TIME to get RID OF RELIGION

[Gary Childress]

How does agnosticism deny people "any future orientation points"?

It doesn't have to...if you're prepared to limit it properly...say, by saying, "Hey, I've got no clues, but I don't know about anybody else." That's just humble and honest. The problem comes up, though, when the agnostic says, "Hey, I have no idea about God -- and you all owe the rest of us never to have any answers either." At that point, it's ceased to be humble and honest, and become tyrannical, dishonest, hubistic ignorance.

So which form of agnosticism would you advocate? The humble one, or the arrogant one? The one that's just about you, or the one that demands everybody else remain permanently as clueless as the agnostic?

OK. So my expecting everyone to be agnostic is "arrogant" but your expectation that everyone be Christian isn't?

It seems to me that someone can simply be oriented with the fact that they don't know the answers to everything, especially metaphysical things which by their nature are beyond this world.

Let's see if that's true.

Make your case, then. Start from "I know nothing about God," (agnosticism's basic claim, using the humble and honest version) and tell me what light that offers to the next person who is seeking to organize his life project, or orient a political plan, or inform justice, or target proper goals.

Well, if the person is a Spanish Inquisitionist or a Marxist, then maybe I don't want them to organize their life project or political plan. Should I want everyone to be better organized with their life project or political plan? And for those who want to organize their life, then what is stopping an agnostic from making a plan for his or her future? They can still plan to study medicine or law or whatever at school as part of their plan. What's stopping them from making those plans or carrying them out?

[Immanuel Can]

How does agnosticism deny people "any future orientation points"?

It doesn't have to...if you're prepared to limit it properly...say, by saying, "Hey, I've got no clues, but I don't know about anybody else." That's just humble and honest. The problem comes up, though, when the agnostic says, "Hey, I have no idea about God -- and you all owe the rest of us never to have any answers either." At that point, it's ceased to be humble and honest, and become tyrannical, dishonest, hubistic ignorance.

So which form of agnosticism would you advocate? The humble one, or the arrogant one? The one that's just about you, or the one that demands everybody else remain permanently as clueless as the agnostic?

OK. So my expecting everyone to be agnostic is "arrogant" but your expectation that everyone be Christian isn't?

Well, I don't know if you're an honest agnostic, or a tyrannical, arrogant one. But if you're agreeing with the OP, you're saying it's "time to get rid of religion." I'm not saying it's time to get rid of agnosticism, so I have to ask, why are you dictating to others?

I'll let them choose what they want to believe; even the agnostics. And given that you claim you know nothing about God, either way, why won't you?

It seems to me that someone can simply be oriented with the fact that they don't know the answers to everything, especially metaphysical things which by their nature are beyond this world.

Let's see if that's true.

Make your case, then. Start from "I know nothing about God," (agnosticism's basic claim, using the humble and honest version) and tell me what light that offers to the next person who is seeking to organize his life project, or orient a political plan, or inform justice, or target proper goals.

Well, if the person is a Spanish Inquisitionist or a Marxist, then maybe I don't want them to organize their life project or political plan.

Well, that's an organizational plan already, so we're not talking about them. And yes, I think they're both bad plans. But I'll let people have them, if they want to...so long as they extend me and everybody else the same courtesy. But of course, by definition, neither Marxists nor Inquisitionists would. In that regard, they are walking in step with the arrogant agnostic, who also seeks to dictate to others, and won't allow people to believe in things he doesn't.

Should I want everyone to be better organized with their life project or political plan?

They can't organize a life plan at all, without reference to some sort of assumptions and goals. But if you think agnosticism can do that, then accept my invitation, and go ahead and explain how they'd benefit from your personal declaration of ignorance.

And for those who want to organize their life, then what is stopping an agnostic from making a plan for his or her future?

They can, of course...but they'll need some basic values, assumptions and goals, which they have to have some reason to prefer to other possible options: and exactly what would that organizing principle be, coming from somebody who only claims personal ignorance?

And they'll need a central set of goals for their society, and a political system to advocate (if only laissez-faire of some kind), and a view of justice and fairness, and a moral perspective to guide their actions...have you got anything for them on any of that?

[Gary Childress]

It doesn't have to...if you're prepared to limit it properly...say, by saying, "Hey, I've got no clues, but I don't know about anybody else." That's just humble and honest. The problem comes up, though, when the agnostic says, "Hey, I have no idea about God -- and you all owe the rest of us never to have any answers either." At that point, it's ceased to be humble and honest, and become tyrannical, dishonest, hubistic ignorance.

So which form of agnosticism would you advocate? The humble one, or the arrogant one? The one that's just about you, or the one that demands everybody else remain permanently as clueless as the agnostic?

OK. So my expecting everyone to be agnostic is "arrogant" but your expectation that everyone be Christian isn't?

Well, I don't know if you're an honest agnostic, or a tyrannical, arrogant one. But if you're agreeing with the OP, you're saying it's "time to get rid of religion." I'm not saying it's time to get rid of agnosticism, so I have to ask, why are you dictating to others?

I'll let them choose what they want to believe; even the agnostics. And given that you claim you know nothing about God, either way, why won't you?

I happen to be agnostic and I see no reason that anyone else shouldn't be. Why do you have a problem with that if you say you have no problem letting other people be whatever they want. It sounds to me like you must have some kind of problem with agnosticism in others if you're worried about me thinking others should be agnostic.

Let's see if that's true.

Make your case, then. Start from "I know nothing about God," (agnosticism's basic claim, using the humble and honest version) and tell me what light that offers to the next person who is seeking to organize his life project, or orient a political plan, or inform justice, or target proper goals.

Well, if the person is a Spanish Inquisitionist or a Marxist, then maybe I don't want them to organize their life project or political plan.

Well, that's an organizational plan already, so we're not talking about them. And yes, I think they're both bad plans. But I'll let people have them, if they want to...so long as they extend me and everybody else the same courtesy. But of course, by definition, neither Marxists nor Inquisitionists would. In that regard, they are walking in step with the arrogant agnostic, who also seeks to dictate to others, and won't allow people to believe in things he doesn't.

Should I want everyone to be better organized with their life project or political plan?

They can't organize a life plan at all, without reference to some sort of assumptions and goals. But if you think agnosticism can do that, then accept my invitation, and go ahead and explain how they'd benefit from your personal declaration of ignorance.

And for those who want to organize their life, then what is stopping an agnostic from making a plan for his or her future?

They can, of course...but they'll need some basic values, assumptions and goals, which they have to have some reason to prefer to other possible options: and exactly what would that organizing principle be, coming from somebody who only claims personal ignorance?

And they'll need a central set of goals for their society, and a political system to advocate (if only laissez-faire of some kind), and a view of justice and fairness, and a moral perspective to guide their actions...have you got anything for them on any of that?

Sure. I would suggest not going around killing other peoples or eating them or doing anything bad to them if they can avoid it. I would suggest democracy is probably a better thing than the alternatives. Am I wrong to suggest those things?

[Immanuel Can]

I happen to be agnostic and I see no reason that anyone else shouldn't be.

Well, that's a bit arrogant, don't you think? Essentially, you're saying, "I don't know anything, and you're not allowed to know anything either." Would that be a good attitude in other areas of life, or in science?

Why do you have a problem with that if you say you have no problem letting other people be whatever they want.

Because you're imposing it.

Listen, it's no harm to anybody else if you want to admit personal ignorance. And it's no problem if you demand the right to stay ignorant. That's all fine. But why insist that others should be, and that you have to "get rid of" their beliefs for them? Isn't that just a tad tyrannical?

And they'll need a central set of goals for their society, and a political system to advocate (if only laissez-faire of some kind), and a view of justice and fairness, and a moral perspective to guide their actions...have you got anything for them on any of that?

Sure. I would suggest not going around killing other peoples or eating them or doing anything bad to them if they can avoid it.

That's what they should NOT do, that you're talking about. What SHOULD they do? How should they orient themselves in the world, so as to know what they should aim at, or what is a moral thing to do or be, or how justice should be arranged...all of that.

I would suggest democracy is probably a better thing than the alternatives.

Okay. On what basis? What value system can an agnostic hold that would justify that not only to yourself but also to them?

[Gary Childress]

I would suggest democracy is probably a better thing than the alternatives.

Okay. On what basis? What value system can an agnostic hold that would justify that not only to yourself but also to them?

The historical record seems to point to democracy being a more reasonable form overall of governance than non-democratic societies. I think we can safely say that humanity can take away that lesson from history. Do you disagree?

On what "basis" do you think democracy is better than the alternatives? Or are you suggesting it isn't? What does the Bible have to say about democracy, if anything?

[attofishpi]

I happen to be agnostic and I see no reason that anyone else shouldn't be.

Well, that's a bit arrogant, don't you think? Essentially, you're saying, "I don't know anything, and you're not allowed to know anything either."

That's not what he is saying AT ALL.

My reasoning for "Time to get rid of religion"..is because UK is on the border of reintroducing blasphemy laws (* to protect that special disgusting "religion" Islam)

AND

My point being EVERYONE HAS BEEN WARNED re GOD.

What more needs to be said re religion then IC? I'm not insisting on barring religion, just insisting on a secular society.

[Immanuel Can]

I would suggest democracy is probably a better thing than the alternatives.

Okay. On what basis? What value system can an agnostic hold that would justify that not only to yourself but also to them?

The historical record seems to point to democracy being a more reasonable form overall of governance than non-democratic societies.

So you say. And you say it's "reasonable," which suggests you suppose you have reasons for that.

But others will doubt. Mike certainly will. And he's far from alone. Today, too many people are keener to see a one-party, autocratic, Socialist society. Some want to see something else...libertarianism, monarchy, dictatorship, technocracy, theocracy, globalism...some are even downright nihilistic and would like to see things wrecked...look at what BLM has done, for example. You've got a lot of opposition you need to persuade that your view is warranted.

Since you are an agnostic, and thus admit to knowing nothing about God, why would your valuing of a democracy take precedence over their desire for non-democratic systems of governance?

On what "basis" do you think democracy is better than the alternatives?

Well, I believe in God, and see man as created in His image, and endowed with certain inalienable rights, such as the rights of life, liberty and property, and the preeminent right to conscience, just as John Locke pointed out. And I take my political orientation from those values. So for me, democracy is an imperfect system, but the best to allow those values to be realized. Among those values that are essentially guaranteed to any human is the right to decide his/her own life and place in eternity, relative to God. So I back democracy for Christian reasons.

But you're an agnostic. So you can't follow my line of reasoning. You'd have to have your own, suitable to agnosticism. What reasoning do you offer, that would rationalize democracy in the absence of those sorts of values? Because unless you can offer something, then your agnosticism is simply destructive: it takes away whatever anybody else believes in, and forbids them to believe it ("gets rid of it," remember?), but does not provide any positive orientation points to replace what it erases.

But you still say you want democracy. Okay, well, then you've got to defend it with good reasons.

What have you got?

[Veritas Aequitas]

RE : GOD
E v e r y o n e has been warned
TIME to discard ALL religion.
No RELIGION has any place within political policy or law.
- signed he of the Evening Star

At present it is TIME to plan to discard ALL religions progressively in the future starting with theistic religions and subsequently non-theistic ones [e.g. Buddhism].
Also we have to discard non-religious theism in the future as well.

[attofishpi]

RE : GOD
E v e r y o n e has been warned
TIME to discard ALL religion.
No RELIGION has any place within political policy or law.
- signed he of the Evening Star

At present it is TIME to plan to discard ALL religions progressively in the future starting with theistic religions and subsequently non-theistic ones [e.g. Buddhism].
Also we have to discard non-religious theism in the future as well.

Ya.

The sooner stupid people get off of the planet that the sages inherited the better.

[Age]

RE : GOD

E v e r y o n e has been warned

TIME to discard ALL religion.

No RELIGION has any place within political policy or law.

- signed he of the Evening Star

So, what are you then going to FOLLOW and BELIEVE (in) if your "christian religion" is discarded?

[Age]

Are you saying that God doesn't believe in a God?

What’s being said is that God is not a belief that requires a proof.

There is NO thing that 'requires' proof. There are, however, just some things that some want and/or desire proof of.

Just the experiencing of life itself is its own proof. No belief required.


You exist don’t you? You don’t need to prove that you exist to yourself do you?

The clarifying question was, Are you saying that God, Itself, does not believe 'in' God?

Which is like asking, 'Does "fairy" believe 'in' "fairy"?', or, 'Does "gary childress" believe 'in' "gary childress"?'

[Age]

TIME to discard ALL religion.

Like Karl Marx said, you mean?

Of course not. We need religion, just like the Spanish inquisitionists said!

Let 'us' not forget, here, that it was you adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, who all believed (in) some things, which is, in a sense, a form of 'being religious', itself.

And, just like 'you all 'need' religion', just because some said so and you were told you do, some of you also, actually believe, absolutely, that 'you 'need' to believe some things', again just because some said so, and you were told you do.

[Age]

Is that what they said?

I can quote where Marx said it. Can you quote where the Inquistors said, "We need religion"?

You're right. The Spanish inquisitionists were clearly atheists trying to get people to convert to atheism. My bad.

You've become desperate. All you've got is pretending to misunderstand.

No, the Inquisitionists were religous, for sure. And what they did was bad, for sure. How "Catholic" what they did was, you'll have to debate with the Catholics. I would say they were much more political activists than religious ones, but I'll let the Catholics make that case, if they can...their authorities harassed and killed my ancestors a the massacred of St. Bartholomew, so I'm loath to defend that.

But what was done by Marx and his followers? 140 million dead, countless dispossessed, countless tortured, utter economic collapses that further destroyed more...in other words, the damage done by the avowed Atheists turns out to be orders of magnitude greater than any damage done by any religionists, and indeed, by all combined...even by Islam, which is by far the worst religion for violence, murder and oppression, since it equals all others combined.

So here we're advocating what is, verifiably and statistically, the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude (i.e. Atheism, and particularly Socialism), in order to get rid of murder and injustice?

Can you see any problem with this idea?

Talk about ANOTHER PRIME example of one 'trying their hardest' to DEFLECT, and to ultimately DECEIVE, the readers, here, once again.

[Belinda]

So far nobody in this conversation has defined 'religion'.
Encyclopedia Britannica :

Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death.

How would you propose to "get rid of" the above in your own personal life

[attofishpi]

So far nobody in this conversation has defined 'religion'.
Encyclopedia Britannica :

Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death.

How would you propose to "get rid of" the above in your own personal life

No, the definition hasn't been made explicit although I have clarified in another thread what I believe wo/man's religion to be:

World religions have been formed from divine interaction with certain people through time (often referred to as 'prophets' or other) where, through their experience of this entity they have conveyed to others within various cultures of their esoteric experiences. Now we have the result of that in the form of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism etc..

The entire point of the thread is...screw it...U all had your chance through time and reincarnations to find the guiding light.

You are all running out of time (for the guide)

Thus.

I am done with caring for NE1 about such matters. ALL HAVE BEEN WARNED.

There is no reason that religion need to be part of any requirement of humanity at this age of 2024.

The JOB is DONE.