Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
Very odd seeming him in City gear
Manchester City Thread
- Thread starter Rob
- Start date
bebo
Looking for a Manager
it shouldn`t be odd for City fans , odd is City having a full stadium at a match. 
http://cdn3-i.hitc-s.com/70/etihad_stadium_12768.jpg
http://cdn3-i.hitc-s.com/70/etihad_stadium_12768.jpg
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
0/10
Too forced
Too forced
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
YouTube - FRANK LAMPARD EXCLUSIVE | Interview with CityTV
Super! Super Fra... na, can't do it
Too weird.
Super! Super Fra... na, can't do it
Too weird.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
0/10
Too forced
I met a single City fan between 1984 and 2007. After 2008 I've met many and all of them are young kids who has only seen Manchester City play live when they've tagged along with their fathers to West Ham, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool matches. Sad but true.
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
You go up and talk to young kids a lot then?
BobbyBox
WING NUT!
- 10 October 2003
- Arsenal
ZeroTheHero
Banned
I'm a teacher, so yes. It's my job.
bebo
Looking for a Manager
Im a teacher as well...
High school Algebra II/Geometry . I might teach precalculus soon.
BobbyBox
WING NUT!
- 10 October 2003
- Arsenal
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
Is that in Sweden or Germany?
ZeroTheHero
Banned
Im a teacher as well...
Upper secondary English Secondary Language, Religion, Music and Art. This year I'm attending University to teach some new subjects that is going to be introduced to the pupils next year. I don't know what you call those "open subjects" when pupils can choose for themselves which one to pick. 3rd Languages are often an alternative here as well. I don't even know which countries have these open spots in the curriculum either so for all I know you might not even have them.
I'm getting a practical subjects package which are different subjects mostly intended for those pupils who are unmotivated and /or tired of school.
Last edited:
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
An atheist teaching religion. Must be fun
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
Agnostic is not the same as an atheist, FCOL.
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
You're wrong.
Atheism (or theism) concerns belief
Agnosticism concerns knowledge
Belief and knowledge are linked but distinct.
Atheism (or theism) concerns belief
Agnosticism concerns knowledge
Belief and knowledge are linked but distinct.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
Firstly, I'm an Agnostic, which is pretty far from Atheism. Secondly, there are no better teacher of religion than one that is unbiased towards one or the other so an Agnostic probably has an advantage in that regard.
EDIT: Please don't talk about stuff you don't know anything about. An Atheist BELIEVES that NOTHING divine exists, an Agnostic doesn't rule out anything but doesn't worship any divine entity. By definition Atheism fills all the criteria for actually being a religion, albeit a strange one. Agnosticism does not.
This doesn't concern Manchester City in the slightest by the way...
EDIT2: The only reason I wrote that signature is because one of the first things I noticed on this forum was a guy with a "Proud to be a Muslim" signature so I thought I should even things out. I don't concern myself with the divine at all to be honest. Teaching religion in upper secondary is pretty straight forward. Religion A believes this and that, it affects their lives so and so and they perform this and that ritual and so on.
Last edited:
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of god(s). It simply feels that the existence of a god is unknown. An atheist in the other hand is someone who disbelieves him/it.
In the board sense, you can say that both do not believe in the existence of god (that's a theist), but only an atheist disbelieve him/it. So it's not the same.
In the board sense, you can say that both do not believe in the existence of god (that's a theist), but only an atheist disbelieve him/it. So it's not the same.
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
I'd agree about unbiased teaching but, if by 'agnostic' you mean you don't believe in a deity, you're an atheist. An Agnostic Atheist, to be precise.
An "agnostic" is someone who does not claim knowledge. Theists and Atheists alike can be agnostic.
An F for you.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
By your definition everyone who doesn't believe or follow a deity is an atheist.
Good luck with that.
F for you.
Good luck with that.
F for you.
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
Not believing is not the same as disbelieving.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
A for andy18cruz
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
If people don't like it that's their issue not mine. I'd be a better teacher than you if "good luck with that" is an example of your feedback
You're talking about 2 different things here. Belief and Knowledge.
Only a Theist claims to Know that a god exists.
Only an Atheist claims to Know that a god does not exist.
Both Theists and Atheists can be agnostic.
gerd
Retired Footballer
From what i've read here about Zero, IMO he could be an iideal teacher.
How old are your pupils/students ?
How old are your pupils/students ?
ZeroTheHero
Banned
If people don't like it that's their issue not mine. I'd be a better teacher than you if "good luck with that" is an example of your feedback
You're talking about 2 different things here. Belief and Knowledge.
Only a Theist claims to Know that a god exists.
Only an Atheist claims to Know that a god does not exist.
Both Theists and Atheists can be agnostic.
But an agnostic doesn't have to be either. Agnosticism isn't about knowledge in the sense that you seem to think. A "pure" Agnostic doesn't deny ANY divine entities, both known and unknown, but he doesn't worship or claim that they actually exist either. If god(s) exist any information we have of them is likely to be incorrect due to the nature this information has surfaced. A good example is The Holy Bible which has been through canonization processes and is undeniably written by men and didn't appear magically and untouched for us to learn about Christianity. What these texts say may or may not be correct, an agnostic doesn't feel any particular need to either trust or distrust these texts -we remain neutral.
Even some (many?) Christian scholars questions the legitimacy of their own texts, so it's nothing out of the ordinary about that by the way. You might say that Agnostics claim that any and all information we possess about gods is susceptible to be faulty. Human kind probably don't possess accurate information about the Gods and until the Gods really want us to, we never will. Until that time arrives, I reserve my right to remain neutral in the matter.
Last edited:
ZeroTheHero
Banned
Pedagogically I'm authorized to teach pupils from the age of 10 to 15 and it depends on what school I apply for since 10-12 are usually at a different school than 13-15.
As a subject teacher I'm allowed to teach any ages from 10 and above, and have done so. Adult education generally pays better than a regular teacher job but is not as rewarding personally.
EDIT: I thought I edited this into the post above but something went wrong. Sorry for double post.
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
Yes, an agnostic does not believe and, more importantly, does not claim to know.
That falls under the umbrella of atheism. As does the person who makes the claim that he knows that a god does not exist.
Clearly, there are degrees and types of agnosticism, the same is true for atheism. There is overlap between both and theism.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
No it does not. Not believing (in anything) is not the same as believing in nothing. Atheism is a religion because they BELIEVE in something, and that something is the absence of gods. Agnosticism is not a religion because they don't disbelieve or believe in anything. They are not believing, they are not not believing. All the gods may exists, none of them may or even some of them. We don't know and generally don't care much one way or another for the time being.
There is a distinct religion that also believes that all and any gods leads to salvation, so as a member you may choose to worship one god, some gods or even all gods. This has nothing to do with agnosticism but I've forgotten the name of that religion and I'm not in the mood to scrounge through my papers for this pitiful discussion. The second you believe in a divine being, you're no longer actually associated with agnosticism at all anymore. You've strayed too far away from it to call it a personal interpretation too.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about agnosticism though. To illustrate it better I'll answer a short questionnaire where I pretend to be an atheist, a christian and an agnostic.
----------------------
Atheist:
Do you believe in God? NO
Why? Because there are no evidence to suggest the existence of a God.
Christian:
Do you believe in God? YES
Why? Because the good book leads us to God and salvation and the evidence of God's greatness is all around us.
Agnostic:
Do you believe in God? Neither
Why? I lack knowledge to answer the above question properly.
EDIT:
To illustrate even further, an Atheist contemplates the absence of gods and claim believing or knowing this for a fact. A Theist contemplates the existence of his God and believes or knows of its existence. An Agnostic doesn't contemplate about gods and accepts not knowing anything about their existence or absence.
An agnostic does not believe or disbelieve (neither, in other words) and more importantly claims that he doesn't know anything about the subject. More importantly, we also imply bu our stance that NONE OF US, the human race, probably doesn't really know anything about the subject either. Because we, Agnostics, know just as much about religion as any other Theist or Atheist. I mentioned this earlier with religious texts being man made, and we can't trust man. History has proven that. The only thing Agnostics and Atheists has in common is that neither of them accepts "spectral evidence".
There is a distinct religion that also believes that all and any gods leads to salvation, so as a member you may choose to worship one god, some gods or even all gods. This has nothing to do with agnosticism but I've forgotten the name of that religion and I'm not in the mood to scrounge through my papers for this pitiful discussion. The second you believe in a divine being, you're no longer actually associated with agnosticism at all anymore. You've strayed too far away from it to call it a personal interpretation too.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about agnosticism though. To illustrate it better I'll answer a short questionnaire where I pretend to be an atheist, a christian and an agnostic.
----------------------
Atheist:
Do you believe in God? NO
Why? Because there are no evidence to suggest the existence of a God.
Christian:
Do you believe in God? YES
Why? Because the good book leads us to God and salvation and the evidence of God's greatness is all around us.
Agnostic:
Do you believe in God? Neither
Why? I lack knowledge to answer the above question properly.
EDIT:
To illustrate even further, an Atheist contemplates the absence of gods and claim believing or knowing this for a fact. A Theist contemplates the existence of his God and believes or knows of its existence. An Agnostic doesn't contemplate about gods and accepts not knowing anything about their existence or absence.
An agnostic does not believe or disbelieve (neither, in other words) and more importantly claims that he doesn't know anything about the subject. More importantly, we also imply bu our stance that NONE OF US, the human race, probably doesn't really know anything about the subject either. Because we, Agnostics, know just as much about religion as any other Theist or Atheist. I mentioned this earlier with religious texts being man made, and we can't trust man. History has proven that. The only thing Agnostics and Atheists has in common is that neither of them accepts "spectral evidence".
Last edited:
bebo
Looking for a Manager
For Christians they're taught the relationship in faith. The problem is ppl see Christians as a religion and it's not. Christian mean Christ followers ...to walk his path to forgive and to love others. Religion is guidelines how to have a control environment , how to judge right from wrong. How to pray, how to seek, how to eat. Etc.
Today everything is watered down . When you have prophets, and leaders that are fully contaminated in there own vile. They mislead those around them causing many to lose faith. When you depend on man then hope is lost.
The message is lost when ppl take the message and try to profit for their own gain. You will not see this sort of corruption in the World as much as you see this in the USA. Religion in faith has many denomination some are invented to appease or make room for.
I'm a Christian w/ no denomination ...I respect religion , but I rather have the relationship . My religion wud condemn me every hour. To me the key is to have a spiritual/ physical healthy living. If I die n there's no heaven or hell ... At least I lived to the fullest and I did it through love... Sry for boring.
Today everything is watered down . When you have prophets, and leaders that are fully contaminated in there own vile. They mislead those around them causing many to lose faith. When you depend on man then hope is lost.
The message is lost when ppl take the message and try to profit for their own gain. You will not see this sort of corruption in the World as much as you see this in the USA. Religion in faith has many denomination some are invented to appease or make room for.
I'm a Christian w/ no denomination ...I respect religion , but I rather have the relationship . My religion wud condemn me every hour. To me the key is to have a spiritual/ physical healthy living. If I die n there's no heaven or hell ... At least I lived to the fullest and I did it through love... Sry for boring.
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
I don't believe anything. I believe nothing.
They're the same sentence stated two different ways.
So any kind of belief is religion?
The above contradicts:
As does this:
So either, you agree that atheism includes simply not believing (weak) as well as claiming to know that a god does not exist (strong), you hold a contradiction, or you've just made a mistake
Not believing and not not believing is illogical. Do Agnostics believe in logic?
For the sake of argument (because I think logic can disprove certain definitions of god/s), sure but that's knowledge.
So you lack the knowledge of your own beliefs, got it.
Do agnostics believe in traffic lights?
Can describe an atheist also.
An atheist could believe in spectral evidence actually. An atheist could believe in tarot readings, astronomy and all kinds of crap. In fact, the only thing atheists necessarily have in common is their nonbelief in deities.
Do you accept that there are varying degrees of agnosticism? (don't say "neither"
)
Last edited:
ZeroTheHero
Banned
You didn't do too well in philosophy, did you?
I think and I believe is pretty synonymous, don't you think? Anyway, how can you disprove something which is beyond logic, probably beyond your comprehension, with logic? More interestingly, "logic" is a relative term. Not when it comes to simple matters but once you start to move beyond what you can explain, logic no longer applies and thereby becomes a subjective matter.
The reason I said that Atheists contemplate Gods is because I've never met anyone more eager to discuss gods and their (non) existence than Atheists. So, clearly they spend a whole lot of time thinking about it. I'm not the only one who has that notion about Atheists by the way, and when I studied religion my classes were full of Atheists posing all kinds of questions to the professors. I studied religion because I find it interesting. I don't particularly find the divine interesting, but I find people who believe in something to be particularly interesting. Rationality often comes secondary for them in many situations, and Atheists are quite the same as Theists in that regard. Atheists are generally, but not always, "religious" in their mission to disprove something that can't really be proven conventionally. There is no irrefutable proof that any God exists, not that anybody has brought forward at least. Likewise there aren't any proof that can irrefutably prove that gods does not exist either. If there were, we would not even have this conversation. The only thing about this discussion that is 100% certain is that humanity does not really have a certain answer to the question whether (any) God exist at all. That's why it's called faith in the first place.
If this is not enough, what is really a missionary? A person that spreads the word of his religion. Can we agree that Atheists have a lot of missionaries then? I thought so. Religion is something to believe in and spreading the word to gather new members, just like Atheism. Judaism is a funny case though, and arguably not a religion since they aren't eager to spread the word and gather new members. I just mention that to beat you to it. There is a scholarly discussion which has went on since before my time so we probably won't find a quick answer to that in a while.
No, I don't have any beliefs regarding divinity. I embrace my right not to take a stand one way or another. This is not a black or white question. This question probably has more shades of grey than any other question ever thought of by the human mind.
Traffic lights are physical, they exist and there are plenty of irrefutable proof that says they are present in this world. In other words, there's nothing to be agnostic about regarding traffic lights.
I have a question for you, though. Do you believe in love, and why (not)?
In order to be an agnostic you have to accept the fact that you don't know everything, you will never know everything about any subject as broad as the divine. You have to accept the possibility of transcendence. Accepting the possibility of something is not the same as believing in something, it's dead in the middle of "I believe" and "I don't believe". It's so dead center that you actually do not have an opinion at all on the subject. You might muse with one or many theories as possible explanations or answers, but you don't BELIEVE that you, or anyone else for that matter, have found THE answer. This is all philosophical so even languages lack the words to actually explain. Since you're in the argumentative mood today, Godotelli, you'd pick "believe" right out of that sentence and make another argument but that would only prove that you haven't understood a word I've said.
Agnosticism are actually similar to Hinduism in many ways. "The Hindu mind" is a term that refers to the Hindu's way of looking at all things. They try to find equally many positives and negatives about any single subject, object or idea and just when you think the conclusion is about to come, they stop. A seeking agnostic tries to find evidence for and against with equal interest. One does not have to seek any answers at all though, and still be agnostic.
As for your theory about combinations of Theism/Atheism and Agnosticism I can only refer to sects claiming to be this and that. Slapping a BMW sticker on a Skoda doesn't make it a BMW and not a "BMSoda" either. If you remove the essential part about agnosticism you're no longer talking about agnosticism. Maybe something that shares similarities, but it's not agnosticism. Agnosticism is pretty simple, if you choose to (dis)believe in anything regarding the divine, you're no longer agnostic. Agnostics are neither for, against or neutral but agnostic.
I think and I believe is pretty synonymous, don't you think? Anyway, how can you disprove something which is beyond logic, probably beyond your comprehension, with logic? More interestingly, "logic" is a relative term. Not when it comes to simple matters but once you start to move beyond what you can explain, logic no longer applies and thereby becomes a subjective matter.
The reason I said that Atheists contemplate Gods is because I've never met anyone more eager to discuss gods and their (non) existence than Atheists. So, clearly they spend a whole lot of time thinking about it. I'm not the only one who has that notion about Atheists by the way, and when I studied religion my classes were full of Atheists posing all kinds of questions to the professors. I studied religion because I find it interesting. I don't particularly find the divine interesting, but I find people who believe in something to be particularly interesting. Rationality often comes secondary for them in many situations, and Atheists are quite the same as Theists in that regard. Atheists are generally, but not always, "religious" in their mission to disprove something that can't really be proven conventionally. There is no irrefutable proof that any God exists, not that anybody has brought forward at least. Likewise there aren't any proof that can irrefutably prove that gods does not exist either. If there were, we would not even have this conversation. The only thing about this discussion that is 100% certain is that humanity does not really have a certain answer to the question whether (any) God exist at all. That's why it's called faith in the first place.
If this is not enough, what is really a missionary? A person that spreads the word of his religion. Can we agree that Atheists have a lot of missionaries then? I thought so. Religion is something to believe in and spreading the word to gather new members, just like Atheism. Judaism is a funny case though, and arguably not a religion since they aren't eager to spread the word and gather new members. I just mention that to beat you to it. There is a scholarly discussion which has went on since before my time so we probably won't find a quick answer to that in a while.
So you lack the knowledge of your own beliefs, got it.
No, I don't have any beliefs regarding divinity. I embrace my right not to take a stand one way or another. This is not a black or white question. This question probably has more shades of grey than any other question ever thought of by the human mind.
Do agnostics believe in traffic lights?
Traffic lights are physical, they exist and there are plenty of irrefutable proof that says they are present in this world. In other words, there's nothing to be agnostic about regarding traffic lights.
I have a question for you, though. Do you believe in love, and why (not)?
In order to be an agnostic you have to accept the fact that you don't know everything, you will never know everything about any subject as broad as the divine. You have to accept the possibility of transcendence. Accepting the possibility of something is not the same as believing in something, it's dead in the middle of "I believe" and "I don't believe". It's so dead center that you actually do not have an opinion at all on the subject. You might muse with one or many theories as possible explanations or answers, but you don't BELIEVE that you, or anyone else for that matter, have found THE answer. This is all philosophical so even languages lack the words to actually explain. Since you're in the argumentative mood today, Godotelli, you'd pick "believe" right out of that sentence and make another argument but that would only prove that you haven't understood a word I've said.
Agnosticism are actually similar to Hinduism in many ways. "The Hindu mind" is a term that refers to the Hindu's way of looking at all things. They try to find equally many positives and negatives about any single subject, object or idea and just when you think the conclusion is about to come, they stop. A seeking agnostic tries to find evidence for and against with equal interest. One does not have to seek any answers at all though, and still be agnostic.
As for your theory about combinations of Theism/Atheism and Agnosticism I can only refer to sects claiming to be this and that. Slapping a BMW sticker on a Skoda doesn't make it a BMW and not a "BMSoda" either. If you remove the essential part about agnosticism you're no longer talking about agnosticism. Maybe something that shares similarities, but it's not agnosticism. Agnosticism is pretty simple, if you choose to (dis)believe in anything regarding the divine, you're no longer agnostic. Agnostics are neither for, against or neutral but agnostic.
Last edited: