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

hurfdurf said:
This is some weird thing that transcends into solipsism about how we can never truly know anything. I understand basic science and basic scientific method, therefore when scientists make claims, supported by peer reviewed studies, I listen. There is a world of difference between believing scientific basic tenants and trusting its ever evolving findings and trusting in "faith" and to compare the two is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about you personally.. Or even comparing science with religion....however many people do not understand the Scientific method or even basic science and even having a basic idea of something still means you are putting a certain amount of trust in someone else. You are effectively putting your faith in the assumption that such methodologies have been followed and are validated...others have faith that science will ultimately answer all humanities questions, that science will prove there is not God or that we will discover Alien life or that we will learn to be immortal or whatever...there is no actual evidence of these things, but people believe them nonetheless, others believe that science will show them all these things and also show them God, again there is no actual evidence it will, but people put faith in it nonetheless. The faith is in the acceptance of the methodologies applied and the experience of the observer, and that is all that we are saying. That you put your faith in one thing based on your own personal experience and understanding doesn't meant that another will not have a different perspective of the same thing according to their own different experience and understanding. Some will simply believe without question, but that doesn't imply that all do and that is not limited to religion, but pretty much anything. (look at Kedge and Cosmogenesis for two opposite, but alike examples.)

You still appear to misunderstand the point being made anyway..no one is directly comparing science with religion, they are illustrating the humans put trust in many things without objective knowledge, personal experience or understanding of the specificity of the concept they put heir confidence in...they do however put their faith in those that do. effectively we, as humans, put faith in all kinds of things and experiences every day based on all kinds of subjective evidence and experiences. There is nothing disingenuous about that, it is after all, simply an observation.
 
Last edited:
Saying, "I am an agnostic.", does not sound so good when you use the equivalent english word from the latin root of the word rather than the Greek; which would be, "I am an ignoramus.".


*Edit. In before Huxley is mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Pentacostal, Evangelical, Jehovahs....

The nutty churches I would call them I think I would avoid. It will never work unless you are willing to convert.
 
Castiel said:
I'm not talking about you personally.. Or even comparing science with religion....however many people do not understand the Scientific method or even basic science and even having a basic idea of something still means you are putting a certain amount of trust in someone else. You are effectively putting your faith in the assumption that such methodologies have been followed and are validated...others have faith that science will ultimately answer all humanities questions, that science will prove there is not God or that we will discover Alien life or that we will learn to be immortal or whatever...there is no actual evidence of these things, but people believe them nonetheless, others believe that science will show them all these things and also show them God, again there is no actual evidence it will, but people put faith in it nonetheless. The faith is in the acceptance of the methodologies applied and the experience of the observer, and that is all that we are saying. That you put your faith in one thing based on your own personal experience and understanding doesn't meant that another will not have a different perspective of the same thing according to their own different experience and understanding. Some will simply believe without question, but that doesn't imply that all do and that is not limited to religion, but pretty much anything. (look at Kedge and Cosmogenesis for two opposite, but alike examples.)

You still appear to misunderstand the point being made anyway..no one is directly comparing science with religion, they are illustrating the humans put trust in many things without objective knowledge, personal experience or understanding of the specificity of the concept they put heir confidence in...they do however put their faith in those that do. effectively we, as humans, put faith in all kinds of things and experiences every day based on all kinds of subjective evidence and experiences. There is nothing disingenuous about that, it is after all, simply an observation.
Click to expand...

I usually enjoy reading your opinions Castiel but your so off the ball with that last comment.

Believing in science really has nothing to do with "putting your faith in the assumption that such methodologies have been followed and are validated". Putting faith in science could literally be translated to "I believe in mankind's ability to doubt everything it knows", I don't need to know anything else about science then that to form a judgement, and neither does anybody else.

All that is needed is an understanding that science is a process of doubt to see that even if methods and processes are not followed it only takes the next scientist to come along to test and explain why the processes or methods were wrong.

Science is belief in our ability to doubt. Religion is blind faith in the unknown. Comparing the two as you have just done is just plain wrong.
 
You find skepticism is many things not just science....I spoke about the difference between faith and Blind Faith earlier, and again this relates to all things, not simply religious faith. And again you are comparing science with religion, which I am categorically not doing...what I am doing is illustrating an individuals ability to believe something without personal objective proof themselves and a reliance on subjective experience...what they have faith in is immaterial, only the point that they don't have the knowledge themselves and so have confidence in other individuals, groups, methods or concepts. I fail to see how the observation in the last comment that people do put their faith in all kinds of subjective criteria is plainly wrong. I see it every day.
 
Last edited:
However you were comparing the two. You were comparing faith in method and process to faith in religion.

Scepticism in anything IS science. If somebody claims something to me, I develop a method and test to prove them wrong, BAM I'm a Scientist!

It doesn't really matter if I'm actually right or wrong after my test as it only takes somebody else to come along and doubt what I have just said and form their own test for them too to become scientists. They may be wrong also. None of this means science is wrong, it means it is working.
 
No I'm not. Comparing a similarity in an individual's response to disparate concepts is not comparing the concepts themselves. Also how you respond is immaterial as I am not comparing specific individuals responses but a response under specific criteria.
 
Essentially our understanding of the concept of what science is, is our disagreement here.

You seem to think belief in science is the belief that it will answer all our questions. I believe science simply means we will endeavour to ask questions, find ways to attempt to answer all the questions, then when we do find answers we will doubt them.
 
I don't believe that, I am saying however that some people do and therein lie the similarity in response....I am a sceptic in all things, I believe science is a tool to help us understand the material universe, the difference between blind faith and faith in anything is the existence of that scepticism in approaches to whatever we place our trust in.
 
Last edited:
The thing I don't understand is that for some reason people cannot accept that one can have beliefs without being a Creationist, "bible basher", or evangelical about it.

I have my beliefs, but at the same time I love science, and heck took Mathematics and Physics leading me to do Engineering and so on at University many moons ago. I still have a huge sceptic streak in me, but some things I'm happy to just accept/believe because they make sense to me, there's a bond to me that works.

I think science and spiritual/religious beliefs can go hand in hand, I do not believe they are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, I think "atheism" is a belief structure and is far more "extreme" than someone who is agnostic - ergo more flexible/open minded. I find extreme opinions and points of view on either side of the argument (pro/anti) to be just as dangerous as each other.

I don't like to label or make assumptions about people based purely on what they belief.

The lines of beliefs (whether they are true or not is a moot point) and facts converge and run in parallel at times. Some things science can explain that religion cannot, sometimes religion gives the hope/answers that science cannot. Having hope/compassion/faith in things whether they be a God or a spirit or even in something intangilbe, is that a bad thing? If it helps give you strength and courage, and helps you do good by other people or even for yourself is it such a bad thing? Sure, the elitism in social/culturual masses will look down and scorn on those who cannot "pull their socks up" without some form of belief structure - but so what?

If someone doesn't want to believe or is a vehement atheist to the point of extremism, I still respect their opinions, with no judgement or disparaging opinions or remarks towards them, and can still go to the pub for a pint, and chat about cars, sports, and whatever without even thinking about our differences. All I ask is the same in retun. Is that too much to ask?

We've all got different beliefs and ideas and experiences - that's what makes us great. I'm not going to try or even would ever dream of trying to tell you to think the way I do - I'm not interested in that.

There's too much hate an anymosity in the world - just give a little love man! ;)
 
Freefaller said:
Furthermore, I think "atheism" is a belief structure and is far more "extreme" than someone who is agnostic - ergo more flexible/open minded. I find extreme opinions and points of view on either side of the argument (pro/anti) to be just as dangerous as each other.
Click to expand...

Atheism is not a belief structure, it is simply the lack of belief in God/Gods. Is bald a hair colour?

Agnosticism and Atheism are different and not mutually exclusive. Theism refers to belief whereas gnosticism refers to knowledge. You can for example be a agnostic theist, i.e. I don't know if there is a God but I believe in one. Or you can be an agnostic atheist, i.e. I don't if there is a God and I don't believe in one.
 
Last edited:
That's what I said, agnosticism and atheism are different :p however both are a belief structures in my view. However, I'm happy to agree to disagree. :)
 
Freefaller said:
That's what I said, agnosticism and atheism are different :p however both are a belief structures in my view. However, I'm happy to agree to disagree. :)
Click to expand...

Atheism is often misunderstood as the belief that there is no God but this is incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief, usually brought about by a lack of evidence.

Theism = I believe there is a God.

Atheism = I do not accept the above.

It's not a belief structure.
 
lowrider007 said:
Girl friend wants me to go to church her occasionally (once a month), it's a local Pentecostal church, I wouldn't mind if it was a 'regular' church, I'd pop in with her now and again but this a Pentecostal church and is crazy strict with their rules and they push you hard to try and bring you into their 'flock', I don't mind the Bible but I am dead against these types of places, only the other day a guy got chucked out because he was a known 'spiritualist'.

Is it unreasonable for me to flat out refuse to go?

What would you do if your partner/gf asked?
Click to expand...

Late to the party....

Say no, if you don't want to go, you don't have to. Presumably she is aware of your beliefs and you are aware of hers, she should respect that.

My GF goes to Church every Sunday, one to attend and two to play at the church, I do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom