliefs while at it.
not true at all. i have read the Bible from cover to cover over 7 times, and the more i interpret it, the more of a theist i become, the more i find to chew on and enjoy.
lol, this is what you give as an example of "holy text"?
try this one on for size:
study to show thyself aproved unto God.
see, this ^ is an actual quote from the "holy text" you tried to quote. and its the complete opposite of what youre trying to convey.
______________________________
try this one on for size:
study to show thyself aproved unto God.
Yes this is a quote. You can probably pull a quote about anything from the Bible and say it's the truth. This was not, however said by God, but by the apostle Paul. Slight difference there. Also it's never mentioned as any kind of dogma of the religion anywhere else. To study under the other dogmas of the Christian religion is to walk on eggshells.
see, this ^ is an actual quote from the "holy text" you tried to quote. and its the complete opposite of what youre trying to convey. You do realize the lolling is still not necessary in these kinds of internet post-flingings. They come off as arrogant, although you may have not intended them to be such. And yes. This preaching is condescending and thus arrogant... But... But... Approve is spelled with
two p:s!!!! Get your quotes right!
try this one on for size:
study to show thyself approved unto God.
Yes this is a quote. You can probably pull a quote about anything from the Bible and say it's the truth. This was not, however said by God, but by the apostle Paul. Slight difference there. Also it's never mentioned as any kind of dogma of the religion anywhere else. To study under the other dogmas of the Christian religion is to walk on eggshells.
youre abolutely right, it was said by an apostle of the gospel of Jesus. a follower of Him who taught this doctrine. not much of a difference if you ask me. and i dont walk on eggshells. i study Christ and Him crucified, if that causes problems with other "christians belief system" such as (but not limited to) Catholicism, then im sorry, but i dont read around the text, i read the text, as its written. for what it means, not what some "priest" says it means. i dont study "dogma" or adhere to "dogma". i follow Christ, and Him alone. and if you need more examples of teaching from the Bible that teaches that you should study and/or seek truth, read the book of ecclesiastes. if anything at all, Christianity in its purest form promotes critical thinking. it doesnt demote it.
see, this ^ is an actual quote from the "holy text" you tried to quote. and its the complete opposite of what youre trying to convey. You do realize the lolling is still not necessary in these kinds of internet post-flingings. They come off as arrogant, although you may have not intended them to be such. And yes. This preaching is condescending and thus arrogant... But... But... Approve is spelled with
two p:s!!!! Get your quotes right!
i do the lolling in all me posts, and youre the only person that has ever had a problem with it, examine that. and thank you for the spelling lesson.
______________________________
But of course I'll drink until I start to piss my liver out in little painful chunks.
Yay, another God arguement.
Arguing Religion is pointless, always. Religion is Faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or fact. Without eveidence or fact, arguements are meaningless as each side cannot support it's own arguement.
As for me... am I an Atheist? Yes, I pray to Athea, goddess of disbelief.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
(C.)I'm not saying the 7 deadly sins nor the 10 commandments are bad moral dogmas. I'm not saying believing in them is false. I'm saying they have slight negative connotations towards ignorance, something which "agnostic dogmas" try to avoid at all costs.
What I tried to point out was:
A. You have to walk on eggshells, as to not hurt the foundations of your religion when taking part in theology and research thereof.
B. Religious rites and traditions may get in the way of progress and are not easily removed. To hold on to them and not progress your thinking may cause a slight case of ignorance. Now a lot of religious rites and traditions are of course just interpretations, but still a vast majority of people are upholding them.
C. The commandments thing. Look above.
Now tell me what parts of agnosticism promote ignorance?
1. There's arrogance towards religious people and towards people who act ignorantly (not trying to categorise the two as one, it's just the two separate groups agnostics may have prejudices towards). This will also eventually create a void between society and the agnostic since most of the world's countries are "religious" and also have ignorant people on top of that. Not wanting to be a part of a society that's "alien" to you can be interpreted as ignorance.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
My ignorancedar is picking up some abnormal readings from this statement. To say this as an answer to prove your point and to say I'm 100% wrong makes my bones shiver. Couldn't you at least say that it's probably not true, or highly likely false?
If you were to say that there are people within religions who often promote ignorance and discourage critical thinking, you'd certainly not get any argument from me, but then again that's not just true of people in religions. I guess any institution with a heirachy has the danger of pushing its ideas onto its members and discouraging dissent. So in that respect, if you're defining religion as "organised religion" then there probably is that tendency to promote certain ideas and ways of thinking and discourage ideas opposed to those views, but then you could argue that if what they were teaching was the truth, then they are discouraging ignorance not promoting it.
As to the religious texts,I think it's a reasonable argument to say that following such a text to the letter and taking every word literally may well lead to ignorance, but that's not necessarily a fault of the text. From my experiences of group Bible studies, it's certainly possible to approach scripture with critical and abstract reasoning, and this often leads to getting a lot more out of it than just reading and accepting it may have done.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say about the 10 commandments, surely all societies have their laws? How's God saying not to have other gods before Him and not taking His name in vein any more or less promoting ignorance than a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack?
The text on pride can lead to some very interesting discussions about what is meant by pride and how might that be a sin, what is sin and what makes a certain sin deadly. It's a good text for using some abstract reasoning and critical thought.
According to the definition that agnostics claim that you cannot know if God exists, then isn't that leading a person to ignorance about God?
You wouldn't think it'd make an iota of difference to such a transcendent being, would you?
______________________________
If you were to say that there are people within religions who often promote ignorance and discourage critical thinking, you'd certainly not get any argument from me, but then again that's not just true of people in religions. I guess any institution with a heirachy has the danger of pushing its ideas onto its members and discouraging dissent. So in that respect, if you're defining religion as "organised religion" then there probably is that tendency to promote certain ideas and ways of thinking and discourage ideas opposed to those views, but then you could argue that if what they were teaching was the truth, then they are discouraging ignorance not promoting it.
As to the religious texts,I think it's a reasonable argument to say that following such a text to the letter and taking every word literally may well lead to ignorance, but that's not necessarily a fault of the text. From my experiences of group Bible studies, it's certainly possible to approach scripture with critical and abstract reasoning, and this often leads to getting a lot more out of it than just reading and accepting it may have done.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say about the 10 commandments, surely all societies have their laws? How's God saying not to have other gods before Him and not taking His name in vein any more or less promoting ignorance than a husband telling his wife that if she cheats on him it will break his heart, or a father telling his kid not to call him a shit unless he wants a smack?
The text on pride can lead to some very interesting discussions about what is meant by pride and how might that be a sin, what is sin and what makes a certain sin deadly. It's a good text for using some abstract reasoning and critical thought.
According to the definition that agnostics claim that you cannot know if God exists, then isn't that leading a person to ignorance about God?
well put again, egg.______________________________
I have read and been read the Bible even as a very small child, if you remember our discussion from a month back. Also you probably haven't studied a lot of natural sciences. Not everyone has the time to study everything. You have to put things in order, and with current technology, the question of religion is just too open to fully handle or develop.
and what ive already pointed out is that i dont walk on eggshells. there is no need to. im confident in what i believe, because ive actually studied it out. and i want truth, not a religion. truth may be harsh, but thats what i want. you cant get truth walking on eggshells.
What about the people that "are religious" but aren't confident? Not every religious person is you.
and as ive already pointed out, many nonreligious people also have traditions that they follow blindly. ignorance is human.
There are a lot more global and (unfortunately) spreading traditions that involve religion than there are those that don't. Most non-religious traditions and rites borderline plain trends and are far more easily forgotten and buried.
by definition, it promotes ignorance. its a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" therefore, why try to understand, right? thats willingly ignorant.
Agnosticism is the pursuit of ultimate tangible truth. Asking as many questions as possible and trying to find answers to every single one of them. If there is no answer, specify the question. The word of the Bible may be the ultimate truth, or it may not. Logically thinking and considering all factual evidence, to say it is the ultimate truth just comes off as shifty.
theres arrogance toward religious people because they believe themselves smarter than anyone else. as if they are the first people to ever come up with the denial of God, lol.
its not true because im a prime example of someone that studies the Bible, and other religions quite frequently, and the more i study Christianity, the more i become a thiest.
I'm willingly giving you your arguements here... I thought you'd go elsewhere if I already presented the arguement. Instead you go present all agnostics as arrogant ignoramuses. There are "agnostics" who do think they're smarter than others but a true agnostic's answer to "Are you smarter than religious people?" is "I don't know, and probably never will". If the way I write makes you think I think I'm smarter than you, could it not just as well be your anger, ignorance and envy kicking in? Also. If the agnostics here believed they were smarter than everyone else, why the heck are they writing on the Off-Topic section of a gaming forum?
your ignorancedar, eh? lol. i think your ignorancedar is broken. you are 100% wrong because you said that if you studied the Bible you would lose your beliefs in God. that is a false statement, as me example proves. and the fact that most of the athiests and agnostics already believe that the Bible is false without even reading it in the first place only further proves me point. if they were to read it, they might just become a Christian.
Ah I see. You interpreted my comment that way. Well I edited it immediately afterwards as well... You may want to look at it again. I never intended for it to mean "everyone who studies religion will become atheist/agnostic". Also. Agnostics do not believe the Bible is false, they observe that there is no conclusive evidence to support it nor denounce it.
The more you interpret religion, the less of a theist and the more of an agnostic you are. But if you take someone else's interpretation of the original holy texts as the complete truth on religion (what most people do) you're an utter ignoramus. Offence intended to those who do it. Theology is self-education, respect to people who delve in it, especially if you drop your beliefs while at it.
not true at all.
And why is it not true? It may be quite an overstatement, but to say it's not true is 99,99% likely to be false. EDIT: And by dropping your beliefs I mean being as unbiased as possible, not abandoning your religion.
______________________________
Why didn't you give examples of non-religious rites and traditions in your first arguement? Anyway, here goes:
1. Going to church every sunday. People take their time and their childrens' time to be a part of a religious community. If you do not go to Church on at least holy days, you will be looked down upon by certain members of your religious community. This will not go away easily. Also having sunday as an official western work-free day will not be going away very quickly. There are ups and downs for the aforementioned.
2. Oppression of women in Islam.
3. Jewish and muslim circumcision.
4. Zealous conversion and the general acceptance thereof in Christianity and Islam."go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19)
Those are the big ones. I'll fill in more as I think of them.
by definition, it promotes ignorance. its a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" therefore, why try to understand, right? thats willingly ignorant.
Agnosticism is the pursuit of ultimate tangible truth. Asking as many questions as possible and trying to find answers to every single one of them. If there is no answer, specify the question. The word of the Bible may be the ultimate truth, or it may not. Logically thinking and considering all factual evidence, to say it is the ultimate truth just comes off as shifty.
the definition that i quoted there is directly from the dictionary. you cant get around it, agnosticism is the denial of ultimate knowledge, not the pursuit of it.
What kind of dictionary are you using? The christian dictionary for bashing all other ways of observing life on the planet? Never would a real dictionary contain such text. The longest you can push the ignorance factor unto agnosticism is that an agnostic may think there isn't enough proof for the existence or non-existence of God so it's an irrelevant question. I do not think it is an irrelevant question since it holds too much relevance in the policies of countries today.
no, no, no. i dont think ALL agnostics are arrogant ignoramuses, just some of the ones that post in this forum, lol. and believe me, youve given me nothing to be "envious" of, or jealous, lol. btw, was that a jab?
It was indeed a jab. But yeah. You could have used "some" instead of "they" and I would have been with you right off the bat.
______________________________
You wouldn't think it'd make an iota of difference to such a transcendent being, would you?
quite the contrary, he cares very much what you do and say. The bible says that he knows every hair on your head...so I think he probably cares very much.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I have looked at religions and the trick to most of the popular ones are that they where written by the people from the time when we didn't have anything to come off of. The philosophers came up with the gods,but the thing is they came up with them long ago.
back then you would have said it was the wrong beliefs. The reason we have religion is because we are still as clueless and as desperate over this whole god thing as the romans or sumarians. And besides these religions that are "fair and right" are the cause of many bad things:the loss of african history,the wars in the middle east,the KKK,ect. If you think about you realise religion can be a dangerous thought and the world is better left without it.
P.S.Many religions have forced people into it
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
You wouldn't think it'd make an iota of difference to such a transcendent being, would you?
quite the contrary, he cares very much what you do and say. The bible says that he knows every hair on your head...so I think he probably cares very much.
Soooo he'll only be forgiving if he didn't know about it?
I think what drives most aetheists to aetheism is the following choice....
Love and serve god or burn in hell for eternity.
Love can't be forced, even Jesus understood that.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My mind has changed so much. Yet I'm still acting like I'm the same.
I beleive in God and I do not think I would have gotten through some that I have without him. My best friend however does not believe in God, I respect her beliefs but I honestly wish she would change her view point on religion.
I do not understand it that someone would not believe in God (the person who actualy created us and enabled us to be put here on earth in the 1st place) and sometime I wonder where non believers find the strength ( where in my life God would be) if they ever need it.
It is something I will never understand.
Time to come clean. I do believe in God. It's organized religion I have a problem with.
Jesus said "beware the false prophet". Organized religion, over time, is bound to be corrupted by false prophets. As religion is a matter of faith and faith is belief in the absence of proof, how do you uncover a false prophet?
Here's a few examples
A good priest is a counselor.
A bad priest is a recruiter.
A good priest preaches tolerance and love of your fellow man.
A bad priest breaks everyone down into us and them, then teaches you to hate and fear "them".
If God were to write his word for us, he would write it upon our souls. He wouldn't write it into something as corruptable as the written word.
If God wrote his message upon our souls, we do not need others to interpret his message. We merely need to seek that message inside of ourselves.
If I follow what is written in my soul, if I treat my fellows with kindness and respect, if I keep god in my heart, who cares if the world was made in 6 days or 6 billion years?
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
If you want her to change her beliefs, you don't really have respect for what she believes in.
Some people choose to think about such an impossible question as "Does God exist?" Call us crazy. As for finding strength, I don't need a supreme being to get me through hard times. Family, friends, and a bit of personal gumption tend to work just fine for me.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked