All beliefs are flawwed.

[Fim]

Thiest - For putting your faith that admits it's own uncertianty you are a fool.
eg. christianity "I refuse to prove that I exist" says god "for with proof denies faith and without faith thou art nothing".
basicly, Christianity can never be prooved because then it would not be a question of faith, for believing in something that denies it's own proof, you are flawwed.

Athiest - Followers of a different religion, although they deny it, it takes a huge amount of faith to let go of all the strings of religion and surrender all the answers to the wonders of science. Science can only help us so far, it only helps us understand our own small world, and not even all of that. Thrusting your eternal well-being into a man made idea of explaining the world away is surley showing more faith then religionists?

Agnostic - THE WORST OF THE LOT! To put your faith in science is one thing, to question excistence is normal, for even jesus toyed with the idea of fleeing his crucifiction at the time leading up to it. Doubt is normal, but to choose doubt as your religion is pure madness? to simply say "I believe in nothing" makes you lose on both sides. at least athiests have some purpose behind their faith, but agian. You can not choose doubt as your way of life, there is no road it leads to.

In short - Thiests, Athiest and Agnostics all lose.

[PharaohRamsesII]

I sense an asshole out to create some flames.
Non of your arguments have any solid backing to them.
Come back when your done school.

[Fim]

At 2/18/06 11:11 PM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: I sense an asshole out to create some flames.
Non of your arguments have any solid backing to them.
Come back when your done school.

I am better then your children.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

If it turns out that it's true, that all beliefs are flawed, the belief that all beliefs are flawed would be flawed as well. This is contradictory to the opening premise, and therefore, it is not true that all beliefs are flawed. There must exist at least one belief that is not flawed.

[peedee]

At 2/19/06 12:55 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: If it turns out that it's true, that all beliefs are flawed, the belief that all beliefs are flawed would be flawed as well. This is contradictory to the opening premise, and therefore, it is not true that all beliefs are flawed. There must exist at least one belief that is not flawed.

Could be a paradox, no? I mean... If all beliefs are flawed, the belief that all beliefs are flawed would also be flawed, as you said... But it still makes sense, and might stay true.

[Fim]

Could be a paradox, no? I mean... If all beliefs are flawed, the belief that all beliefs are flawed would also be flawed, as you said... But it still makes sense, and might stay true.

No, I'm just confused !

[Mjolnir-1]

At 2/19/06 12:13 AM, CadillacClock wrote: Well I agree, all religions have flaws. Personally I like Buddhism. It's much more peaceful.

i couldnt agree more, but even buddhism has its flaws.
theres one denomination in which this whole heaven thing came from , pure land buddhism, in which buddha's previous spirit found a city behind the sun, and they chant "amida buddha" , ive noticed quite a few strange things with christanity, like there's a norse god named hel who happens to be the goddess of the underworld, notice any similarites?

[Drah]

At 2/19/06 03:48 AM, nidhoggspride wrote:

At 2/19/06 12:13 AM, CadillacClock wrote:

stuff

i could tell you about norse mythology...
according to it, the world is a giant tree, an oak i think, called ygdrasil.
and the end of the world is called ragnarok, and it goes on.

well, yeah most religions have got flaws, if not all of them.
a belief is a belief after all, and if it cant be proven it is flawed.

[Explodapop]

I have no bloody clue where we came from (meaning the whole planet earth and what evolved into humans) and I don't care either.. It does not matter, we are here today. I know that after I will be dead, there is nothing, just nothing.. cause I do not excist. It is scary to think about.. but think how long you have been dead before being born? And if you get children your genes pass on too..

Anyways, believe whatever you want to, but don't bother me with it. :)

[Jinzoa]

So scientists lose to seeing as they believe in the path of science and all?.... :/

well either way were only human.

[morefngdbs]

At 2/18/06 11:01 PM, Newground_Freak wrote: Agnostic - THE WORST OF THE LOT!
In short - Thiests, Athiest and Agnostics all lose.

;
Your opinion,and you are intitled to it
But I'm an Agnostic who does believe in many of the points made by the "Deists"
Deism- is a belief that the existence of God is evident by rationally looking at the universe. That something so vast & intricate only makes sense if there was a creator or a higher power that inspired its creation.
Deists- Believe that logic and rational are the only sources of knowledge.
aslo- Generally believe that the devine does not interfer in the workings of the world.
Deism does not rely on any 'sacred scripture' to find such truths,only the human ability to -reason- and ones own experiences in that universe.
So you may think that Agnostic is just a copout. (worst of the lot,as you put it)
I myself see organized religion as a copout. Any member of a 'preached to ' religion does not have to have an intelligent thought in their heads.
As for thinking they can leave that up to their religions teachers/priests/imam whatever, they'll tell you what to think, & what to believe.
So even though my belief's may be flawed, I can get on with my life without some other persons views clouding what I discover as I go.

[SEXY-FETUS]

agnostic wins out of everything. Leaves your opinions open for anything. I think it's insane to think there wasn't something to spark our exsistence, be it the all might god, or a 7th grade alien science experiment. I like the point where I can sit on the fence look at religious people and say "I can see why you would believe what you do." and look at athiest and say "I can see why you would doubt." but I must say out of all the groups athiests are the most annoying.

[jmaster306]

How's this for a proof:

All beliefs are flawed
"All beliefs are flawed" is a belief
Thus the belief that all beliefs are flawed is also flawed

So by using your own criteria, I have proven that some beliefs are not flawed

[Trendwhore]

At 2/19/06 01:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote: But I'm an Agnostic who does believe in many of the points made by the "Deists"

So in oter words you think intelligent design is the bomb.

[Shadic-1]

I believe in a god, but not the kind religons depict. My version of god is just an omnipotent being fucking around with his powers to seek amusement, not much more.

[Imperator]

At 2/19/06 12:59 AM, peedee wrote:

At 2/19/06 12:55 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: If it turns out that it's true, that all beliefs are flawed, the belief that all beliefs are flawed would be flawed as well. This is contradictory to the opening premise, and therefore, it is not true that all beliefs are flawed. There must exist at least one belief that is not flawed.

Could be a paradox, no? I mean... If all beliefs are flawed, the belief that all beliefs are flawed would also be flawed, as you said... But it still makes sense, and might stay true.

But then the belief that all beliefs are flawed is also flawed, making the idea that all beliefs are flawed true, since it becomes a double negative. But by this standard, this belief is flawed, making the belief that all beliefs are flawed, again flawed, thus making the belief that the belief that all beliefs are flawed actually true, but still keeping the idea that the belief of the belief of the belief that all beliefs are flawed is still flawed,

Concurrently:

Ned Nott was shot and Sam Shott was not. So it is better to be Shott than Nott. Some say Nott was not shot. But Shott says he shot Nott. Either the shot Shott shot at Nott was not shot, Or Nott was shot. If the shot Shott shot shot Nott, Nott was shot. But if the shot Shott shot shot Shott, Then Shott was shot, not Nott. However, the shot Shott shot shot not Shott, but Nott.

Get it?

[morefngdbs]

At 2/19/06 02:29 PM, TrendWhore wrote: So in oter words you think intelligent design is the bomb.

;
WTF does intelligent design have to do with a belief that all organised religion is a joke?
"I .D." is a half baked attempt to get organised religion back into the school system.
What part of "your own knowledge " are you finding difficult?
The I.D. as put forward , to somehow deflect scientific discoveries(facts), as opposed to religious BULLSHIT (in my opinion) has nothing to do with Deism.
You can read, can you not comprehend?