Unbelief by itself does not result in knowledge either.
That is hardly the assertion. Unbelief is unbounded, belief in god is bounded by the god idea.
Accepting what without questioning?
Anything, as a premise.
Belief in God does not stop one from questioning, unless one forces oneself not to.
Belief does not question. If you start questioning you are deviating from belief, you are starting to investigate.
Belief and questions do not mix. You can't believe and question at the same time.Once you start questioning a degree of belief is corroded, the very idea of questioning is rooted in uncertainty and doubt. Belief is uncertainty or doubt, uncertainty and doubt are not belief.
If you believe in God that gave you intelligence, you have no option but to use that intelligence, else you will be portraying God as being fallible for giving you something without a purpose. Hence questioning everything is a condition for being a true believer.
Questioning is not belief per above.
Not at all. If you believe in God and His grand design for an instance, you will want to work hard to prove the existence of that design.
The very act of trying to prove implies verification, that there is a lack in the belief that needs to be augmented by proof. Otherwise why prove something you already believe?
It ought to work as an incentive rather than a hindrance, to persevere in seeking knowledge to understand god's ways.
If you believe in god, at least the Arahamic godhead, investigating god is a blasphemy and certain questions cannot be asked. If you do not believe in god, you do not have this glass ceiling.
Belief in god breeds ignorance at least in this respect.This is just a small example to demonstrate a bigger issue.That belief in god is limiting and breeds ignorance.
No difference between the two. One wants to prove God's existence through science and nature while the other wants to disapprove God's involvement through the same channels. Their work is the same.
The difference is pointed above.
You were singled out in this thread specifically as one who does not believe in a deity,s o that point did not have any relevancy
That should be the relevancy, not otherwise.
As explained above, belief in god does not hinder one from seeking as much knowledge, about anything, as much as one wants.
To the contrary, we have seen the blasphemy limitation above.
There is a kid who as killed in Syria for saying that he would not give his wares for free even if the Prophet Muhammad himself came to his stall.
He was killed for blaspheming prophet Muhammad. Do you think a society like this will tolerate a deep investigation into the nature and existence of god? One would be killed instantly by martyrs rallying for the cause of god.
How can you rate this attitude with a society that believes in open inquiry?
On the contrary, it makes one seek knowledge in every single matter as much as possible to use properly his god given intelligence so as to better understand god's ways
So why is there blasphemy in religion?
Go and do a social experiment, at a public square in Saudi Arabia, question the existence of god, citing your need to understand him better, and see how long will your neck last.
On second thoughts do not, I do not want your blood on my head. Just look at how the Bangladeshi mobs are killing atheists. How could you say religion encourages inquiry of every kind?
I'm demonstrating that badges of honor don't mean anything much.
Your demonstration demonstrates that demonstrating badges of honor doesn't mean much doesn't mean much.
The question is not should it be, rather, are you.
Educated societies do not tolerate belief in superstitions but are quick to believe in "causeless spontaneity" rather than kudra, although they are one and the same thing
Educated societies do not tolerate belief period, that is why anything not understood is studied to be understood.
What is being believed as a fact without investigation?
Anything, this is a premise.
Yyou can investigate to reaffirm your belief
If you have to reaffirm, your belief is lacking per above, you have doubt, doubt is not belief.
Who said anything about any human being infallible?
So upholding Newton as some beacon of import to shame nonbelievers was fallaciously touted.
Your point is…? If you mean to imply that he wouldn't have believed in God if he wasn't in that era, then I don't happen to see the correlation. Enlighten me.
A one eyed person can have the best vision in the land of the blind and become king of the blind.
Just because he is king of the blind it does not mean he has 20/20 vision and should be regarded to have the best vision in the land of 20/20 vision.
Newton was also involved in all sorts of crackpot alchemy to create gold and similar laughable quackery characteristic of the denizens of that Malthusian squalor infested and Dickensian delinquency century, do you want us to uphold that too?
