Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

Right, but for the most part the problem is with the belief system, not the people.

It is very, very difficult to reject lifelong indoctrination.

The problem with that is that particular belief systems actually change with denominations within a religion. So, it becomes more difficult to attack an entire belief system on one topic if it could be different in another denomination.

It does, but I still believe that certain generalizations are valid, because they apply to a wide enough spectrum and because being fully technically accurate and fair is a practical impossibility.

I think one core flaw that is ingrained within most if not every religion is the how acceptable it to believe any idea without basis or despite basis to the contrary. Many Christians will quite candidly state that faith in god is about believing without having evidence, that they require nothing of the sort. I think that when you concede that it is ok to accept beliefs that suit your arbitrarily in one instance, that it permeates to other beliefs. You start accepting other ideas based on gut and how good you feel about them rather than truth, and that carryover creates many problems.

Am, Im sorry but you're wrong. I simply pointed out the words you chose to use when referring to your personal experiences within the Asylum implied overgeneralization, whether that was your intent or not. I merely pointed out that type of gross generalization is harmful on either side of the fence. It doesnt matter if it was your intent of you did not post what you meant. It was how it was written. Acting out in childish anger when confronted by this pointed observation by trying to turn the tables on me for jumping to conclusions and calling me an idiot is laughable but also sad. Im sorry you cant take constructive criticism.






I dont deny that there are major flaws in all sides. Thats a huge reason why I refuse to claim any type of religion as my own (that and the fact that I dont personally believe in any religion that I have researched into so far). It's why I say Spirituality is divine while religion is man made. Every religion out there today has been muddied by mans power struggles with politics over the course of history, and is therefore more "Man made" than "God made". That allows too many flaws to be adhered to blindly when many people do not tend to actually study not only the religious work itself, but the history of their religion. ANYTHING taken blindly without personal research can cause more harm than good, no matter what the original teaching is supposed to be.


And Locke, glad you were able to figure out a label to slap on yourself when it comes to where you stand.

In my opinion, that sounds more like more of the same. That people are doing it wrong, and that the core ideology itself is untainted. I assert that it is possible for any belief system, when interpreted and executed true to intent, to be flawed.

So, what if i were to say, " I see a lot of hunters in the South. I've met hunters in other areas before, but most of them were all from the South?" Would you equate that to "All Southerners are hunters?"



That's a difference that many religious people don't understand. That's why I argued that it's hard to argue one specific subject, because now a days things are more "man made" than "God made". Churches have developed TRADITIONS that aren't necessarily supported/demanded by Jesus or God.



They are completely different. Take the concept of education. There are so many ways that you can teach, but if you have a problem with educations, chances are it isn't any concept of education, but the chosen processes to educate.





We've been down this road before. It's the EXACT SAME thing.. It's just that nonbelievers like to separate themselves from that word because it's more closely affiliated with religion.

And you're still wrong, and you look silly quoting a definition that definitely says you're wrong.

1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
Applies to the bulk of religion, not to teakettle agnosticism. Check 1 for teakettle agnosticism (hereafter abbreviated TA) not being faith.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Again, applies to the bulk of religion and not TA. Check 2.

3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
It doesn't get more explicit than that. Check 3.

4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
A sense that doesn't apply to either one/

5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Pretty much "you're wrong" spelt out again. Check 4.

6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
Another sense that doesn't apply to either one.

7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
N/A again.

8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
Not sure how you think this is helping your case. Check 5.

9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
And finally a sense that doesn't apply to either one.

Do you not understand the difference between a definition and example sentence or just not care because it's an inconvenient difference to the point you want to make? The definition is "belief that is not based on proof," which pretty much any person on the street would agree to as applying to religion and not science/reason.

If you don't understand that every definition doesn't apply to the same sense of a word, then we're done. You do not understand language well enough to hold a meaningful semantic argument.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2011 11:18pm by Allegory

Ama, you're way outclassed in this topic. By continuing to try so hard to save face despite the fact you've been corrected multiple times by multiple people (on multiple points), instead of bowing out gracefully and acknowledging where you screwed up only makes you look worse. Im not going to answer immature questions with asinine metaphores just to make you feel validated. It's god awful and while I wish I could say Im surprised that you cant figure out why, Im really not after watching your responses not only to me in this thread, but to others. Any response I laid before you would be ignored anyways while you try in vain to make a comeback, so why waste my time?

You are in fact, so outclassed, you don't possess the capacity to see the severe gulf between your skill levels.



I would go further and offer the hypothesis that you do not understand language well enough to hold any meaningful argument, semantic or otherwise.

I never argued the fact you agreed with my second statement on extremity. I merely pointed out that the way you chose to phrase your comment was broad, and just as harmful in topics like this as extremism is: broad generalization:



Each sentence is a broad generalization geared to imply anyone who is a regular here and is NOT religious criticizes people who are. Which is absolutely untrue. As pointed out by PPs many of the regulars here are religious yet they are not criticized for it. I have not criticized people for their choice in religion. I *WILL*, as will others, criticize those who come in with a judgemental attitude and use their religion to justify their gross misconduct, but that is different.

But to imply that anytime you come into this forum and mention you are religious you are ridiculed just for being religious is wholly and utterly false. And to continue that implication by your choice of words, refusing to be more specific but instead to keep your comments general enough that anyone would read it as meaning that anyone who holds to a religion will be ridiculed in here by anyone who does not hold to a religion is worse. You throw folks like me under the bus, becoming the evil faithless one who relishes in tearing you and your fellow Christians down anytime you make a peep.

And I hate that in this particular topic, because I see people like you do it all the time. You have no issues making false generalizations instead of taking the time to more accurately explain your stance, which in the end hurt others in the crossfire. Fortunately this is just a gaming forum, but out in the real world when you start to use broad statements, or don't clarify, these are the types of things that can cause a lot of damage. I've watched it happen on a local board and what started off as one broad generalization became a huge war that turned friends against each other. All over a few poor choices of wording and too many broad generalizations. NO ONE can work on a good dialogue when each side throws broad accusations towards the entire entity hitting every person within that idealogy instead of the ones who deserve it.

So I clearly said:


Why can't you understand that and just say "Oops! That's not what I meant. Here, let me clarify..." instead of getting your panties so much in a twist you feel the need to defend a paragraph that could have taken you 3 minutes to change? I mean, really? If you cant even acknowledge something tiny as this, Im pretty sure I could see why some people WOULD attack you when you discuss religion. It has nothing to do with the religious aspect at all. Its because you refuse to back down even when you're wrong. And thats just good fodder for us folk who like to mind fuck when we're bored and have time!


As for your god awful analogy,k lets break it down a bit, shall we?

Below is your original statement and your analogy:







Your analogy is god awful because it in no way even comes close to your original statement, which is what I commented on. It's apples to oranges, and even if I answered "Why no Ama, I woudn't equate THAT at all!" it would have absolutely no bearing on what you originally wrote.

The major difference between your original statement and the analogy, which makes it so god awful to use in this instance, is that in the analogy you actually used adjectives, giving your sentence more of a description:




Your statement lacks those, again, giving it the broad generalization I first pointed out. Your analogy is actually much more descriptive, narrowing down your thoughts and intents. So its godawful to use in this instance. Because it in no way compares to what you originally stated, therefore making it worthless.



Ive explained my position so many times that you coming back with something this inane *is* an immature question. Because I had clearly explained my stance more than once. You are having a tantrum because you dont like it when people point something out that you didnt do well. Im not your mother, I dont need to answer immature questions to a tantruming child who isnt getting her way. I dont need to do anything for you. Feel fortunate I was bored enough today to take the time to answer one more time. =)



I guess you would know since you do it so well ;)