GF wants me to go to church with her......

[spoffle]

Evidence based beliefs at least attemptt I be faithful. The primary difference is that we look for an answer to our questions that can be determined in an experiment, or at the very least is compounded reputable sources. We also change our stance depending on the evidence.

There is little to no evidence that proves the things that exclusively apply to religion that religious people believe.

Evidence that you accept is not the same as evidence to others, which people have a hard time accepting.

But that doesn't change the point that you yourself are still taking it on faith that this stuff told to you in the name of science is correct.

That aside, why have an agenda, and why try to change people's beliefs? You have your own and you hate it when people try to change your beliefs, so why is it okay for you to try and change theirs?

This is what I don't get from either side, why are you lot wasting your time trying to prove eachother wrong?

 

[grimm]

Lol the things some people are willing to do just to get their willy wet

 

[estebanrey]

But that doesn't change the point that you yourself are still taking it on faith that this stuff told to you in the name of science is correct.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Evidence that you accept is not the same as evidence to others, which people have a hard time accepting.

But that doesn't change the point that you yourself are still taking it on faith that this stuff told to you in the name of science is correct.

That aside, why have an agenda, and why try to change people's beliefs? You have your own and you hate it when people try to change your beliefs, so why is it okay for you to try and change theirs?

This is what I don't get from either side, why are you lot wasting your time trying to prove eachother wrong?

Half the things that I've learnt which prove the Bible wrong I've been able to carry out experiments to prove in secondary school.

We attempt to interfere or counter the religious people because we don't think it's acceptable to teach people things that have been proven to be wrong, such as creationism, Noah's Ark etc. Nor do we want wrong done in the name of something that we thing is fantasy. Nor do we think it's acceptable to have inequalities caused by a belief that is, to our minds, entirely ridiculous (I guess I don't speak for all atheists in this statement).

Why is it acceptable to be willfully ignorant?!


@estebanrey...hah!!

 

[spoffle]

Derp

That's rich coming from you, as that's one of your favourite tactics.

The amusing part here is that I'm not arguing for either side, I'm not religious.

I'm pointing out the pointlessness of trying to force others to follow the same belief system as yourself because, well for whatever reason.

That's got nothing to do with your attempts at telling people they're wrong about subjects you yourself have absolutely no idea about.

 

[Castiel]

perhaps too personal and if so feel free to ignore but can I ask if you believe in a God or 'something'? Awkward due to your occupation, may I ask what that is? Also do you have kids? If not, has it been talked over that basically you will be attending throughout their life to give a good impression?

I am an agnostic, so I have neither active belief nor disbelief in God(s)...I have a 14 year old Son, I am a Cognitive and Historical Linguist who specialises in the areas of Indo-European and Semitic cultural and religious study, including extensive research in such areas as the Bible, The Qu'ran and other related languages, translations and literature.

I am not sure what you mean by 'have you talked over, good impression, or whose life?" I'll answer if you clarify?

 

[spoffle]

Half the things that I've learnt which prove the Bible wrong I've been able to carry out experiments to prove in secondary school.

We attempt to interfere or counter the religious people because we don't think it's acceptable to teach people things that have been proven to be wrong, such as creationism, Noah's Ark etc. Nor do we want wrong done in the name of something that we thing is fantasy. Nor do we think it's acceptable to have inequalities caused by a belief that is, to our minds, entirely ridiculous (I guess I don't speak for all atheists in this statement).

Why is it acceptable to be willfully ignorant?!


@estebanrey...hah!!

The bible and Christianity does not encompass all of religion and the belief in a higher power.

You can believe in god without being religious.

That aside, religious people do exactly the same thing, and try to educate people on things they don't understand.

Something I have noticed with a fair amount of religious people is that they barely even know their religion anyway despite committing to it.

As I said, I see little difference between both sides other than the ideology they support.

 

[Voltar]

Up to you really. Do you feel so strongly against going to church in general that you would need to decline all invites. Or is it just that church? If it's just that church then say you're not comfortable going and suggest you go to a different one.
If however all of it doesn't agree with you on a fundamental basis then you should refuse as you going would verge on being disrespectful (or however you want to phrase it) and you don't want to dampen her enjoyment of her worship.

I'd go for the different church/catherdral approach because you could tie it in with a nice trip somewhere and keep her happy...

e: re-read your post.

Refuse to go politely. Suggest going to a different church if it's that important to her. Otherwise I'd not do it. It may turn out to be a dealbraker though...

 

[mejinks]

I was doing some research into the Pentecostals and found a video of them bringing themselves into the modern age:

 

[Castiel]

You say that, but our agenda is factual, not fantastical.

Most of the time the agenda is about voicing a perceived intellectual superiority over another. What Spoofle is saying is that most people are not scientists, they do not understand the intimate details of the science to which they hold, they take what science tells them on faith...Faith for the most part based on personal evidence. In turn, most religious people also do not understand the intimate details of the religion they follow, they take what the scripture tells them on faith, again for the most part based on personal evidence.

Equating all religion with minority ideologies and interpretations such as Literal Creationism or ascribing a Literal Inherency to every religious person or religion is disingenuous and not an objective position...for all people of reason, then a reasoned, objective position should be a requirement, regardless of whether your philosophical position accepts a Godhead or not...should it not?

 

[spoffle]

Most of the time the agenda is about voicing a perceived intellectual superiority of another. What Spoofle is saying is that most people are not scientists, they do not understand the intimate details of the science to which they hold, they take what science tells them on faith...Faith for the most part based on personal evidence. In turn, most religious people also do not understand the intimate details of the religion they follow, they take what the scripture tells them on faith, again for the most part based on personal evidence.

Equating all religion with minority ideologies and interpretations such as Literal Creationism or ascribing a Literal Inherency to every religious person or religion is disingenuous and not an objective position...for all people of reason, then a reasoned, objective position should be a requirement, regardless of whether your philosophical position accepts a Godhead or not...should it not?

This is a significantly more eloquent way of expressing the point I had.

 

[Nitefly]

Go to church and become enlightened.

 

[FoxEye]

Half the things that I've learnt which prove the Bible wrong I've been able to carry out experiments to prove in secondary school.

Go on then, what's your proof?

Btw, scientists believe in things they can't offer proof for. Stephen Hawking believes in many parallel universes. Something which as far as I know cannot be proven.

But because Stephen Hawking is a scientist, many people will say "oh he has to be right". Which is kind of like blind faith...

Science *is* the new religion, and has been for years. Any time you want people to believe something these days, you simply say "scientists believe..." Doesn't matter what kind of scientist (they never differentiate physicists from geologists in these reports), as long as a scientist has a theory about something, it's OK for the masses to just go along with it.

Which is kind of like religion in years gone by...

 

[matthab]

That's only going to end one way.

 

[Angilion]

I see from a second post that it's not just a matter of going to her church, since you say that her church will expel her if her partner isn't a Christian.

So if you do choose to go along with her, you will either have to convert to her religion or lie about doing so, and lie over and over again, week after week.

How much lying are you willing to do and how good are you at it? Is lying continuously a good thing for your relationship?

I wouldn't take any claims about her interest being just social very seriously. It's not a social club. It's a church. It's a religious thing, not a social one. It may well have social aspects within the religious ones, but it's a religious group that meets in a religious building for religious reasons.

I'd find it a very difficult position to be in. There's no common ground, so there's no scope for compromise. You either follow the same religion that she does or you don't. If you don't, then her religion requires you to either end the relationship or continuously lie, be under constant pressure to convert and to have any children you may have be put into the religion long before they can make the choice for themselves.

For me, it would be too great an incompatibility and I think I'd see ending the relationship as being the least bad option available to me.

But you're not me. You have to make the decision for yourself.

 

[Castiel]

This is a significantly more eloquent way of expressing the point I had.

I would also add that in both cases, both Scientists and Theologians find evidence they accept that either reinforces their belief in a Godhead or supports their disbelief....a scientist may see the wonders of a material Universe played out in the experiments he conducts or he may see the wonder of Gods Creation in those same experiments...in the same way a theologian may see the Word of God in Scripture, or he may see the spirituality of Man in that same scripture. Each forming their own truths on their perception of the same evidence.

I see neither support nor refutation, this far...so I remain agnostic and continue to search. As a common paraphrasing of the Kalama Sutta goes:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Whether the attribution to Buddha is accurate or not, I think that the point of the paraphrased quote is a valid one.

 

[mmj_uk]

That would be fine but that would mean she would also be dispelled from the church, according to their rules her partner has to be a Christian for her to stay being a member, it's a ****ing crazy nut place.

Can't she just tell them that you attend another church? if they have that much influence over her life I would run for the hills, just imagine if you had kids with her she'll probably force them to attend and you'll be forever arguing over it.

 

[Nitefly]

Go on then, what's your proof?

Btw, scientists believe in things they can't offer proof for. Stephen Hawking believes in many parallel universes. Something which as far as I know cannot be proven.

But because Stephen Hawking is a scientist, many people will say "oh he has to be right". Which is kind of like blind faith...

Science *is* the new religion, and has been for years. Any time you want people to believe something these days, you simply say "scientists believe..." Doesn't matter what kind of scientist (they never differentiate physicists from geologists in these reports), as long as a scientist has a theory about something, it's OK for the masses to just go along with it.

Which is kind of like religion in years gone by...

No.

 

[Hodders]

Ask here why she doesn't believe in:

1) Zeus
2) Mars
3) Shiva
4) Ganesh
5) Mars
6) Allah

Just tell her when she tells you why she doesn't believe in them, you'll explain to her why you don't believe in her imaginary friend. You are both atheists, its just you believe in one less god than her.

 

[spoffle]

I would also add that in both cases, both Scientists and Theologians find evidence they accept that either reinforces their belief in a Godhead or supports their disbelief....a scientist may see the wonders of a material Universe played out in the experiments he conducts or he may see the wonder of Gods Creation in those same experiments...in the same way a theologian may see the Word of God in Scripture, or he may see the spirituality of Man in that same scripture. Each forming their own truths on their perception of the same evidence.

I see neither support nor refutation, this far...so I remain agnostic and continue to search. As a common paraphrasing of the Kalama Sutta goes:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Whether the attribution to Buddha is accurate or not, I think that the point of the paraphrased quote is a valid one.

This is also much more eloquently put than my point that I made about proof being subjective.

What I find frustrating with either side is that they take any questioning of their beliefs as you being their opposite. Though, I find that people are like this about most things, but it makes it very difficult to reason with people when if you question something they believe, they don't actually respond to the question you asked, but the question they've turned it in to.