Explaining your belief?

Sofiztikated

Hey all, first time poster here in A&A.

Heres the deal.

I would class myself as Agnostic, but am not entirely sure if I am or not. Anyway.

The problem lies with the difference in belief between myself and my fiancee. Her being a middling catholic, and me being, well, whatever I am.

Now I'm not as militant as some seem to be here, as in I don't particulary give a fiddlers about what other people believe in, its their call.

However we did have a blazing row the other day (again), when the subject about one of her friends getting her kid christened came up.

She said that while her friend had waited until the child was 3 months to get it christened, her granny was giving out that her aunt had waited til her child was 2 months old to be christened, and I happened to say, "Well why not wait til they are old enough to make the decision themselves?"

That didn't sit well at all. And she couldn't see what I was trying to explain, she kept thinking that I wanted out future children to be christened in the Presbyterian church, my church by birth.

I wanted to get through to her that I don't, I just don't see why a child HAS to be christened, confirmed and communioned.

I really dug my heels in about this, simply because she couldn't see my point. To be honest, I don't mind what faith our future children are brought up, but the fact that she couldn't see my point annoyed me.

She knows, and always has known about my lack of belief, well more precisely my complete and utter dislike of organised religions, so thats not a suprise to her.

I think we have come to an agreement now, but damn it took a lot of tears and arguing and hugs to get over it!

Galvasean

Sofiztikated wrote: »

.

I would class myself as Agnostic, but am not entirely sure if I am or not.

Not sure? Sounds pretty agnostic to me

That didn't sit well at all. And she couldn't see what I was trying to explain, she kept thinking that I wanted out future children to be christened in the Presbyterian church, my church by birth.

How did she make the leap from you being agnostic to wanting the future children being christened in the Presbeterian church?

Sofiztikated

Galvasean wrote: »

How did she make the leap from you being agnostic to wanting the future children being christened in the Presbeterian church?

I'm not sure. I was trying to get it across that I would prefer to give future children a choise, rather than bring them up one way and let then refuse it, like I have.

However, I think it may have been a misunderstanding on her part, mistaking my belief for just a poorly practising Presbyterian.

(I also just realised I went absolutely nowhere with that post, I was just ranting! Sorry for that!)

krudler

ME and my girlfriend had this very discussion a few months back, were talking what ifs about our future and kids and the like, she knows I dont believe, she'd be a catholic from upbringing but not really into it, doesnt go to mass or anything but does want our kdis if we ever have any baptised, probably due to the draconian fear of a kid not getting into heaven unless a bit of water is splashed on their heads, I'll go along with it to keep a quiet life as i dont need people telling me the child will wind up in hell if its not baptised, as much as it annoys me

Sofiztikated

Krudler, thank you. Thats the very same argument! At least I'm not alone.

Dades

The fact is you'll probably be railroaded into getting any kids baptised, so you might as well agree now. Doesn't mean you have to be happy about it - or that it's any of granny's business to stick her nose into.

People only used to baptise kids so soon as in older times the infant mortality rates were such that you were recommended to do it quick. If granny wants to argue about it - you can of course remind here that the Pope has said unbaptised babies now go to heaven. All heart, is God!

Sofiztikated

Dades wrote: »

The fact is you'll probably be railroaded into getting any kids baptised, so you might as well agree now. Doesn't mean you have to be happy about it - or that it's any of granny's business to stick her nose into.

People only used to baptise kids so soon as in older times the infant mortality rates were such that you were recommended to do it quick. If granny wants to argue about it - you can of course remind here that the Pope has said unbaptised babies now go to heaven. All heart, is God!

Cheers. As I've already told her, I don't particularly mind, as long as she understands where I'm coming from, and I that I won't be actively participating in the catholic upbringing.

Had an argument about the "needing moral guidance" as well, and I gave up at that point, because it was going around in circles. Moral guidance and religion does not have to be one and the same, but meh.

So still trying to figure out, does it sound like I am agnostic? Don't want to be saying I am, if I'm using the wrong term.

Pushtrak

I think there is a term that is quite underappreciated that I came across somewhere. Apatheist. Basically, its the "I couldn't give a toss" approach. Maybe thats more you?

Dades

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Had an argument about the "needing moral guidance" as well, and I gave up at that point, because it was going around in circles. Moral guidance and religion does not have to be one and the same, but meh.

You really sound like you have the same arguments I do with my wife! She has to admit though, having married an atheist, claiming that you need religion to teach morality is a stretch.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

So still trying to figure out, does it sound like I am agnostic? Don't want to be saying I am, if I'm using the wrong term.

Look at it this way, if you have a sneaking belief that the gods of religion are simply human constructs, then you're kinda an atheist. Don't tell the missis though.

robindch

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I wanted to get through to her that I don't, I just don't see why a child HAS to be christened, confirmed and communioned.

From the kid's point of view, it's most important to be baptized, since he/she may be denied access to a religiously-controlled school if he/she isn't.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I really dug my heels in about this, simply because she couldn't see my point. To be honest, I don't mind what faith our future children are brought up, but the fact that she couldn't see my point annoyed me.

Welcome to the weird and wacky world of religious argument!

If it were me, I'd happily trade a baptism for avoiding religion classes once your kid gets to school. A kid won't remember the baptism and will probably understand much later why it was done, but a kid may never be able to shake off the results of 14 years of variably-intense religious indoctrination.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Had an argument about the "needing moral guidance" as well, and I gave up at that point, because it was going around in circles. Moral guidance and religion does not have to be one and the same, but meh.

You could start by point out that the Irish catholic church is in no position to provide "moral guidance" at the moment.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I think we have come to an agreement now, but damn it took a lot of tears and arguing and hugs to get over it!

Agreement? Pray, tell!

GLaDOS

Religion is one of those things that people can be very irrational over, sound's like a classic case of it here. I'd say, like I can see myself doing when I have children, you will have to bear it. Our generation is one that religion isn't all that important, and it will be easier for your children to come to their own decision.

I'd love it society didn't deem it such a faux pas to not christen children, but sadly I can't see it happening.

krudler

I just find it abhorrent that a child is supposedly born into sin unless a priest splashes water on their head, a baby is the ultimate blank slate, its not aware of the concept of doing wrong yet unless some antiquated ritual is performed then they supposedly go to purgatory (well not any more as someone said, its nice the church can chop and change its belief system when it suits) I was baptised not long after being born as I almost died during birth, my mother being a catholic wanted this so i wouldnt go to hell or whatever it is thats supposed to happen, my much more rational thinking father told me later that the way he saw it was that if god was that concerned with a childs wellbeing he wouldnt have made me sick in the first place

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sofiztikated

And what bugs me as well, I seem to ask why and what. I ask her why do certain things happen in her church, to genuinely get an understanding of her religion, it being different to my own religious upbringing, and she can't answer.

However, I don't bring it up with my own family, with my mother, and my father when he was alive, being fairly staunch in their ways, my brother being a Christian, and other brothers and sisters with varying degrees of belief, I don't know how to breach the subject with them. I mean, I have went to church a few times in the last year, to keep my mother happy, so that our minister knows me and would be present at our impending wedding, however it was a case of going through the motions for me.

I've always queried why, even when I was younger as I spent a lot of time in hospital. I appreciated the support of the minister for my parents in their belief, but it never made me believe any more, it made me investigate more. I mean I had friend of various faiths and religions, and I looked into different scriptures, but ended up asking what sound like programming questions, " If Then, Why."

I apologise for this rant, this one is not heineken induced.

hiorta

You are a human being with a view on life that is likely to be modified as you experience Life.
Can I suggest that you cease to play Religions game by wearing one of their wee labels, which diminishes both you and your current philosophy? Why should you explain or defend your right to your own view? Point out that perhaps they might try to do likewise - arrive at their own (flexible) position in Life, rather than accept a predetermined hand-down from some pulpit.

lynski

i had a similar argument with my sister and mother in law - admittedly over a few bevvies - they simply do not accept that i am an atheist. they believe that i do believe something. no amount of arguing that i no not believe in any supernatural, extraterrestrial beings would get them to accept that i did not believe. it was bizarre.
i think as atheists we forget that our perfectly rational view of life is not shared by others. i find it so hard to understand how intelligent relations, friends and acquaintances can actually believe in the claptrap, in this century, after all that has happened and all we have learned.
One argument i had with my sis was that she calls herself catholic but rejects a lot of the catholic beliefs - sex before marriage, contraception, stance on homosexuals, on priests marrying, on purgatory, confession and more - so why call yourself a catholic?
Anyway, another thing to remember is that for the most part atheists are far more interested in and know more about religion then most people because we have thought about it and researched it and there is little point in arguing with the misinformed.

HalloweenJack

I don't go for labelling people who don't believe in a religion or God.

For instance, atheism sounds like one of those bad "-isms" to me, like racism, sexism.

To me, the word sounds as if those who don't believe in a God have something wrong with them, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor seems to think with this quote Atheist Ireland put up yesterday:

“Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.”

I don't really describe myself as anything. If someone asks me what my religion is. I simply say I don't have one. I don't label myself as atheist or agnostic, even though they do apply to me.

eblistic

robindch wrote: »

From the kid's point of view, it's most important to be baptized, since he/she may be denied access to a religiously-controlled school if he/she isn't.

Sounds a little defeatist. Would you recommend this course of action to two atheists?

It's hard not to sound "militant" here but if the system is discriminatory and we play the game rather than resist and object are we not partly to blame for sustaining the problem for future generations?

herbiemcc

I think that's a good point HalloweenJack but I would still use the imperfect term of atheist for myself ('brights' or other things seem a bit weird).

I find that another thing religion has in its armoury is the suggestion of a positive presence i.e. "i am a whatever..." or "i have jesus in my life" etc etc.

When we say the opposite, equally valid view it is perceived as "i am nothing" or "i have nothing in my life".

I find myself caring less and less about religious sensitivities (as I find that there really is quite low tolerance or understanding of my position) so i don't mind saying i have no religion (which they can find genuinely quite shocking) but I also don't like to give them extra ammo if i can avoid it.

(Please don't attack that point for really being a load of crap - I'm talking about dealing with religious logic).

---

A bit more on topic for a second, I have had a few run ins with the g'friend about this subject too. At first she thought I just wasn't into formal religion. Then she realised i wasn't a believer at all. Then she got upset when i asked her some basic questions because i was "trying to make her lose her religion and be like me".

I genuinely wasn't but it just seems a bit rich to force someone to join in with your views, marriage/birth/death rituals etc when your belief is so flimsy and tenuous that it's upsetting to talk about it.

It's now unofficially a no go area with us. Not a day to day issue but i'm sure it will rear it's head again.

Like when talking about raising children she says i have to put up and shut up for 18 years and that's it - end of discussion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was raised protestant and she's a half-arsed catholic. I wouldn't even mind as much if she was really devout but when kids are asking the healthy, logical questions like I did at their age I have to give them either bull, fobbing off answers (like i got) or say ask your mother. For 18 years. Yeah i can't wait for that.

There's no middle ground either. I have to tow the party line or she likens it to saying there's no santa or something. I remember enjoying xmas a lot more than sunday school, church or any of the other odd, vague, bizarre religious experiences through life. I think with good parenting the big god boogeyman isn't really necessary.

token56

herbiemcc wrote: »

Like when talking about raising children she says i have to put up and shut up for 18 years and that's it - end of discussion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was raised protestant and she's a half-arsed catholic. I wouldn't even mind as much if she was really devout but when kids are asking the healthy, logical questions like I did at their age I have to give them either bull, fobbing off answers (like i got) or say ask your mother. For 18 years. Yeah i can't wait for that.

There's no middle ground either. I have to tow the party line or she likens it to saying there's no santa or something. I remember enjoying xmas a lot more than sunday school, church or any of the other odd, vague, bizarre religious experiences through life. I think with good parenting the big god boogeyman isn't really necessary.

I'm sorry but this is too far. To say you cant express your views in religion to your own children is ridiculous. This is indoctrination, not allowing the children to question the religion they are being thought, or at least if they do ask questions, only give one side of a very large story. I know you said this is a no go area at the moment but I really think not allowing all sides of the story to be given is extremely unfair and you should stand your ground on this more. It seems as though she is going for a no comprimise approach which is hardly very fair at all.

robindch

eblistic wrote: »

if the system is discriminatory and we play the game rather than resist and object are we not partly to blame for sustaining the problem for future generations?

Playing the game doesn't mean that you think the rules are fair -- Thierry Henri's handball, eh?

In the end, you've to decide whether your own political views are more important to you than the risk that your kid may be denied access to a school. As a parent, I think the kids come first, so if I lived in an area where there were every school was controlled by one religion or another, I wouldn't have any problem heading down to the least disagreeable religious outfit to undergo whatever silly initiation rite they used.

eblistic

robindch wrote: »

In the end, you've to decide whether your own political views are more important to you than the risk that your kid may be denied access to a school.

Well personally I find the labelling argument around signing your unwitting child up as a Christian quite compelling and it's entirely centred around the child's interests. I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as the parents' imposing their own political views. It is, in fact, an attempt to do the complete opposite. I wouldn't want my child to be considered an atheist from birth either.

DinoBot

robindch wrote: »

Playing the game doesn't mean that you think the rules are fair -- Thierry Henri's handball, eh?

In the end, you've to decide whether your own political views are more important to you than the risk that your kid may be denied access to a school. As a parent, I think the kids come first, so if I lived in an area where there were every school was controlled by one religion or another, I wouldn't have any problem heading down to the least disagreeable religious outfit to undergo whatever silly initiation rite they used.

I actually hear this point of view a lot but never believe it. Its easy to say it when the religion your letting your child take on is close to your own. what if all the best schools in your area were run by strict Sunni Muslims.

Are you telling me you would allow your daughter take part in a silly initiation rite to Islam and wear the bee keeper hat scarf to school just to get into a school ?

I bet you would travel as far as it would take to go to a 'normal' school.

I think people should stand up against such oppression.

Turtwig

DinoBot wrote: »

I actually hear this point of view a lot but never believe it. Its easy to say it when the religion your letting your child take on is close to your own. what if all the best schools in your area were run by strict Sunni Muslims.

Are you telling me you would allow your daughter take part in a silly initiation rite to Islam and wear the bee keeper hat scarf to school just to get into a school ?

I bet you would travel as far as it would take to go to a 'normal' school.

I think people should stand up against such oppression.

Your next post better be in A&A:D

WooPeeA

I would describe myself as an agnostic with open mind. I can't and don't even try to say anything about God because as most of agnostics believe there's no evidence for anything. There is nothing that could confirm existence of God but there is also nothing that could confirm that God or Gods doesn't exist.

I do like however to study religions and to have knowledge about them, not because I want to find the only true light or anything like that but because it simply helps to understand this world, behavior of people, cultures and history.

My second half is undecided. She rejects all religions for sure but she believes in some life after death. But when I ask her why, she always says "It's easer to go throughout live believing in something than to live in fear" which is very understandable for me.

robindch

eblistic wrote: »

Well personally I find the labelling argument around signing your unwitting child up as a Christian quite compelling and it's entirely centred around the child's interests. I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as the parents' imposing their own political views. It is, in fact, an attempt to do the complete opposite. I wouldn't want my child to be considered an atheist from birth either.

I'm not sure that I follow what you mean here -- can you clarify?

DinoBot wrote: »

Its easy to say it when the religion your letting your child take on is close to your own. what if all the best schools in your area were run by strict Sunni Muslims. Are you telling me you would allow your daughter take part in a silly initiation rite to Islam and wear the bee keeper hat scarf to school just to get into a school? I bet you would travel as far as it would take to go to a 'normal' school.

I'm not sure if you read all of the earlier post, but I wasn't referring to a situation in which access to just the "best schools" is controlled by religious organizations, but one in which every school is controlled. In which case, as I said, I wouldn't have any problem heading down to the least disagreeable one to take part in whatever fake initiation rite they used (unless they were all execrable, in which case I imagine I'd have left the area years before).

DinoBot wrote: »

I think people should stand up against such oppression.

And end up -- say if you're living down the country -- with a forty-mile drive every morning and every evening back and forth to the nearest irreligious school?

Out of interest, do you have kids yourself, and have you had to make this decision for real?

Sofiztikated

Robindch, I agree. All the schools around here are religion orientated, and unfortunately, while I may not agree with it, there isn't much I will be able to do, as I want my future children to be educated.

I will be teaching them to question why, and why not, but the way I see it, it's a part of their education. A different part, but I can teach them about my views as well. Information is knowledge. And knowledge, well, knowledge is a dangerous thing, but anyway.

DinoBot

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, do you have kids yourself, and have you had to make this decision for real?

Yep, 3 boys. Although I wouldnt call it hardship but we could never send the kids to any of the local schools during their primary education. But the longest was a 1 hour car journey each day to school.

I think eblistic summed it up perfectly. If you play the game its just sustaining the problem for future generations.

You cant just complain and do nothing. If more people stood up to be counted the process would be moving much faster than it is now. But things are changing for the better.

But I get the feeling its more complicated than that. Are people still afraid not get their kids baptized ? so having the excuse of schools is handy?
I'm not sure.

Sofiztikated

DinoBot wrote: »

Yep, 3 boys. Although I wouldnt call it hardship but we could never send the kids to any of the local schools during their primary education. But the longest was a 1 hour car journey each day to school.

I think eblistic summed it up perfectly. If you play the game its just sustaining the problem for future generations.

You cant just complain and do nothing. If more people stood up to be counted the process would be moving much faster than it is now. But things are changing for the better.

But I get the feeling its more complicated than that. Are people still afraid not get their kids baptized ? so having the excuse of schools is handy?
I'm not sure.

Yes, people are afraid not to get their kids baptised. However, the school excuse is not the reason my kids will eventually be baptised. As I said, its my fiancees wish to have them baptised, so thats whats happening.

eblistic

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure that I follow what you mean here -- can you clarify?

Well, the labelling argument I refer to is that put forward by the British Humanists in their latest ad campaign. It's advocating leaving the child free from the labels the parents might apply (or have applied) to themselves till the kid's old enough to understand what these things mean. This is 100% in the interest of the child and nobody else.

(By the way, I've no desire to try to tell anyone else how to raise their kids so apologies if that's how it comes across. It's just my own view when it comes to my own children. The ads may have that going against them possibly.)

Dr. Loon

herbiemcc wrote: »

Like when talking about raising children she says i have to put up and shut up for 18 years and that's it - end of discussion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was raised protestant and she's a half-arsed catholic. I wouldn't even mind as much if she was really devout but when kids are asking the healthy, logical questions like I did at their age I have to give them either bull, fobbing off answers (like i got) or say ask your mother. For 18 years. Yeah i can't wait for that.

There's no middle ground either. I have to tow the party line or she likens it to saying there's no santa or something. I remember enjoying xmas a lot more than sunday school, church or any of the other odd, vague, bizarre religious experiences through life. I think with good parenting the big god boogeyman isn't really necessary.

I'm sorry but this is completely out of order on your girlfriend's behalf, and I'd seriously question her faith in YOU on this. Censoring your childs life? I don't think so. I'd actually consider this a relationship maker or breaker issue if it was myself in that situation.