Gaming Expert Pat Robertson: ‘Murdering Somebody In Cyberspace’ same as murder

[Zaren]

I see my selve as a agnostic atheist and I would really like to not care what others believe.
BUT: Religious organizations are shoving their believe down our throat.

In the US religious organization try to keep children away from scientific education about biology and earth history.

1.Religious organizations aiding healthcare is not a bad thing, it is a bad thing if they take children away, ect.
2. I know of few Christian organizations at least where I live who refuse biology and earth history, most of them have chosen the "old earth Christianity" belief and believe a sort of evolution, as does the catholic church.
3.To say that Christian and religious organizations are shoving their beliefs down childrens throats and secular/atheist ones are not is a total sham. If I go to school and my textbook and professors aren't allowed to discuss religion in the slightest(not a specific one but in general) and some(not all-very few actually) make fun of religion in the classroom, that is equally bad if not worse.





ALSO this is a response to another post which I dont feel like finding to quote,
You say religion has changed its viewpoint over time to adapt, Religion IS HIGHLY CRITICIZED for this but then why is "secular science" allowed to change its viewpoint? Every single person with a Brain and any knowledge of the Bible sees that there is room for interpretation, yet when the interpretation changes Christians are yelled at and Science celebrated? I personally think the 2 coexist but thats just me.

[Molly]

And if you believe in any other type of god you are a theist. 

Point is, atheism/theism is a yes/no stance.

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge and not belief.

(click to show/hide)

Wikipasta:

Agnostic atheism
    The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.

Agnostic theism
    The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
    The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
    The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
    The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Not that any of this actually matters. Call yourself whatever you please. I usually just call myself an agnostic atheist, and if they ask me to clarify what I mean, I say explicit atheist weak agnostic, and occasional apatheist. That tends to stop any further questions.

My point I was trying to make was more about the "Freedom ends where another freedom begins"-part anyway...


EDIT: just found this in another thread and just had to quote it.

[Taser]

ALSO this is a response to another post which I dont feel like finding to quote,
You say religion has changed its viewpoint over time to adapt, Religion IS HIGHLY CRITICIZED for this but then why is "secular science" allowed to change its viewpoint? Every single person with a Brain and any knowledge of the Bible sees that there is room for interpretation, yet when the interpretation changes Christians are yelled at and Science celebrated? I personally think the 2 coexist but thats just me.

Because one says "This is god's word." and the other says "This is how stuff seems to work."

Science isn't concrete and never pretended to be. Religion is the opposite.

Religion has set rules and set dogma that is expected to be followed (in cases of organized religion anyway). Science has theories that can and do change when new evidence comes to light. It is expected of science. Religion does so when new evidence seems to contradict statements or beliefs within their religious belief structure.

So no it doesn't really seem to coexist. This is really only for organized religion. Take what almost all atheists say about god and put organized religion in its place and you have what they usually really mean.

[CrazyCracka420]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains why there is religion (google "God of the gaps") also one of my pictures sums up the theory

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

NDGT Quote: 

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on

[chadz]

oldie but goldie

[Utrakil]

1.Religious organizations aiding healthcare is not a bad thing, it is a bad thing if they take children away, ect.
2. I know of few Christian organizations at least where I live who refuse biology and earth history, most of them have chosen the "old earth Christianity" belief and believe a sort of evolution, as does the catholic church.
3.To say that Christian and religious organizations are shoving their beliefs down childrens throats and secular/atheist ones are not is a total sham. If I go to school and my textbook and professors aren't allowed to discuss religion in the slightest(not a specific one but in general) and some(not all-very few actually) make fun of religion in the classroom, that is equally bad if not worse.





ALSO this is a response to another post which I dont feel like finding to quote,
You say religion has changed its viewpoint over time to adapt, Religion IS HIGHLY CRITICIZED for this but then why is "secular science" allowed to change its viewpoint? Every single person with a Brain and any knowledge of the Bible sees that there is room for interpretation, yet when the interpretation changes Christians are yelled at and Science celebrated? I personally think the 2 coexist but thats just me.

1 don't get me wrong please there are lots of good things in every religion. but having good things should never excuse having bad things as well. I believe everybody, every society, every religion, every whatsoever should try to keep and nurture the good things about them and try to eliminate every thing that doesn't do any good.
2 I know nice people from different religions as well but I prefere to discuss general matters.
3 I do not think it is a sham because as far as I know all enlightened schoolsystems were alway offering religious education alongside scientific education. So everybody had the chance to learn about both ideas and choose the one which suits them. What happend in some US states is that the sciencebooks were rescripted so the kids do not learn both ideas anymore. and this is a suppression of a different oppinion and therefore no good.
Making fun of religious people and not allowing them to teach their ways of thinking isn't any good as well. But the bad of others doesn't make my bad good.


ALSO: I know that doesn't refere to me but let my give my 2 cents here as well:
I do in fact criticise the church for not adopting fast enough.
The difference between religion and science and how their adapting to new things is seen differs because science alway say we are trying to find the truth and we find more and more acurate knowledge everyday and therefore things we taught you yesterday can be different tomorrow.
Religion on the other hand say we have the truth and it is the only truth. stating this at first it is hard to explain why things could suddenly change.

(click to show/hide)

Just found out I was to late with the ALSO part
But I leave it in anyway

[Ninja_Khorin]

The reason religion is criticized for changing is because religion claims to know the objective truth about the nature of the universe and God. Unless the universe changes, per definition, the religion should not change either. It's a reason why even if I did believe in God, I'd have a hard time joining a religion, because they've all changed so much that I got no reason to believe any of them are correct, since I have no doubt in 100 years they will most likely have changed yet again.

Science gives theories and demands people to add to them or even disprove them. Regardless, I don't feel the need to believe in god or join a religion.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

Peace.

[Utrakil]

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

May I ask you whom you quoted there??

[Taser]

May I ask you whom you quoted there??

Marcus Aurelius. Great quote. Used often and perhaps overused but for good reason.

[Ninja_Khorin]

As far as I know it's either a bastardized version of something Marcus Aurelius said or simply misattributed to him. Doesn't make it any less true in my eyes.

[[ptx]]

Just to emphasise on the changing religion part: in middle ages scientists were persecuted for heresies, such as suggesting that the Earth is not flat, or is not the center of the Universe. Only when these scientists were proven to be correct beyond any doubt, did the church "accept" this as the truth (pretended it had never said otherwise).

How is this anything other than the absolute proof that the church knows jack-shit? How can anyone still accept the statements of the church to be anything other than the self-preserving statements of a select group of simple, greedy old men?

[CrazyCracka420]

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

That's a fucking awesome quote, and is very close to what I have always believed/thought.

[Sir_Hans]

(click to show/hide)

oldie but goldie

[Christo]

Just have fun like the parrot

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


 

[Zomg]

I am an atheist. At least, it is the easiest way to put it. There might be a god, there might not be one. However, if there is, I do not believe that he is all supreme and caring. Not because of all the bullshit that many states like the hate, anger and pain that we have in the world but because I believe that the God, if there is one, created all living creatures because of pure boredom and lack of enjoyment; due to the fact that even when he gave us the free-will, he knew what every single jackshit that we would do, but still, let us be.

However, that is not the point that I am posting here.

Like it or not, religion is not science. It is not earthly. One may believe God. One may not. One may say we can not know anything about it and one may say; meh, I don't care. This is not politics. Economics. Social studies. History. Physics. Biology. Two plus two is not four. If you believe in it, whatever proof I provide to show the nonexistence of God, you won't believe in it. And it would apply both ways. Thus - there is no point on discussing the religion, as it would not benefit neither parties.

True believers AND non-believers does NOT try to show their fucking opinion down onto your throat. They don't give a flying crap.

Last but not least; none shall judge a way of thinking, because of a couple of retards who are there just to seek some attention and talk from their asses. As much as you have the right and freedom to believe, others have the same right and freedom to not to.

And please. Stop religious discussions. Seriously. It gets nowhere.