Facebook killed the radio star. And by radio star, I mean the premise of distributed forums around the internet. And that got got by Instagram/SnapChat. And that got got by TikTok. Where the fuck is the internet we once knew?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yeah, there's a word for that: agnostic, as I suspect you know.
Agnosticism asserts no knowledge of gods and therefore concludes there are no reasons to believe in them or not to believe in them. An agnostic follows this credo and differs from the atheist who has developed an active belief that there are no gods. When it comes to the question of existence of deities, an agnostic will respond: I just don't know.
I'd personally do as Joe suggests
You might be right about that, Joe.
For the record, I don't regard the old testament as fact, yet I don't regard it as fiction, either. I personally believe that some parts of it are a metaphor (for example, Noah saving the animals was a precursor to Jesus saving humanity). The books of the prophets, Genesis and Exodus, though, I do regard as fact.
I think Joe what Joe was getting at is it's silly to interpret everything in the Bible literally. The best example I can think of is how the literal translation of the bible led to people believing the sun revolved around the earth. The bible is meant to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Basically, a purely literal interpretation of the bible is not a good thing.
Yes, but how do you decide which parts are meant to be interpreted literally? It seems like a system riddled with traps to me.
Whichever ones haven't been disproven by science seems like a good starting point for me.
Yes, that's a good answer. However, it doesn't encompass some of the more profound topics discussed in the bible. For example, what about heaven and hell are they metaphors? Was Jesus' crucifixion nothing more than a story meant to be told to represent important moral lessons?
Why can we stop at the things that have been disproven by science? It seems unfair to those that lived before the knowledge existed.
Plus, how can it be known that we accept something as true merely because we lack the perception to see the "counterexample" or "fallacy?" One could always pull the "All is possible through God" card.
In the end, this amounts to +1 to my post count.
Quote from: Joe[x86/64] on April 22, 2007, 02:36:30 amFor the record, I don't regard the old testament as fact, yet I don't regard it as fiction, either. I personally believe that some parts of it are a metaphor (for example, Noah saving the animals was a precursor to Jesus saving humanity). The books of the prophets, Genesis and Exodus, though, I do regard as fact.It seems to me that interpreting arbitrary sections of the bible as fiction and others as fact to totally defeat the whole "word of God" idea...
Killing is murder...Also, I don't think that language gaps is a universal excuse. Also, It doesn't make sense to say that in a world teaming with people willing to translate that there would be so many errors of this manner.
Quote from: Sidoh on April 22, 2007, 12:57:43 amYeah, there's a word for that: agnostic, as I suspect you know. Off google: QuoteAgnosticism asserts no knowledge of gods and therefore concludes there are no reasons to believe in them or not to believe in them. An agnostic follows this credo and differs from the atheist who has developed an active belief that there are no gods. When it comes to the question of existence of deities, an agnostic will respond: I just don't know.Yes, to some extent. Along with "I don't know" I'd probably ask the person why they believe in deities, if they do at all. I'm always interested in learning more about religions, I reserve the right to disbelieve in certain parts of some religions, with full respect, of course.