People who claim to be Agnostic/Atheists should first learn about religions before they deny them. (I'm Agnostic by the way). Amirite?

Im agnostic, and yes I have studied various religions

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's a good thing you did! I read both the Bible and Koran.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Agnostics *don't* deny religion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@163644 (Anonymous): Agnostics all have individual belives and not "no beliefs at all". Some deny religion and believe there is something out there and some are not sure wheter religion/God are real so they are debating. Just because you don't deny religion doesn't mean every other Agnostic person doesn't deny religion. I deny religion but I believe there is a Godly entity. If there is somene like me then you cannot generalize like that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Most atheists and agnostics I know seem to know more about religion then religious people do. I'm an atheist and I went to catholic school for several years. The more you learn about religion, the harder it is to explain away all of the huge holes in the stories.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I've noticed a similar pattern. I'm an atheist, and I find it both interesting and relevant to have a solid background in major religions. It helps you understand current events, etc. and it's simply good to know where others are coming from.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are no holes in the Bible. Everything can be explained.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i'm sure people could go on for hours about this.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

exactly. Neither side can win because the Bible will never be proven, likewise, it can never be disproven.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Especially Christianity, the more you hear about it, the more incredulous and doubtful you become. You really start to question a lot of the Bible's contents, and it makes it harder to believe. It's really hard for me, but I haven't given it up quite yet.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you have any idea how many religions exist? Or how many have existed for that matter? Studying any less than all of them would basically be pointless. I really don't see why this should be a requirement.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think the OP meant the big religions (i.e., Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why should the bigger religions be viewed as more valid than others? There's nothing to suggest that Christianity is any more likely to be real than some small tribal religion in Africa.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My post didn't have that implication at all. In my opinion, it might be somewhat more relevant to current events to be well-acquainted with major religions, but there's nothing wrong with knowing about the "little" religions too. As an atheist, I don't believe any of them to be necessarily valid.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, but OP basically wants it to be REQUIRED to know about religions if you're atheist/agnostic, where's the logic in that? Sure, it's always a good thing to know something about literately anything no matter who you are, but that's not what OP is getting at.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? Or would you rather misinterpret everything we're saying and split hairs? Would you rather read things out of context and put words in my mouth?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do YOU have REAL reply for me? Or would you rather continue to insult me?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're the one who started splitting hairs, darling.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@855350 (Anonymous): op never said to study *all* religions. Also vondahl never said that the bigger religions were "more valid" just bigger. Your very ignorant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

THANK YOU!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think anonymous is a bit of a troll.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think anonymous is not a troll, but a person who can't find anything worthwhile to add to the conversation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I can't be sure what OP means by "religions they deny" but it seems like he's saying any religion you don't believe in. And yes "vondahl" IS saying they're more valid otherwise why should you know something about them but not any other religions. By the way it's "You're" as in "you are". How the fuck am I being ignorant?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, listen. I understand it's hard to hear with your head so far up your ass, but please try. 1. I did not say one religion is more valid than the other. Need textual support? "In my opinion, it might be somewhat more relevant to current events to be well-acquainted with major religions, but there's nothing wrong with knowing about the "little" religions too." I never once said you should know about major religions but not small ones. I just said it's more relevant to current events. Which is inarguably true. 2. It's obvious you're out of ammo if you're going to start picking at people's grammar.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's obvious you're out of ammo if you make an entire comment just insulting me. "In my opinion, it might be somewhat more relevant to current events to be well-acquainted with major religions, but there's nothing wrong with knowing about the "little" religions too." came from a comment you made AFTER, I repeat AFTER I asked why they should be viewed as less valid. I didn't even specifically say that that was what you thought. And the thing is knowing about current events is NOT what the original post was about. OP basically said that before you can even call yourself an atheist/agnostic ("People who claim to be Agnostic/Atheists should first") you HAVE to know a certain amount about religions. If it was just "Even if your an atheist it's always a good thing to know something about important religions" I'd have absolutely no problem with it. Get where I'm coming from yet? Or would you like to continue accusing me of being "unintelligent/ignorant/a troll"?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Should = suggestion, not a requirement.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The post still implies that if you don't you're not worthy of calling yourself atheist/agnostic. If you don't believe in any god you are an atheist, period, there is no "claim to be" about it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I am not going to argue semantics with you. I suppose the post could have been worded better.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The post says that if you don't know anything about religions you're only "claiming" to be atheist/agnostic. I don't see how it could be understood any other way. But you don't have to reply if you don't want to argue about it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I understand your argument fully and accept it. The post should have been worded differently. I AGREE with you, but I just think semantics is too petty of a reason to disagree with a post.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Until I saw the other comments I thought that was the only way anyone could understand it. If I am only disagreeing with it because of semantics, you're only agreeing with it because of semantics. So in other words; no, I am not.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No she said BIGGER not more valid! And you are being ignorant because you are misinterpreting everything that is being said!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Misunderstanding =/= Ignorant. I assumed she thought they were more valid because she said they were the religions you should know about not any other. Apparently I assumed wrong, but there's nothing wrong with making assumptions EVERYONE does it ALL THE TIME and it's not like I kept saying that that was what she said. Now get the fuck over it, why does it matter so much to you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah well all your assumptions were *wrong* and yeah you said it twice. People like you get on my nerves.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I said it twice because YOU brought it up. People like you (giant assholes) get on my nerves too. I hope to never "meet" you again and that nobody else has to suffer from your ignorance, goodbye.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yeah, I'm the one being ignorant! I honestly hope your computer/phone brakes so nobody else has to "meet" YOU again because YOU are the giant annoying asshole.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I believe everyone should have to know about the major religions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People who claim to be religious should first learn about their religion before following it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I grew up as a Christian, and as I learned more about it I turned Agnostic. However, even if that wasn't so, I can deny whatever I want, regardless of if I only knew a little or a lot about it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

" I can deny whatever I want, regardless of if I only knew a little or a lot about it." That is a very ignorant statement. You cannot make an educated opinion on something if you don't know a lot about it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't care. It's still my freedom to deny whatever I want.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

^ definition of ignorance.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If being ignorant means I retain my freedom, then that's fine.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I do not deny your right to deny, I am simply saying you're ignorant for denying something you have no knowledge of.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I didn't exactly say I could deny it without any knowledge at all. I said at least a little. But, okay.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's like saying any religious people should learn about religions before they reject them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They should. Otherwise, they are simply blindly following their religion simply because their family followed it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I've studied a bunch of religions before. I've actually had a time when I mentioned I was Agnostic but have read things such as the bible and someone said "If you've read the bible, doesn't that mean you're Christian?" Needless to say, that kid was classified as "extremely stupid" for the whole year.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're kind of a faggot.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Although I agree, I also mildly disagree. The morals shouldn't matter. It's about the deity you're believing in. And all deities are similar in many ways. So most of the time it isn't necessary to look at the morals since you can create your own anyways. It's all about the deity(ies).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm Agnostic as well. I was brought up in a Catholic family, even went to Sunday School for 8 years. But the whole time through it, I'm sittin' there thinkin' it was all bull shit. I believe there's a higher power, but I think the bible is complete bull.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Being Agnostic is just an excuse for not being constantly searching for God. It's taking the "easy way out". Oh yeah, I believe there' s a higher power, why not pray to it? Thank it for what you have? I'm not saying follow Christianity, but at least follow your higher power whatever that may be. At least Atheists know what they believe. At least Christians know what they are going for. At least Muslims know what they are going for. Seriously, you're all stupid if you're Agnostic.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

maybe because if they aren't sure and don't think we ever can be sure of what the truth is, there is no point devoting time to the rituals one side or the other suggests.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Don't go calling agnostics stupid. Respect other people's beliefs even if they don't respect yours. Saying that agnostics are stupid is very ignorant of you. Being agnostic isn't taking the "easy way out". Maybe they've endlessly tried to believe in God, or a higher power, but just can't seem to. And maybe this 'higher power' just isn't answering their prayers. Not everyone HAS to know what they believe in. You just seem like a douchebag.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why would I learn all about something that has no evidence of being real? That's like saying you need to learn the complete history behind the tooth fairy, or unicorns. That would be a waste of time, and most atheists realize time is not something to waste.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No evidence?! NO EVIDENCE?!!!!! Prove to me that God doesn't exist.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

we all start off with preconceptions formed by our family atmosphere, that can't be helped, so saying that prior to following one path you have to explore the others doesnt always work. but once people are old enough to exploreon their own, sure this rule works, but it applies both ways. members of major religions may want to consider reading up on the secular theories of how the world works if they are to do their part in bridging the gap in conversation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm Agnostic, and I don't think you need to learn in detail about other religions before you decide that you are Agnostic/Atheist. As long as you have a general overview of other religions I think you can make an informed choice to be an Agnostic/Atheist. For example, Atheists don't believe in a God, therefore all you need to know about other religions, such as Christianity, is that followers believe in a God. That's it. If you don't believe in a greater being, then you don't follow Christianity. Knowing all the other details of Christianity is irrelevant in that individual's decision. And yes, maybe if they did find out more about a particular religion they would find aspects of it that they agree with, but if you doubt any part of a religion, especially the belief in a God or Gods, then you can't exactly follow that religion. So as long as you understand the general idea of a religion, you can choose to be Agnostic/Atheist.

by Anonymous 13 years ago