|
Post by Brent on Jan 14, 2010 4:39:37 GMT -5
nice irony, very nice
you say my statement is the biggest facepalm ever yet post
really not smart.
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Jan 14, 2010 4:49:31 GMT -5
Yes, it is important not to think.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Jan 14, 2010 4:58:04 GMT -5
everyone should be critical about everything. Nobody has the answers about spirituality, anyone claiming so is a faggot. God cannot be proven or disproven. Agnosticism is the best, deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 14, 2010 5:04:25 GMT -5
I've never been a fan of being lukewarm
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Jan 14, 2010 6:07:49 GMT -5
Nobody has the answers about spirituality, anyone . We do know some things about spirituality, but obviously not all the secrets of the universe should be revealed to humans - yet. Many of the things that can be learnt about spirituality (and any thing else for that matter), ends up being distorted by fools.
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Jan 14, 2010 7:35:16 GMT -5
everyone should be critical about everything. Nobody has the answers about spirituality, anyone claiming so is a faggot. God cannot be proven or disproven. Agnosticism is the best, deal with it. Totally f**king agree. I'm not wasting my time arguing for God or anything beyond my comprehension anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Jan 14, 2010 11:57:03 GMT -5
everyone should be critical about everything. Nobody has the answers about spirituality, anyone claiming so is a faggot. God cannot be proven or disproven. Agnosticism is the best, deal with it. Just because it is impossible to possess fundamental knowledge of God's existence, there's no excuse to wash your hands of the matter completely. There is no conclusive evidence of God, however there are many signs, enough to make a compelling case. If one were to consider belief in God as a court case, there is no DNA evidence giving a complete and infallible case for either side. Instead, you are left to witness testimonies, pieces of less final, but still compelling evidence, and speculation. To walk away from the case because there is no conclusive evidence is pointless. One side has a better case than the other. People need to piece together the actual events and actively sift through the testimonies and all of the signs in order to make a true judgment. Frankly, it seems that Agnostics fall in to one of two categories. Either they use it as a way to avoid dealing with serious questions that come up in regard to faith and moral reasoning, or they dedicate all of their efforts to lampooning everything the Atheist and Theist camps have to say. The latter almost never have a thought of their own, and instead spend all of their time trying to attack other people's beliefs. The problem is that Agnostics have relatively little beliefs to defend when the Atheists or Theists turn their attention to them. All they can say for their beliefs is "I am uncertain about the existence of a deity," to which any Theist or Atheist with a half a brain and some background in theology will say, "No $#!%." It is a tautology and unworthy of acknowledgment as actual intellectual discourse. Circular logic proves circular logic proves circular logic.....ad infinitum.
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Jan 14, 2010 13:17:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Worm on Jan 14, 2010 14:31:31 GMT -5
Well you know.... following religious leaders is explicitly discouraged by the bible. "religious" folks are often made scapegoats for this sort of thing, but I would argue that there are many, many atheists, politicians and scientists (and many of the people who subscribe to any of those things) do the exact same thing. Just sayin.
Despite who doesn't do it, I would agree that critical thinking is important for everyone to an extent. At the same time though, I also think it is important for "critical thinkers" to not be so cocky as to think that what makes sense to them is truth and what doesn't make sense to them is false.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 14, 2010 14:36:54 GMT -5
the human race: experts at messing up a good thing
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Jan 14, 2010 16:41:24 GMT -5
everyone should be critical about everything. Nobody has the answers about spirituality, anyone claiming so is a faggot. God cannot be proven or disproven. Agnosticism is the best, deal with it. Just because it is impossible to possess fundamental knowledge of God's existence, there's no excuse to wash your hands of the matter completely. There is no conclusive evidence of God, however there are many signs, enough to make a compelling case. If one were to consider belief in God as a court case, there is no DNA evidence giving a complete and infallible case for either side. Instead, you are left to witness testimonies, pieces of less final, but still compelling evidence, and speculation. To walk away from the case because there is no conclusive evidence is pointless. One side has a better case than the other. People need to piece together the actual events and actively sift through the testimonies and all of the signs in order to make a true judgment. Frankly, it seems that Agnostics fall in to one of two categories. Either they use it as a way to avoid dealing with serious questions that come up in regard to faith and moral reasoning, or they dedicate all of their efforts to lampooning everything the Atheist and Theist camps have to say. The latter almost never have a thought of their own, and instead spend all of their time trying to attack other people's beliefs. The problem is that Agnostics have relatively little beliefs to defend when the Atheists or Theists turn their attention to them. All they can say for their beliefs is "I am uncertain about the existence of a deity," to which any Theist or Atheist with a half a brain and some background in theology will say, "No $#!%." It is a tautology and unworthy of acknowledgment as actual intellectual discourse. Circular logic proves circular logic proves circular logic.....ad infinitum. Testimonies = personal experience personal experience = fallacious What is worthy of "intellectual discourse" then Philosophy does not have much worth when it comes to answers, logic and reasoning can induct or deduct something, but when it comes to God there is only hypotheses. Agnosticism is about facts, not faith. Theists and non-theists can argue forever and nothing will happen
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 14, 2010 16:53:35 GMT -5
One should not rely on physical senses to ascertain spiritual truth.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 14, 2010 17:04:20 GMT -5
I cannot imagine a world in which one comes to a conclusion without the aid of personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Jan 14, 2010 17:16:43 GMT -5
One should not rely on physical senses to ascertain spiritual truth. Physical senses are much more easy to interpret and comprehend than mental senses. As technology advances I am positive humans will better understand the human brain, mental states, dreams, etc. Just think about the technological advances in the last 50 years. I cannot trust my mental senses when they can be fallible when it comes to spirituality, they are not black and white like physical senses, they can be conflicting and literally impossible to interpret.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jan 14, 2010 17:36:43 GMT -5
The point is, no one thinks for themselves
All of these logical fallacies that you spew out were thought of first by someone else
It'd be incredibly foolish for someone to completely try to think for themselves, considering how many people have lived before them and learned the sort of things that could help them
It's much more intelligent to have some sort of trust in something or someone and to follow their lead, and/or build off of what they already know.
|
|