[Closed] Don't agree with daughter being christened

But I didnt introduce it did I ernie? As I stated in my last post, I think it's best that I just shut up, as I'm already coming across as some kind of zealous intolerant type. Again, I was merely objecting to being labelled as a fool. TJ's already stated he was being deliberately provocative, and I can happily accept that and move on, so why do you have to continue being so bloody prickly?

Am I thinking of the right one here?

You are indeed BigJohn ........at that point the OP shouts out "IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ME !"

And then he strips off his clothes and gets into the font.

Maybe the OP could turn up uninvited riding his new SC bike with the new baby on the back.

A mildly amusing reposte/pin head dance but do you wish to deny that organised religion is intolerant of non believers ?

In my direct experience of the last few months, where I have been married in a Catholic Church, I would say they were very tolerant. Not only was I allowed to be married in the church, but the service was different just for me 🙂 I know exactly what you're saying, but here's the rub; if you see intolerance as evil, why is it ok to be intolerant of religious people?

The empire was built on values that no longer ar upheld. have the principle of religion changed over time or they somewhat written in stone?

I think that there are some changes in religion. Not enough, and I agree it's a very dangerous thing, but its followers no longer arouse contempt in me until they deserve it. I see that as a positive thing. And don't be so sure that the values of empire are gone, perhaps they've just been hidden for a decade or so and are set to return 😉

why is it ok to be intolerant of religious people?

I don't think we should be intolerant of religious people.

I simply don't believe that someone who holds an irrational belief in a supernatural being should automatically demand "respect" of that belief just because you stick the word 'religion' on it.

If you're a grown adult and believed in Santa Claus, how would you expect to be treated? You probably wouldn't expect to be abused by other grown adults, but you really shouldn't be all that surprised when people go "Santa Claus? Really? Isn't that a bit silly?"

I think that's how I feel about the religious. You believe that a "god" made the earth? In seven days? Really?

The aggressive "fundamental" atheists can be as bad as the fundamental religious types (well, aside from the fact that atheists tend not to strap bombs to each other), but I think the problem here isn't religion or a lack thereof, so much as extreme views in general.

[img] [/img]

Veering dangerously back on topic,

Against my better judgement I agreed to be godfather for a friend's sprog. I was the obvious choice, as an atheist who doesn't like children.

I was promised that I'd not have to do anything other than nod and smile, so I was somewhat taken aback during the ceremony where I was asked to confirm my beliefs or promise my soul to god or something else equally mad. Put on the spot, I could either look like a dick and ruin the day for my friend, or lie, so I chose the latter option.

I wonder how the other atheists would have responded. Would anyone here have made a scene rather than compromise their beliefs?

As a postscript to this, I was recently asked to attend her confirmation. I declined. Should've done that first time around really.

Congrats on your wedding RichPenny!

However I do believe that belief in a supernatural being is incompatable with rationality

Yes I see where you are coming from. It's like watching a film, you permit suspension of disbelief to become involved in it. But your critical faculties still work and it doesn't turn you into a "mental" person afterwards. [unless you watch Saw II]

I looked-on at the workings of faiths on people curiously but critically for some years. And then during an episode of emotional turmoil the issue was forced. Since then I still feel like the same person, but somehow altered.

Back on topic: I'm not keen on indoctrination either, but the baby ceremony is nothing to worry about IMO. For all you know, your child might grow up to become a Buddhist or an Atheist. Choice is good.

Cheers Buzz 🙂 Going to be a father by the start of summer too. Life would be boring if it didn't change 😀

Cougar, I guess it's just in my nature to respect people regardless of their irrational beliefs. I've got plenty of my own, after all. Incidentally, after you call someone "a bit silly", do you find it easier or harder to have a civilised conversation with them? I feel I should also point out that fundamental religious types are almost exactly as likely to strap bombs to themselves as the atheists. Not quite, granted, but you get the jist 🙂

Fundamentalism of any kind soon leads to atrocities against anyone that resists the dogma. Think about Russia in the 20C and you'll soon think of atheist atrocities that demonstrate that imposing atheism by force has similar results to imposing a religion by force.

welcome back edukator not seen you in a while good to read your posts again. As usual you are correct you cannot force beleifs on anyone without oppression and certaintity from either side is dangerous.

if you see intolerance as evil, why is it ok to be intolerant of religious people?

[i]Would anyone here have made a scene rather than compromise their beliefs?[/i]

No, i would have done, and indeed did, exactly the same as you although i didn't feel quite as uncomfortable as you did perhaps.

I'm not religious as such but i do think religion provides an awful lot of comfort to an awful lot of people and therefore have no problem with it in general. Yes, certain religions have certain views that i don't agree with, some of which Junkyard mentioned, but then again there are many non-religious people who have views i don't agree with.

More often than not it is people's interpretation of the religion rather than the actual religion itself that causes the problems eg. as far as i am aware there are many millions of muslims who pretty much want the same as everyone else, a peaceful life, a chance to better themselves and their children etc. but a small fundamentalist element seems to get all the attention.

More seriously their beliefs say on homosexuality, condom use, womens rights the law , morals etc actually do have an very real effect in the world we live in. I can be intolerant of allowing people to discriminate againts homosexuals can't I?

OF course you can. Amazingly, my wife is Catholic, couldn't care less about sexual preferences or condoms, is fond of womens rights etc. Yet I get the feeling that some people would just assume she was an ignorant bigot due to her upbringing.

I suggest you refer to the book she bases her beliefs on and the Pope for confirmation of offical Catholic doctrine on these issues. The church to which she subscribes to and the Holy father dont agree with her interpretation of scripture and gods message.
She may be as tolerant/libral as can be but that wont make her a good catholic in the churchs eyes.
I dont mean to be rude to/about your wife or her beliefs in my reply. I am sure she is lovely etc. It would probably be better if we had this debate without reference to your wife and just talk about religous people in general.
No offence meant re your wife.

[url= http://saintebible.com/leviticus/20-10.htm ]Proof enough for me[/url]that the bible was written by a bunch of savages rather than some supreme being. There's worse if you dig deeper into Leviticus.

Applying vindictive four-thousand-year-old rules to modern affairs is perhaps unwise. We are right to be intolerant of some aspects of religion and the three main religions found in Europe (Islam, Christianity and the Jewish faith) include the word of a vindictive God as reported by Moses.

Stone them!

[img] [/img]

I suggest you refer to the book she bases her beliefs on and the Pope for confirmation of offical Catholic doctrine on these issues. The church to which she subscribes to and the Holy father dont agree with her interpretation of scripture and gods message.
She may be as tolerant/libral as can be but that wont make her a good catholic in the churchs eyes.

Not so. She can be a perfectly good catholic without agreeing to all of the Vatican's views. Despite the commonly believed myth, papal infallibility has [i]never[/i] been used to uphold the Vatican's opinion on "artificial" birth control. In other words, the Pope has not claimed to be infallible on the issue, ie, he could be wrong. Papal infallibility has very rarely been used - only about half a dozen times in the last 2000 years.

@poly, you are probably right
@cougar, or possibly an obnoxious atheist.

Did anyone else watch "The Wonders of the Universe"? How insignificant is our little planet. I can see how people want to bring meaning or order to the ultimate Chaos that will be the fate of the universe.

Entropy eh, what ya gonna do?

Can I just point out that Richard Dawkins is a carbon-based humanoid life form, not a "deity". Thanks.

Back to the debate....

Richard Dawkins is a carbon-based humanoid life form

Really ? "Humanoid" something that has an appearance resembling a human being ?

That sounds a little unkind 😐

I dont mean to be rude to/about your wife or her beliefs in my reply.

You haven't, because she doesn't have the beliefs that you mention. That's what I'm trying to tell you, if you'd only listen. Religious people are not some homogenous mass with exactly the same beliefs - though that's exactly what their leaders would like. You can separate religion from individuals, but then it seems a little unfair to insult them for their religion without first ascertaining what role it plays in their lives.

Again, I'm going to stress this. If you treat someone with contempt because of their religion, you are going to find it VERY difficult to change their minds on key issues because they'll get defensive. I'm no fan of the church and I'd like to see it's influence diminished.

I don't want my wife to meet the pope (again, though she did meet the last one so I'm not sure that counts), because I think she has the balance almost right at the moment. Catholicism seems to play a big part in the traditions of life (birth, marriage, death and all that) but be missing from most other areas of life. I'd like to keep it that way thanks 🙂

not sure you can be a perfectly good catholic if you dont adhere to what they say you should do or to what they say you should believe.
Do they not say contraception and homosexuality are a sin then. Is this not the stated position of the Church?
It seems odd you can disagree with the church and the bible and still be considered an adherent of that body and therefore a good one.The infallability technical stuff was new to me - apparently jesus raising from the dead is not an ex cathedra [ ooh i learnt something today already] either but if you think that bit is nonsense would you still be a good catholic?
there is some intersting stuff on Google that I have skimmed through but i am off out riding now so cannot commment fully - I think you are correct technically that is not an x cathedra teaching but it is clearly church and scriptual doctrine. i dont really see how you can ignore both of these and what the Pope say and still be agood Catholic. In that sense I am a good cathoilc then as I also ignore their views on these issues.

The ordinary teaching Magisterium of the Church is infallible. IOW, the Pope has never made an ex cathedra declaration that Jesus was raised from the dead. But it is an infallible teaching. It is the continuous and unchanged teaching of the church and binding on the faithful de fide.

The prohibition on contraception is also the ongoing and unchanging teaching of the church, based on the natural moral law. It is, therefore, infallible.

Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1).

so you are not following the owrd of the lord but you are agood Christian?

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence

The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful.....
This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370).

she doesn't have the beliefs that you mention. That's what I'm trying to tell you, if you'd only listen. Religious people are not some homogenous mass with exactly the same beliefs

Intrinsically evil??

Nutjobs!

tis ok sfb taking bum shots is ok but taking them up the bum is wrong

We got a nice candle and a certificate.

She can be a perfectly good catholic without agreeing to all of the Vatican's views.

Cor. I wasn't aware you could cherry-pick the bits you like and still claim to follow a religion.

What that sounds like to me is that she was raised a Catholic, rejected a lot of their views but still believes in the old magic sky-pixie. Ergo, she's a Christian, not a Catholic, no?

It's like saying, 'she's a vegetarian. She doesn't bother with any of that "not eating meat" stuff though, and she's tired of people assuming that she doesn't.'

@cougar, or possibly an obnoxious atheist.

I've no idea what you're referring to here, sorry.

I guess it's just in my nature to respect people regardless of their irrational beliefs.

Read back, I wasn't talking about respecting people, I was talking about respecting their belief system. If I met someone who thought they were Napoleon, they might well still deserve respect as a person but I wouldn't feel compelled to respect their Napoleonic delusions, not even if they believed it really really hard. I'd probably get them some pictures of Napoleon and a mirror and leave them to work it out.

Incidentally, after you call someone "a bit silly", do you find it easier or harder to have a civilised conversation with them?

Again, I never said I called people silly; I said that I thought they believed in something silly. This shouldn't be a problem, if they're according me the same 'respect' for beliefs that I'm supposed to automatically grant them.

I feel I should also point out that fundamental religious types are almost exactly as likely to strap bombs to themselves as the atheists. Not quite, granted, but you get the jist

Cor. I wasn't aware you could cherry-pick the bits you like and still claim to follow a religion.

Really? You really aren't aware that's what people do? IME, that's exactly what loads of people do.

Again, I never said I called people silly; I said that I thought they believed in something silly. This shouldn't be a problem,

Why wouldn't it be a problem? If you called me silly for believing that my bike is better than a car, I'd think you were a bit unpleasant and the conversation isn't going to last long! I do believe that though, and if you bothered to ask me why, rather than calling me silly, you could learn something. If you don't think it's possible to learn anything from people because they claim to be religious, then you are missing out on some interesting stuff.

For example, I'm married to someone who claims to be catholic. I don't have any interest in converting her to agnosticism or anything else. Junkyard seems to want her to BE the pope 🙂 I don't want to be married to the pope 🙁 I just accept her for who she is, don't feel obliged to point out any inconsistencies. Knowing her as I do, there are reasons for her faith. I respect those reasons and don't find it necessary to change her. When our child is born, It will receive views from both of us, hopefully well balanced.

For the last point, of course there are no atheist suicide bombers. My point is that there are [b]almost[/b] no fundamentalist suicide bombers either. There are millions of fundamentalists around the world, ergo they do not tend to be suicide bombers either. Part of me thinks I'm just being pedantic. The other part wants you to understand my explanation and consider why demonisation of fundamentalists is wrong. It's probably what they want, after all...

Yet I get the feeling that [s]some people[/s] STW forumites would just assume she was an ignorant bigot due to her upbringing.

FTFY.

Turning things around a bit, surely those with a christian belief are subject to more bigotry by the heathen none believing bigots and it is only through the tolerance of the majority of christians that the none believers don't find themselves charged under the hypocrticial reliogious laws in force in the UK currently.

Evangelical Atheists are the the new Witnesses

Cor. I wasn't aware you could cherry-pick the bits you like and still claim to follow a religion.

Really? You really aren't aware that's what people do? IME, that's exactly what loads of people do.

Junkyard seems to want her to BE the pope I don't want to be married to the pope

Oh FFS something wrong with that now - thought you were preaching tolerance but suddenly my fetish for marrying elderly male virgins gets you all judgemental 😉

I just accept her for who she is, don't feel obliged to point out any inconsistencies.

The Bible is the word of god - if you believe that claim you are religous- if you dont you are not. you cannot ignore the bits you dont like that is what aethists do.

Clearly you can do that, because that's what plenty of people do. And I've seen them in church 😉 If you're interested in changing peoples view then it actually makes sense to let people declare their views, so you could target the offensive ones. In this way I think peoples attachment to the whole will be weakened over time.

My wife is indeed the best. She's insistent on me going riding because she knows it makes me happy. I'll be going to Dartmoor next month while she's 8 months pregnant. She told me to go 😀

Mine insisted I rode the dyfi while she was 8 months with twins... aren't wife's great!

@cougar, the aggressive agnostic comment.

Clearly you can do that, because that's what plenty of people do

It is not coherent to say you think some bits are ok and you will follow/believe them and then ignore the bits you dont like and then still say that you are following the lords word.

Maybe not, but that's what lots of people do in my experience. And they are clearly accepted by the church. The entire thing is incoherent and irrational 🙂 Whether you think these people are religious or not is frankly irrelevant - they think they are and so does their church.

[i]Well yes clearly you can but I could also eat meat and say I was a vegan but it would not make my statement true.[/i]

Not sure about this. The core of being a vegan is to not eat meat (and dairy). The core of being a catholic etc. is to believe in a creator God. I think all religious people in terms of Christianity/Islam/Judaism believe in God.

If you believe that God is compassionate and forgiving then i can't see the contradiction between being religious and not necessarily adopting everything the Bible says. I can see quite easily how someone could believe in God and not necessarily agree with everything the Bible says.

So if you believe in God but not necessarily everything written in the Bible does that mean you aren't religious ?

Shame that Darwins theories didn't put an end to all this religious nonsense.

Best chance now is for the discovery of alien existence, that should about do it, no wriggling out of that one no matter how hard they try

Darwin himself believed in god and originally the church had no problems with his theories as it showed the splendor of the almighty.

Just waiting for the argument of the evolution of eye... 😉

The entire thing is incoherent and irrational

Whether you think these people are religious or not is frankly irrelevant

- they think they are and so does their church.

Has anyone mentioned the nazis yet?
Ian

Well you started it..

Just waiting for the argument of the evolution of eye...

What you're waiting on some creationists to say that the piss poor "design" of the human eye must be the work of some deity?

Really? You really aren't aware that's what people do? IME, that's exactly what loads of people do.

I'm aware that's what people do. Point is, Catholicism is a very specific wing of Christianity, with very specific beliefs and practices. If you're a Catholic but then start picking and choosing bits, you're no longer a Catholic, you're a Christian.

I'm vegetarian. By that logic I could say I'm vegan, I just don't believe in the 'no dairy' clause.

I appreciate that on the face of it I'm just being pedantic. However, I don't think I am - you had a situation in Northern Ireland not all that long ago where people factioned off into "Catholic" and "largely Catholic but in a slightly different way" and look what happened there. Perhaps if all the Protestants just called themselves Catholic like the good lady in question seems to be perfectly comfortable with doing, there wouldn't have been all that fuss.

Why wouldn't it be a problem? If you called me silly

I've already clarified this once already, but I wasn't calling anyone silly. Read back. Believing "your bike is better than your car" may well be a wholly rational statement, it's a straw man.

If you don't think it's possible to learn anything from people because they claim to be religious, then you are missing out on some interesting stuff.

I never said that, you've made it up. Please don't do that.

For the last point, of course there are no atheist suicide bombers. My point is that there are almost no fundamentalist suicide bombers either.

You know, I wasn't being entirely serious here. (-:

@cougar, the aggressive agnostic comment.

Ah. Ok. Uh. Well, yeah, it's quite easy to be an obnoxious atheist (or a non-obnoxious atheist, or an obnoxious anything else). I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Just waiting for the argument of the evolution of eye...

There's a Creationist website somewhere that I can't immediately lay my hand on, which gives advice for people wanting to 'spread the word' about Creationism. It has a list of "arguments we don't use any more" because even the Creationsts themselves acknowledge that it's nonsense. I'm pretty sure this one is on the list.

Well you started it..

Yes you did, you invaded Poland.

Here's the web page I was thinking of.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

I wasn't quite on the money, however they do discuss the topic.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/14/darwin-and-the-eye

If you're a grown adult and believed in Santa Claus, how would you expect to be treated? You probably wouldn't expect to be abused by other grown adults, [b]but you really shouldn't be all that surprised when people go "Santa Claus? Really? Isn't that a bit silly?"

I think that's how I feel about the religious.[/b]

I've put the bit in bold that makes me think you'd call religious people silly. Am I wrong Cougar? You can claim that you're only insulting their beliefs if you want, but I think most wouldn't make that distinction.

ah veggie that explains it.
I consider you to be part of the broad church of vegans, the fact you cannot adhere to our central tenant is but a minor blip 😉
[tenous link]i need little excuse for this so here it is again[tenous link]

[img] [/img]

I am a vegan btw but this made me chuckle

I've put the bit in bold that makes me think you'd call religious people silly. Am I wrong Cougar? You can claim that you're only insulting their beliefs if you want, but I think most wouldn't make that distinction.

I wonder who'd best know what I mean, me or you?

But I've explained myself multiple times and you're still labouring on a "fact" you've made up. Hey, you'd make a good theist.

I am a vegan btw but this made me chuckle

Yeah, I've seen that before, it's quality.