Printable View
thats the way most religious institutions are. Thus my original statement about the limitation of freedom :) Over the years I have convinced all of my friends to give up their religions, not by constantly antagonizing them or anything, but just by showing them that I live a decent life without worrying about a magnificent extra-planar being scrutinizing me... and by living up to my own personal code of ethics. I just think reason works far better than the fantastical.
no i just wont post im agnostic thats all ill say religon gets me ina bad mood as ghost knows =)
right onQuote:
Originally Posted by Bro DZ
luckily, not many of my peers are religious.. but with the ones that are, i just take the same approach as you.. i mean, if they like their religion, they truely believe it and they dont wana leave it then i dont try and change them, its their choice, but some people r a part of a religion without even thinkin about it.. they just do their thang, go to church or whatever, do as their told, and dont ask why.. theyre the people that i feel sorry for
lol :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by KronicKing
btw bro,converting is wrong leave pll to them selfs dont bother them about things like that i cant stand all the damn christians and athiest argueing when neitrher makes since(wrong form of word but ive been drinking =P) and no matter how much u argue neither party will change veiws just like poltics,witch i also hate =) but the moral of all this rambleing is to leave pll be let them do whatever they want as long as it doesnt effect u ,but when pll like christians(just the 1s i have the most trouble with because of my area) i usualy explode on them i cant stand it when pll r all upo in my biznass(=P) in the words of some old raper "dont start no shit wont be no shit"
but ill dig up some of my old stuff to give u a ideer about my views =P
i use =P alot =P
The difference is this: you say "an agnostic belivez that there iz a sumpreme being ov sum sort". This is wrong because no agnostic believes there is a supreme being. If that isn't clear enough, consider this: people who don't know whether or not there are supreme beings (i.e. agnostics) CAN'T believe in supreme beings. They acknowledge the possibility of them but make no definitive statement as to their existence. The difference is not subtle; it is what sets the agnostics apart from the theists.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillaBuzz
Also, your definition of atheists is a bit flawed. Believe it or not, not all atheists reject religion. An atheist is merely somebody who doesn't believe in any gods, so would include most Buddhists for example.
exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
dunt quote one part ov my post an leave the next part out ov it so that u can try an make it seem az if wut i said wuz different.
in yer last post u said that my position on wut an agnostic iz iz the following:
"an agnostic belivez that there iz a sumpreme being ov sum sort"
now if thatz all i had said, then yah, i wood ov been wrong. but i said "an agnostic belivez that there iz a sumpreme being ov sum sort, but since there is no certainty, they choose not 2 follow a religion"
now in case yer not pickin up on wut im sayin, the part wit the no certainty obviously meanz there there iz no certainty on whether er not there iz a supreme being an if there iz, wut exactly that supreme being iz.
so once again, plz explain the different between:
agnosticz simply r not sure ov what iz out there, an wut u said. i aint the smartest guy but buddy, im sayin the exact same thing u r an yer sayin im wrong.
now about a supreme being precludin free will, well how do u kno that if there wuz a supreme being, it wood preclude free will?
now we can bicker on whether er not my definition wuz word fer word out ov the dictionary, but i think u get wut i wuz sayin an i must say that i dun appreciate ppl who kno wut im talkin bout commin on an tryin to tell me im wrong by sayin the exact same thing i said, but usin a whole bunch ov smart wordz. im in skool, an am in a world religionz course so i do kno wut the difference iz.
in yer last post u said that my position on wut an agnostic iz iz the following:
"i said "an agnostic belivez that there iz a sumpreme being ov sum sort, but since there is no certainty, they choose not 2 follow a religion"
now in case yer not pickin up on wut im sayin, the part wit the no certainty obviously meanz there there iz no certainty on whether er not there iz a supreme being an if there iz, wut exactly that supreme being iz.
No, agnostics don't say "there's a supreme being out there, but I don't know what it is." They say "there might be a supreme being out there, or there might not be a supreme being out there." When you say "an agnostic belivez that there iz a sumpreme being ov sum sort, but since there is no certainty, they choose not 2 follow a religion", you imply that they think there is indeed some supreme being but they don't know what it is. Saying that agnostics are "not sure ov what iz out there" (which I would agree with) is not the same as that.
"now about a supreme being precludin free will, well how do u kno that if there wuz a supreme being, it wood preclude free will?"
Because this is a basic tenet of Islamo-Judeo-Christianity. We could tweak the definition of God until it is not possible to prove one way or another whether it exists, but then you have to make all sorts of decisions about what sorts of things you would call gods and what sorts of things you wouldn't. For example, some people would say that God is the same thing as Nature and use the word that way, but I'm not going to say that Nature doesn't exist. That is why I specified the Judeo-Christian God in my argument.