I have been told that no matter how well we live our lives, none of us are good enough for God and can only be admitted into heaven if we get a free pass from Jesus. That makes no sense to me. A true God would accept me for who I am without demanding blood sacrifices, membership pins, paid prayers or groveling at its feet.
Suppose you are running a marathon and maybe took a wrong turn or two, but think you can make it to the finish line with a decent time. Then you see some guy in a booth, handing out blue ribbons to anyone who asks for one and promising that runners with a ribbon will get to stand in the winners' circle, regardless of how well they do in the race. People who take the blue ribbons are positive they are winners and jeer that ribbonless runners can't win no matter how well they run. There are more booths, with hawkers handing out different colored ribbons and swearing that the other guy's ribbons are fake, and only their ribbons will allow you in the winner's circle. Some runners tell you that ribbons don't matter but winners are judged on style, or breathing, or doing calisthenics every 100 yards, or how many ants you step on during the race. Some say that no one wins, all that matters is running. Some say that the finish line is just the starting gate for another race and the only way to win is to stop running. No one has ever run this race before, so you have no way of knowing who, if anyone, is right. Do you agonize over what awaits you at the finish line, put your trust in a ribbon, or just run a good race, enjoy the scenery and hope for the best?
IMO, people who think that the color of your ribbon matters more than the character you show during the race are not winners, no matter what circle they congregate in.
Terry wrote:IMO, people who think that the color of your ribbon matters more than the character you show during the race are not winners, no matter what circle they congregate in.
Only people without ribbons say that
(just kidding)
Terry wrote:real life wrote:When it comes down to reality, either the theist or the atheist is correct.
Either there IS a God (polytheism being merely a variant of theism for this aspect of the discussion) , or there IS NOT a God.
Agnosticism shows it's own irrelevancy and uselessness as it's "I dunno" philosophy is replaced by certainty in one direction or the other.
.........There are hundreds of theistic religions with mutually exclusive beliefs.............
That's true. That's why the 'all religions teach basically the same thing' philosophy seems so pathetic.
real life wrote:That's true. That's why the 'all religions teach basically the same thing' philosophy seems so pathetic.
Since this thread is supposedly about agnosticism, are you insinuating that agnostics don't recognize diffferences between religions? I for one acknowledged earlier the polytheistic character of Hinduism.
yitwail wrote:real life wrote:That's true. That's why the 'all religions teach basically the same thing' philosophy seems so pathetic.
Since this thread is supposedly about agnosticism, are you insinuating that agnostics don't recognize diffferences between religions? I for one acknowledged earlier the polytheistic character of Hinduism.
Relax. I didn't insinuate anything about all agnostics or all of anyone else. I stated that the idea of (some) agnostics who seem to think there is little difference between religions, as do (some) atheists and even (some) theists is a poorly thought out concept.
This type of broadbrush is expressed in any number of ways, such as 'all religions are ok by me if they work for you' or ' all religions are bogus ' or ' all religions teach the same basic things' or 'all religions lead to God' . These are all examples of the intellectual laziness I was referring to.
You apparently would not count yourself among them. Good for you because there are differences which should be obvious to anyone. My comment had to do with the folks who can't seem to see any difference.
Yeah it's 'supposed' to be a thread about agnostics but most threads seem to expand to explore a much broader field or dry up pretty quickly.
thanks for clarifying, and i agree with pretty much all you just wrote.
Acknowledging differences between religions in such ways as "there is none like mine, for mine is unique" or "all religions other than mine are works of the devil" is as intellectually lazy as pointing out the fact that there are similarities thereof.
It is specious to contend that any statement which comprehends all religions is a "broad brush" statement, and thereby dismiss said statement. It is axiomatic in the definition of a religion that it purports to have the answers to the origin and meaning of the cosmos, and the place of man within it. Therefore, one of them is correct, and all of the others are incorrect, or, all of them are incorrect. Call that broad brush if you will, it cannot be otherwise.
Religions are humbug, and either the products of delusional minds, or venal priesthoods.
To answer the question, I don't know how agnostics handle their own deaths. I've been only somewhat close, re contemplation thereof in the middle of surgery, and haven't changed my views, but then I'm sans theism then or now.
Setanta wrote:It is specious to contend that any statement which comprehends all religions is a "broad brush" statement, and thereby dismiss said statement. It is axiomatic in the definition of a religion that it purports to have the answers to the origin and meaning of the cosmos, and the place of man within it. Therefore, one of them is correct, and all of the others are incorrect, or, all of them are incorrect. Call that broad brush if you will, it cannot be otherwise.
Religions are humbug, and either the products of delusional minds, or venal priesthoods.
It is your second paragraph which is the broadbrush. It cannot be called otherwise.
You imply that all religions are incorrect. Are you prepared to disprove the existence of God? If not, it would seem your judgement is a bit premature.
No doubt you take refuge in your usual, 'I do not see any empirical evidence that there is a God.' But your statement goes well beyond that. Do you think that you can prove the negative that you imply, (but are obviously afraid to state outright)?
There is no obligation on me to disprove an extraordinary claim. If you claim that a deity exists, possessed of any supernatural powers, you have made an extraordinary claim, and have the burden of proving your claim.
Absent the reality, absent any proof of the existence of a deity, my statement stands: religion is either delusion or charlatanism.
Setanta wrote:It is specious to contend that any statement which comprehends all religions is a "broad brush" statement, and thereby dismiss said statement. It is axiomatic in the definition of a religion that it purports to have the answers to the origin and meaning of the cosmos, and the place of man within it. Therefore, one of them is correct, and all of the others are incorrect, or, all of them are incorrect. Call that broad brush if you will, it cannot be otherwise.
Religions are humbug, and either the products of delusional minds, or venal priesthoods.
Bertrand Russell could not have said it better. Of course, I didn't agree with his conclusion, either.
"Religions are humbug, and either the products of delusional minds, or venal priesthoods."
Excellent sentiments Setanta
Cheers, Boss . . . of course, the religiously fanatical ain'ta gonna like it, but you'll have that . . .
Hey Setanta, does one haveta be "religiously fanatical" to not like you calling such a deeply personal thing "delusional" or "venal"?
No, ordinarily devout persons are free to take offense, i've never been discriminatory in offering insult to the religious.
And how does this contribute to civility, raise the level of discourse or engender free exchange of ideas? Why is gratuitous insult so acceptable toward anyone who practices a religion? This is reasonable to you?
Snood...
...considering the incredible number of gratuitous insults you regularly post...
...do you really think you should be giving lectures to others on the subject?
Frank Apisa wrote:Snood...
...considering the incredible number of gratuitous insults you regularly post...
...do you really think you should be giving lectures to others on the subject?
Since this is the ONLY exchange I've had with anyone but you that has been even marginally contentious, I expected you to try to piggyback on it, grampa. But you and I and Setanta all know that you're the one who has the most beefs with the most people. Besides, this exchange between Setanta and I hasn't even been harsh, even though I'm sure you'd like it to be. Why don't you go peddle your tired and wretched old bloviation on someone else? I'm sure you know Setanta doesn't require your assistance.
snood wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Snood...
...considering the incredible number of gratuitous insults you regularly post...
...do you really think you should be giving lectures to others on the subject?
Since this is the ONLY exchange I've had with anyone but you that has been even marginally contentious, I expected you to try to piggyback on it, grampa. But you and I and Setanta all know that you're the one who has the most beefs with the most people. Besides, this exchange between Setanta and I hasn't even been harsh, even though I'm sure you'd like it to be. Why don't you go peddle your tired and wretched old bloviation on someone else? I'm sure you know Setanta doesn't require your assistance.
Not to handle you...that's for sure.
I was just saying HI!
