You're getting closer, much better.
Thinking Objectively means considering something in any state or condition.
Relativity would be that "thing" in relation to another observer, in other words, what is the same for everyone.
By posing an "objective" question, you take one of those...
What you describe is "relativity" not objectivity.
Objectivity is accepting that the duck can be dry, wet, loud, quiet, in flight, not in flight, alive, dead, white or green
because the duck is the idea of a duck, and that duck can be in any number of states and meet any number of conditions...
For example, I would have to agree that removing christianity from the southern states of the US would be beneficial, I live in the bible belt, but NOT necessary or even preferrable at this point in time. I say this, because this is in the identity of most Southerners. Without the church to...
That's why I want to get agnostic atheists to think more creatively. I guess you could say spark some emotion. I think we've got alot to say, but it's stifled by the attitude that a position of non-absolution is the same as no opinion. And, as you said, agnostics are often reluctant to voice...
No, unbiased means not taking one side or another, not the ability to take all sides.
Has anyone in this forum ever taken a creative writing class?
Whether the topic is posed objectively or not is irrelevant anyway. Willamena seems to enjoy derailing a conversation far more than adding...
Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. So, how would an atheist religion work? Is the disbelief in God enough to warrant an atheist "church"? Isn't this like saying, "I don't believe in ghosts, so I'll go investigate their non-existance? Or is this just a way to organize like minds and...
We got way off base. I have certain hang ups about recognizing the Bible as a source or morals, and I can't avoid that, but that's not the issue. Would the absense of religion have negative effects on society as a whole, is an even better way to pose the question.
I'm glad you brought that up, because I also make a distinction here. In a discussion of whether god exists, I am agnostic. As far as my belief in God, I am atheist.
This means that while I do not "believe" god exists, I can accept that I can not prove it, and therefore the possibility can not...
I think that's an important point. Even for the religious, a sense of what is good for humanity as a whole should take precedence over what is good for the church, or religion as a whole. I don't think I am overstepping any boundaries there.
that's what an objective question does.
It presents a question from one or more points of view, and asks you to argue it out logically.
Being "objective" means being able to consider other points of view and weigh them equally against your own.
Posing an objective question requires you to take...
I need to say, before anyone starts flaming, that I am not asking for proof or disproof of God, or suggesting one way or another on his existance/non-existance. It's an objective question, posed hypothetically.
lol, but, what argument would you have for someone that says, since you don't believe in their imaginary friend, you can't talk about him?
Also, when does his belief, if ever, encroach on your personal liberty, freedom, happiness, etc.
For example, what if he believed, by divine right, he...
SO, like I said, What kind of things could someone not taking either position add to a discussion of God's existance/nonexistance? We have the fact that either side can be represented with more clarity by a third party that can handle both assumptions equally. We also have the fact that...
Once again, you havent even read the posts, your just flaming.
You don't know that I'm not agnostic. In fact you don't even apparently understand the topic.
What's tiresome is trying to avoid having to justify a position I never even took.
I hate to say you're an idiot, but I actually did...