Not exact matches
Apparently 34 pages of interpretations following this article, of
irreligious nutjobs taking things
way too seriously.
Agnostics (regardless of whether they lean towards being religious or
irreligious) are the only ones HUMBLE enough to admit that there is NO
WAY OF KNOWING ANYTHING about an invisible man in the sky whom no one has ever talked to, heard from or seen... EVER!
While I like the idea of a meeting place for the
irreligious, I can't see how aligning ourselves in any
way with the trappings of religion is a good thing.
Our exploration in this chapter should therefore concern the question: How did «recovery» move from the «
Way» to
irreligious «spirituality» to absurd deities.
That's why there are so many words to describe forbidden religious opinions, like «blasphemous», «sacrilegious», «profane», «
irreligious», «taboo», «irreverent», «heresy» and all the
way to «sinful», just to name a few.
Christian undergraduates at elite universities often feel forced into a troubling dichotomy: They may go «all - in» for a secular education, by examining their opinions under the tutelage of an
irreligious faculty; or else they must withhold something of themselves from rational inquiry, erecting a barrier between the performative requirements of their research discipline and their beliefs about the
way the world actually is.
One of the greatest weaknesses of the churches as now organized is not merely that they include so many who are
irreligious, but that they fail to include so many who are deeply religious, though they may not express their religion in traditional
ways.