-
Welcome to ForumKorner!
Join today and become a part of the community.
Do you think religion is a bunch of bull?
- Thread starter Danger Close
- Start date
I don't beleive on faith i don't believe on any religion, why?
'cause every religion as it pro and cons and likr almost all of them are contradictory.
And i have studied a bunch of them.
so yeh
(happy face).
'cause every religion as it pro and cons and likr almost all of them are contradictory.
And i have studied a bunch of them.
so yeh
(happy face).Rude said:I don't beleive on faith i don't believe on any religion, why?
'cause every religion as it pro and cons and likr almost all of them are contradictory.
And i have studied a bunch of them.
so yeh
Atheism applies to the same thing.
Miss Hannah Minx said:
The section is slow because you post too many threads about religion.
Every thread is basically the same and it gets tiring looking at your problems with religion over and over again.
It's more annoying than you could possible understand.
All of your arguments are invalid and none of them make sense.
You make them as short as possible and give as little detail as possible because you have no idea what you're talking about.
You give no valid evidence and no credible support for your replies.
Why is Christianity bull? Because it's followers are simple minded people who's only response to anything is that it's not true,
Annoymous said:
Stop watching TV and go read a book.
My arguments are not invalid? I've yet to see you debunk my genesis thread. Go do so, if you "think" you know what you're talking about.
This is why I left the madness of the humanist religion Atheism.
Nope.
There are TONS of proven miracles that have happened in the world and they are proven by Science to be a miracle.
Religion does exist, and billions of years ago, Jesus (Called other names in other religions) did exist.
There are TONS of proven miracles that have happened in the world and they are proven by Science to be a miracle.
Religion does exist, and billions of years ago, Jesus (Called other names in other religions) did exist.
Means nothing to me, although I liked the da Vinci code and angels and demons which sorta trashes religion.
To be honest, nothing is a bunch of bull. If people want to believe in something, just let them do it. Why do you need to be against them? At the end of the day nobody really cares what you think, you're just getting yourself a headache.
To some extent.
As blunt as this may seem to religious believers, my opinion on the importance of religion remains very low and insignificant. Although I was baptized as a catholic Christian, I strongly doubt the existence of a higher and transcendent force most of us seek. Every religion has its scared scriptures and believers that strongly reinforce its credulity and yet opposing religious teachings continue to question its veracity. While one religion may have sufficient evidence to prove its justification of life, another may have just enough to successfully contradict it with its philosophical theories. Through my eyes, the concept of religion was created solely to reassure people that there is a logical explanation for how we all come to be. Religion leaves no moral or ethical questions unanswered except for one; how it was created.
In such a heavily populated world, you'd think that there would be enough intelligence to find answers to every possible question; however, more questions always seem to arise. One of these questions deals with the concept of God's existence according to theism. In my opinion, agnosticism is the most credible concept thus far when compared to all other religious concepts; such as theism and atheism. This stand for agnosticism is not so much a belief in God according to theism nor is it a disbelief but merely a concept that explains that there is not enough reason or truth in the world to pick a side. Therefore, agnostics remain neutral, in the sense that they are undecided in their opinion of God according to theism.
When we take a closer look as to why agnosticism would be the logical choice, there are many different types of evidence that facilitate this position. Firstly, God's existence has not yet been proven as a guarantee. In other words, knowledge of God's existence is unattainable because evidence of God's existence is unattainable. No one has ever been able to successfully prove that God exists using physical evidence; only attempts at factual evidence have been made to proving God's existence. It suffices to say that there is an equally balanced number of atheists compared to theists but the issue still remains that both oppositions continue to contradict each other's concepts. Agnosticism has a clear way of grasping the most un-biased ideas and turning them into a methodology of thinking. It allows its believers to rightfully take views from all perspectives and make an educated decision in terms of their desired belief system.
Many philosophers and atheists seem to feel differently about the concept of agnosticism. St. Thomas Aquinas was an outstanding theologian, philosopher, and Christian apologist that challenged the views of agnostics by enforcing an argument from contingency in order to prove God's existence. One of his arguments, otherwise known as "The Third Way", explains that due to the fact that living matter can only be created by life itself, there must have been a necessary being that created life to begin with. In his passages, he refers to this so called being as God.
As a response to St. Aquinas' argument, most agnostics interject with the counter argument that claims that just because life had to have been created from something necessary, they do not feel obliged to accredit this so called "God" with this necessity. In other words, why do theists automatically believe that it is God that created the universe, or even a being for that matter? As a result, Aquinas' argument is therefore incomplete considering it has not made clear why God among all other things was given the role of the creator of the universe. The reoccurring concept of theodicy is repeatedly used to enforce the agnostic perspective as well. This concept merely explains that it is unsure whether or not God is imminent among us due to the fact that evil is still very much present within the world. Theists believe that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, immutable and necessary being; then how can such an authoritative figurehead still allow evil to take place among us? This is the argument of theodicy and affirms that we cannot ascertain God's existence nor can we reject it. Many so called religious experiences have led others to believe that God is in fact among us, but who can verify these experiences beside the victims themselves? Does that seem to be enough? What about atheists that are convinced that all religions are false or less bluntly reject the concept of theism? How can they ascertain that God is not among us with such a heavily opposed group; theists? The one concept that is the most irrefutable in my opinion stands to be agnosticism due to the fact that it has a very small oppositional group, if one at all.
Another common argument to support my belief in theism is the following. Most of us have always inherited our religion and traditions from our parents. Having said that, if someone were to be born in Iraq, the child would be blessed as a Muslim as opposed to an American born child that would otherwise be baptized as a Christian. This stands to reason that if religion were such an important concept among us, we would not leave our belief system up to our ancestral path; we would make an informed decision based on solid research.
To put an end to what seems to be a widely disputed ideology; I will restate that agnosticism is the one logical concept in my opinion when placed alongside all of today's idiotic theories and prophets. In other words, religion is simply a concept that was created in other to ensure everyone that there is an explanation for the universe's existence; otherwise, let's face it, there would be utter and total chaos. Religion is meant to keep everyone inbound in a way and I stand to argue against it. You may perceive it as you wish, but that is how I grasp the concept of religion among our society. It has evolved into a way heir of life rather than what it used to be; a belief system. Parents have their children commit to the lives
after they prioritize religion, when in reality, it should be the other way around.
My reasoning for entrusting my belief in the concept of agnosticism is simply due to the fact that all other concept with the help of justifications and evidence, fail to convince me that we must follow a superior example. Agnosticism rejects the concept of religion, choosing to not take part in such preposterous propaganda while enforcing the possibility of a scientific beginning. For some, religion has rapidly evolved from a way of life to a set of instructional guidelines. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. We shouldn't let religion determine our lives; rather we should live our lives by our values. Agnosticism is the most convincing concept when compared, with all others due to its evidential credibility being reinforced by the laws of science.
Don't be disappointed if you don't share a common ground. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
As blunt as this may seem to religious believers, my opinion on the importance of religion remains very low and insignificant. Although I was baptized as a catholic Christian, I strongly doubt the existence of a higher and transcendent force most of us seek. Every religion has its scared scriptures and believers that strongly reinforce its credulity and yet opposing religious teachings continue to question its veracity. While one religion may have sufficient evidence to prove its justification of life, another may have just enough to successfully contradict it with its philosophical theories. Through my eyes, the concept of religion was created solely to reassure people that there is a logical explanation for how we all come to be. Religion leaves no moral or ethical questions unanswered except for one; how it was created.
In such a heavily populated world, you'd think that there would be enough intelligence to find answers to every possible question; however, more questions always seem to arise. One of these questions deals with the concept of God's existence according to theism. In my opinion, agnosticism is the most credible concept thus far when compared to all other religious concepts; such as theism and atheism. This stand for agnosticism is not so much a belief in God according to theism nor is it a disbelief but merely a concept that explains that there is not enough reason or truth in the world to pick a side. Therefore, agnostics remain neutral, in the sense that they are undecided in their opinion of God according to theism.
When we take a closer look as to why agnosticism would be the logical choice, there are many different types of evidence that facilitate this position. Firstly, God's existence has not yet been proven as a guarantee. In other words, knowledge of God's existence is unattainable because evidence of God's existence is unattainable. No one has ever been able to successfully prove that God exists using physical evidence; only attempts at factual evidence have been made to proving God's existence. It suffices to say that there is an equally balanced number of atheists compared to theists but the issue still remains that both oppositions continue to contradict each other's concepts. Agnosticism has a clear way of grasping the most un-biased ideas and turning them into a methodology of thinking. It allows its believers to rightfully take views from all perspectives and make an educated decision in terms of their desired belief system.
Many philosophers and atheists seem to feel differently about the concept of agnosticism. St. Thomas Aquinas was an outstanding theologian, philosopher, and Christian apologist that challenged the views of agnostics by enforcing an argument from contingency in order to prove God's existence. One of his arguments, otherwise known as "The Third Way", explains that due to the fact that living matter can only be created by life itself, there must have been a necessary being that created life to begin with. In his passages, he refers to this so called being as God.
As a response to St. Aquinas' argument, most agnostics interject with the counter argument that claims that just because life had to have been created from something necessary, they do not feel obliged to accredit this so called "God" with this necessity. In other words, why do theists automatically believe that it is God that created the universe, or even a being for that matter? As a result, Aquinas' argument is therefore incomplete considering it has not made clear why God among all other things was given the role of the creator of the universe. The reoccurring concept of theodicy is repeatedly used to enforce the agnostic perspective as well. This concept merely explains that it is unsure whether or not God is imminent among us due to the fact that evil is still very much present within the world. Theists believe that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, immutable and necessary being; then how can such an authoritative figurehead still allow evil to take place among us? This is the argument of theodicy and affirms that we cannot ascertain God's existence nor can we reject it. Many so called religious experiences have led others to believe that God is in fact among us, but who can verify these experiences beside the victims themselves? Does that seem to be enough? What about atheists that are convinced that all religions are false or less bluntly reject the concept of theism? How can they ascertain that God is not among us with such a heavily opposed group; theists? The one concept that is the most irrefutable in my opinion stands to be agnosticism due to the fact that it has a very small oppositional group, if one at all.
Another common argument to support my belief in theism is the following. Most of us have always inherited our religion and traditions from our parents. Having said that, if someone were to be born in Iraq, the child would be blessed as a Muslim as opposed to an American born child that would otherwise be baptized as a Christian. This stands to reason that if religion were such an important concept among us, we would not leave our belief system up to our ancestral path; we would make an informed decision based on solid research.
To put an end to what seems to be a widely disputed ideology; I will restate that agnosticism is the one logical concept in my opinion when placed alongside all of today's idiotic theories and prophets. In other words, religion is simply a concept that was created in other to ensure everyone that there is an explanation for the universe's existence; otherwise, let's face it, there would be utter and total chaos. Religion is meant to keep everyone inbound in a way and I stand to argue against it. You may perceive it as you wish, but that is how I grasp the concept of religion among our society. It has evolved into a way heir of life rather than what it used to be; a belief system. Parents have their children commit to the lives
after they prioritize religion, when in reality, it should be the other way around.
My reasoning for entrusting my belief in the concept of agnosticism is simply due to the fact that all other concept with the help of justifications and evidence, fail to convince me that we must follow a superior example. Agnosticism rejects the concept of religion, choosing to not take part in such preposterous propaganda while enforcing the possibility of a scientific beginning. For some, religion has rapidly evolved from a way of life to a set of instructional guidelines. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. We shouldn't let religion determine our lives; rather we should live our lives by our values. Agnosticism is the most convincing concept when compared, with all others due to its evidential credibility being reinforced by the laws of science.
Don't be disappointed if you don't share a common ground. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Now, after reading all that. I still didn't get my answer.
Yes, or no.
Yes, or no.
Miss Hannah Minx said:
There is none, he is saying that the best choice is the belief to neither not believe in god or to believe in god. But to be neutral. Because there is no physical evidence. If i read that right. If i didn't, than whatever haha
Aidan said:
I'm reading, and this is what came to mind to me.
"Christians believe in a 6,000 year old book."
"Muslims believe in a 5,500 year old book."
"Atheist believe in nothing."
"Agnostics don't know, so it's the best choice."
I think your just meant to believe in what you wanna believe in. Why go through life believing nothing is gonna happen when you die? That just sucks lol,its muchbetter to think your gonna go to a "happy place". But technically ya i think its bull to an extent.
And also i don't get how ppl choose religion because who is to say which one is right or wrong. I mean no one really knows which is right. So technically it has to be bs or there would only be one religion.
And also i don't get how ppl choose religion because who is to say which one is right or wrong. I mean no one really knows which is right. So technically it has to be bs or there would only be one religion.
Aidan said:
That's precisely what I wan leaning towards.
Miss Hannah Minx said:
It's not that we don't know but merely that compared alongside all other prophets of religion, it's much easier to believe in nothing (Scientology) than to go back and forth disproving ideologies from each others' religions.
Agnostics' belief are the more dredible because they don't disprove anyone else's.
iSellRSGP said:
True but when you're parents bring you up to make it into a lifestyle, it becomes more than a figment. And that's precisely the problem.
That's a damn lie.
Aidan said:
I don't see why you're replying back without being ON TOPIC.
Featured
-
Selling HeavyDDOS | BOTNET SERVICE | STRONGEST BOTNET ON THE MARTKET- Started by heavybotnet
- Replies: 0
Share this page
