REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
"Why can't you see a beautiful garden as being beautiful in its own right? Why do you have to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it?"

Yep.

||
||
||
\/

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Artanis
I'm not sure what you mean by legally recognised

I mean, if Ted Sandyman and I got a Humanist wedding in Norway, would the law recognise Ted as my legal partner? If I died without a will, would Ted get me taters automatically? If I was in hospital would Ted be considered "next of kin" and be asked to sign consent forms?

Originally posted by Artanis
Perhaps that is what you're talking about when you say 'new ideas', how they are to be performed?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

I think it takes many generations for the form of these rites of passage to become established.

While I understand and respect people who adapt these rites to reflect their own principles (e.g. making up your own wedding vows), at least a part of the significance of the event could be lost because it's unfamiliar to the broader community.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I mean, if Ted Sandyman and I got a Humanist wedding in Norway, would the law recognise Ted as my legal partner? If I died without a will, would Ted get me taters automatically? If I was in hospital would Ted be considered "next of kin" and be asked to sign consent forms?

OK, you're talking about homosexual partnerships? Answers are: Yes, Ted would be your legal partner. Each of you would have exactly the same legal rights as in a man-woman marriage with respect to inheritance if one of you should die. I think homosexual partners are treated equally also in the hospital situation, but i'm not quite sure, I've never given thought to that particular aspect. The only thing I know of that homosexual partners are yet not allowed to do, is to adopt children together. But even that right is much debated here and I think they will also have equal rights there in a few years.

I think it takes many generations for the form of these rites of passage to become established.

Yes, the position of the church is very strong. Almost all of my friends were married in church, even though I know many of them are not Christians. They just hold on to the old tradition.

[Falagar]

Bah, I had a really nice post and then managed to delete everything...

I'm with Afro Elf, Ruinel, the Gaffer and Douglas Adams: there's no proof for God's existence, hence there's no reason to believe in him (or, alterantively, her, or even it).

Although zinnite (and the rest of the agnostics) has a point: There's no evidence for the opposite either.

So you may say that I'm somewhere in the middle: I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't be too surprised if I met St. Peter by the pearly gate when I drop dead.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Falagar
Although zinnite (and the rest of the agnostics) has a point: There's no evidence for the opposite either.

Exactly.

[katya]

Hey hey hey! I was raised and (recently) confirmed Catholic. My mom is Catholic, my dad, well he doesn't go to church but I think he's a believer, but a skeptic one? Gee I don't know. He wears a saint medal thingy all the time- he hasn't taken it off since he got it.
Anyway, I really haven't made up my mind as to what I believe. It's so hard! My rational self refuses to let me believe anything on faith alone, and I have never seen Jesus in person. But, I have also never heard of any way to disprove Him. The old testament....Genesis, etc., well, I have always viewed that as stories, that are around to explain how things are. Not in the same way as other mythology though...or maybe? There are a lot of flood stories. Ever realize that? Like in the Epic of Gilgamesh...anyway...
I think that whatever the truth is, it is much too big for my mind to understand. I mean, existance of anything to begin with is so...weird. I like to study other religions though. And mythology. (Don't we all? I think the Silmarillion counts!) I like things like Buddhism, you know? Things that are not really religions, more of a way of life. But I won't claim to accept anything exactly, not even agnostic. I guess I'm undecided. Ok enough rambling.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by katya
I like things like Buddhism, you know? Things that are not really religions, more of a way of life. But I won't claim to accept anything exactly, not even agnostic. I guess I'm undecided. Ok enough rambling.

Buddhism is, as far as I know, a kind of religion. Though they don't have Gods, they believe in a kind of force (and of course, reincarnation). Should perhaps read my old religions (KRL as we call it here in Norway) book again before I say anything about this, as it had a chapter on Buddhism...

But I see what you mean.

[sun-star]

I'm a Christian. I went to a Catholic primary school, so I started going to church quite young, but I didn't really start believing it in more than a superficial way until quite recently. My parents are Christians, but they're more interested in mystics of all religions and Platonic ideas (don't ask me to explain), which they would like me to get into. I prefer "mere" Christianity though .

I tend to call myself a Catholic, though denominations are not something I feel strongly about. I'm more like a High Church Anglican (if such things still exist), but I feel very sympathetic to Catholicism and when other Christians attack it, which the ones I know do a lot, I defend it. So that's me

[katya]

Originally posted by Falagar
Buddhism is, as far as I know, a kind of religion. Though they don't have Gods, they believe in a kind of force (and of course, reincarnation). Should perhaps read my old religions (KRL as we call it here in Norway) book again before I say anything about this, as it had a chapter on Buddhism...

But I see what you mean.

Well, anyway, that's what my sixth grade social studies book said! I guess it depends on how you classify religion. I know that originally at least they didn't think Buddha was divine, just enlightened, is that right? I haven't studied anything really seriously, I just think it's sinteresting.

[Falagar]

Well, anyway, that's what my sixth grade social studies book said! I guess it depends on how you classify religion. I know that originally at least they didn't think Buddha was divine, just enlightened, is that right? I haven't studied anything really seriously, I just think it's sinteresting.

I think that one part of Buddhism believe he bacame a kind of God, and stopped reincarnating. And I also think that they believe everyone may become that kind of "god", through long and hard meditation, reading their old scipts (which have a very hard name that I can't remember)...

But then again, I may be completely wrong.
We need more diversity in this forum.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by katya
Things that are not really religions, more of a way of life. But I won't claim to accept anything exactly, not even agnostic. I guess I'm undecided.

well by this sentence alone:

I think that whatever the truth is, it is much too big for my mind to understand.

I think you have shown yourself to be more agnostic then anything. In fact I would say anyone who doesnt know for sure what the deal is with the whole existance thing (especially if they think they arent capable of understanding something so grand) is very much agnostic. agnosticism is like being uncolored. all the other religions and anti religions require you to actively dip yourself in a color. be it christianity, islam, hinduism, or any of a countless other human reigions big, small or long extinct that have spanned human culture the past 100 thousand years or so. and yes even atheism is part of that mix. all require the special color of faith to be a believer. agnosticism simply requires existance. you need not make an effert to accept something ungraspable if you are an agnostic. you need to for everything else.

oh and I would say Buddhism is thought of more as a philosophy then a hard core religion.

[hectorberlioz]

I think that athiests get so riled up, that athieism is almost(and might as well) a religion.
I'm a christian myself.

[afro-elf]

I think that people tend to get into a quagmire in dividing up atheist ,agnostic, non -believer, free thinker etc...

I got the following parts from here:

http://www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml


Some of the most poorly understood words are: theism, atheism, and agnosticism. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to provide a definitional framework for the three words. I'm confident that many people who read this will still choose to define the words differently than I. The purpose of the definitions is not to establish some sort of absolute truth but to provide a working definition that at least I can point to and say, "this is what I think the definition is, and this is how I use these words". ....

Perhaps the biggest reason the above words are misunderstood is that theists tend to define atheism, atheists tend to define theism, and people who call themselves agnostics don't want to belong to either of the definitions the other two parties have given to each other...

There are several other false definitions usually put on atheism by theists. Theists frequently claim (and if you don't believe me I can send you countless emails I have received from theists or you can read their definitions on the web for yourself) that atheists "claim to know there is no god", "are merely rebelling against a god that they really believe in", "think they can prove there is no god", "say there is no god so that they can be evil", "don't want to be accountable", etc.

[afro-elf]

Although some atheists ... may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more. Those who claim to "know" there is no god are sometimes referred to as "strong atheists", but their thinking is as faulty as those who claim to know that there is a god.


". Now let's move on to theism briefly. Theism is simply the opposite of atheism. A good definition of theism is "a positive assertion that god does exist". Whatever this god may be to the theist is irrelevant to the definition of theism as a word on its own. Based on these two definitions, everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Either you positively assert that there is a god or you lack such a positive assertion. There is no middle ground--which brings us to our third word of agnosticism.

When you break down the word agnostic, you come up with a term meaning "without knowledge" or "unknowable". The word agnostic isn't a very old word. Despite this fact, T.H. Huxley, who created the term, used it to mean our modern definition of 'scientist' more than anything else. The word has changed meaning over the years, and people have tended to use the term as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. In my opinion, such a middle ground doesn't exist. One either asserts that there is a god or they lack such an assertion. Agnostics have labeled themselves as such because they don't understand the definition of atheism or because they have heard only about the 'strong atheists' who do make a positive assertion that there is no god and they don't personally hold such a strong assertion.

My definition of agnostic is probably different from any that you have previously heard. My (modern) definition is that virtually everyone is an agnostic. That's right, almost everyone is either an agnostic/atheist or they are an agnostic/theist because no one can 'know' god. Atheists probably don't have a problem with this definition, but I'd be willing to bet that many theists who are reading this don't appreciate being labeled an agnostic....






To conclude and summarize, both you and I are agnostics ....If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief.

[Insidious Rex]

strong atheists? sounds like they are just trying to co-opt agnosticism. Id strongly disagree with that text book definition. the working definition of "someone who believes there is NO god" is widely accepted as atheism. this is another reason why I think that a huge percentage of self declared "atheists" are, at heart, actually agonstics. especially if the basis of their reasoning is in observable science. atheism tends to be a term used more for political or emotional reasons. often times its just a reaction against a religion. which is why its not surprising that so many atheists started out at one time as theists.

[hectorberlioz]

oh, thanks afro-elf.

[zinnite]

Originally posted by afro-elf
If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief. [/SIZE]

What about people like me (and I'm sure there are others) who simply do not care? The entire issue is irrelevant to me, as I have earlier stated. In fact, the only time I ever think about the issue is the seldom occasion I participate in threads like this one.

I do consider myself an ardent skeptic, though (and, oddly enough, I was born and raised in the so-called "Show-Me State"). If there's any definition or label I attach to myself, it's that one. I really like Afro-Elf's earlier explanation of skepticism--that's pretty much me all around.

And for pure enjoyment, a friend of mine has two relevant essays on his website:
Skeptics, Debunkers and Believers
and
A Case for Agnosticism

[hectorberlioz]

Whats wierd is that this thread seems to be "offshoot discussion of what religion are you" and the one mentioned seems to be "the REAL religion DEBATE thread" I think its called that...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
....Nope, RÃ*an has made it clear that the 'Offshoot' thread is for people to come to that thread and allow her (and the other Christians) to answer questions regarding Christianity.

Yes, that's what the thread has "evolved" into, only because the topics we tend to discuss there take a long time, and I like to keep to one topic at a time, and most of us here on Entmoot are from a Christian-based society, and they are good questions, and I think Christianity has good answers, and so on and so on

[Artanis]

Originally posted by afro-elf
To conclude and summarize, both you and I are agnostics ....If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief.

You're right, I do not agree with the definition given. I would say if your answer is a denying "no" then you are an atheist, but if the answer is "I don't know" then you are agnostic. An atheist claim to know, in a matter sufficient for him/her, that God does not exist, exactly as a theist claim to know that God do exist. An agnostic says he doesn't know because he hasn't experienced sufficient 'evidence' (not talking about scientific evidence here) for either of the possibilities. Hope this made some sense, it's hard to explain.

Couldn't care less about what label is put on me though, as long as people see my pov.