A la carte vs devout and treatement of atheists

Sulla Felix

Inspired by Birrocs thread, I thought this could merit discussion.

I, and others apparently, have found that so a la carte Catholics to be a lot intolerant of my lack of belief than the apparently devout.

Time and again, in arguements, it's the people who don't go to mass, do the bare minimum that are vehement in their views. The few people in my family, usually older, who still regularly go to mass have a much more laissez faire pov.

I've half an idea that it's a threat issue. The devout are secure in their faith and no amount of atheists around them is going to change that. With the others though, whether they have doubts is one thing, but there must be a definite self-knowledge that according to their own Churchs doctrine, they are sorely lacking in their behaviour.

Any thoughts?

Galvasean

I'd tend to agree. Most challenges to my atheism come from ala carte 'Catholics' (and sometimes from what I call 'militant agnostics'). People who are proper religious (regular mass goers, follow the rules etc.) seem happy enough to leave me be for the most part (apart from the megaphone crackpots and door to door fundies, but they are a different story. They harass everyone.)
I also think it's down to ala cartes not being truly comfortaqble with their faith and using attack as a form of defence.

philologos

To be honest, most of the time when I discuss any form of faith is when someone else asks me about it or mentions it in a discussion. Whether that's at work or in social settings. If someone brings it up, then I will discuss it, or if someone makes X claim about Christianity I'll feel free to chip in at that point.

If someone asks me what I did at the weekend, I do mention that I go to church on Sundays, but I don't see that as shoving Christianity into a conversation. If I'm asked about what I did at the weekend saying I went to church is simply a truthful statement.

VinLieger

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd tend to agree. Most challenges to my atheism come from ala carte 'Catholics' (and sometimes from what I call 'militant agnostics'). People who are proper religious (regular mass goers, follow the rules etc.) seem happy enough to leave me be for the most part (apart from the megaphone crackpots and door to door fundies, but they are a different story. They harass everyone.)
I also think it's down to ala cartes not being truly comfortaqble with their faith and using attack as a form of defence.

Curious as to what you what you think of as militant agnostic as its usually how i humorously describe myself when questioned on religion, it tends to confuse people which is the objective

Galvasean

VinLieger wrote: »

Curious as to what you what you think of as militant agnostic as its usually how i humorously describe myself when questioned on religion, it tends to confuse people which is the objective

It's the term I made up to describe people who start threads in A&A dismissing atheists as arrogant/close minded etc. for not being open to the idea of a God and refusing to accept that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Dades

My in-laws slag me and joke about stuff like one on my kids being in a nativity play. It's all good natured fun, though.

But nobody ever shows any intolerance of my beliefs.

HHobo

philologos wrote: »

If someone asks me what I did at the weekend, I do mention that I go to church on Sundays, but I don't see that as shoving Christianity into a conversation. If I'm asked about what I did at the weekend saying I went to church is simply a truthful statement.

The only thing about that Phil is that it is wilfully ignoring the usual mode in which the question is asked.
Presumably you also eat dinner on weekends but don't feel the need to mention this rather boring event.
The question is almost exclusively asked under the assumption that it is things of note and particularly entertainment activities that you engaged in that are under discussion. I think you may be a little more interested in pointing out your religiousity that you let on.

fitz0

I'd agree with the OP on the a la carte Catholics and their attitudes towards lack of belief. I've always thought of this as an extension to their clutching at Catholic straws. I wonder if they hang onto a belief in 'something' because they find nothing too hard to grasp or too terrifying or for some other existential reason and they genuinely can't contemplate the world from an atheistic standpoint. So they cling to a belief, in this case cultural Catholicism, as something that's rooted in tradition and our culture.

'S only my opinion though.

philologos

HHobo wrote: »

The only thing about that Phil is that it is wilfully ignoring the usual mode in which the question is asked.
Presumably you also eat dinner on weekends but don't feel the need to mention this rather boring event.
The question is almost exclusively asked under the assumption that it is things of note and particularly entertainment activities that you engaged in that are under discussion. I think you may be a little more interested in pointing out your religiousity that you let on.

Going to church is significant and of note to me in a way that eating dinner on the weekends isn't. Or if I'm at small group at church the night before, I'll mention it if I'm asked about what I did yesterday by a colleague.

It's what defines me as a human being. I generally don't mention it otherwise unless it's brought up in conversation.

Or is that OTT too?
Why should I intentionally lie to people about who I am? If I hid the fact I was a Christian from my colleagues or anyone else it would imply shame of some form.

Zillah

I don't know any devout Catholics and the A La Carte ones have learned to leave the topic alone because they are sick of learning new things about their religion and how bad a job they are doing of keeping up with it.

o1s1n

philologos wrote: »

If I hid the fact I was a Christian from my colleagues or anyone else it would imply shame of some form.

Never hide who you are from anyone.

However, people tend to throw out general questions about what you did over the weekend to start up a conversation about such events. A lot of the time it would be because you are acquaintances and it's an easy starting point.

Religion is generally something people don't really want to discuss when throwing out conversation starters like that among acquaintances - it's a little too personal.

I know it would make me uncomfortable anyway. Not because I would have an issue with you having a belief, but I would be skeptical as to why you would bring up something so personal with an acquaintance (and if I wanted to be extra skeptical, I would think you were using it as a starting point to begin discussing religion with me)

padd b1975

Dades wrote: »

But nobody ever shows any intolerance of my beliefs.

Is that not a good thing?

Why the sad face?

Sarky

Dades is actually a machine that feeds off suffering and the hatred of others.

LeinsterDub

Every Catholic is A la carte.

fitz0

Context

seamus

I view it much like the argument that the most vocal homophobes are likely to be homosexuals themselves, overtly attacking homosexuality so as to convince themselves (and others) that because they hate homosexuals so much, the couldn't possibly be one.

Those who tend to make the most outspoken attacks on atheists and find themselves annoyed by atheists in my experience tend to be the same ones who are the least secure in their own beliefs. No doubt attacking atheism in the hope that it will strengthen their "faith".

I should clarify that I'm referring to people who seek out atheists for debate/attack. I'm not saying that anyone who defends religion from criticism is latently atheist.

In groups, a la carte Catholics tend to dismiss atheists with quantity rather than quality, everyone firing comments/questions at the atheist, comfortable to have the group backup. One-to-one they're much weaker and will shy away when you start to scratch the surface, calling it "far too heavy a subject for a Monday night".

Gurgle

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Every Catholic is A la carte.

So is every member of every religion.

Its kinda unavoidable when your holy book goes out of date and can't be modernized without admitting its wrong. The only option is to re-interpret (or outright ignore) the crazier bits.

LeinsterDub

fitz0 wrote: »

Context

Believers in all religions pick and choose. So it's not so much A la carte vs devout its A la carte vs even more a la carte

lazygal

I've found the devout Catholics who actually believe even the more unsavory elements of the teachings are more in tune with why me and my family opt out of things like a church wedding, christenings, communions and the like. They respect the fact we don't believe any of it and agree that if you don't like or follow the rules, you'd don't join the club or involve children in it.

However, there's a massive cohort of a la carte Irish Catholics who simply don't seem to get why you wouldn't have a church wedding and do all the 'normal' stuff they did. I don't know whether they haven't thought about why they do the communions or church weddings or whether its simply beyond their understanding that you wouldn't do them. I recently had a conversation with a woman I know who's just gotten engaged and said she booked the church. She said she wasn't one bit religious and resented the rules of the priest with music and readings and thought having to do a premarriage course was silly, but when I told her she didn't have to have a church wedding the look of incredulity was hilarious.

I'm finding it harder and harder to put up with this kind of thing, like being asked to christenings when the parents aren't married so obviously didn't follow the no sex before marriage rule, or communions when they family don't ever go to mass, or weddings when one person is a self described atheist but had a church wedding because their other half didn't want to upset her granny with a non church affair.

I have more respect for a woman I know through a friend, who isn't going through with IVF because its against Catholic teachings so is going the adoption route, to me that's being a more faithful Catholic. I can't understand it but I can respect it, but the most recent wedding I was at where the bride was pregnant walking up the isle and had a son as a pageboy? I have little or no time when people like that want their 'faith' facilitated by the school system.

philologos

o1s1n wrote: »

Never hide who you are from anyone.

However, people tend to throw out general questions about what you did over the weekend to start up a conversation about such events. A lot of the time it would be because you are acquaintances and it's an easy starting point.

Religion is generally something people don't really want to discuss when throwing out conversation starters like that among acquaintances - it's a little too personal.

I know it would make me uncomfortable anyway. Not because I would have an issue with you having a belief, but I would be skeptical as to why you would bring up something so personal with an acquaintance (and if I wanted to be extra skeptical, I would think you were using it as a starting point to begin discussing religion with me)

Rarely if ever does it get theological. I mention I went to church as a passing point. Sometimes people ask more sometimes they don't.

Dades

padd b1975 wrote: »

Is that not a good thing?
Why the sad face?

Because I enjoy defending my disbelief, but would never instigate a discussion about religion outside of this forum!

Bannasidhe

All I can say is that my devoutly Catholic Grandmother was my staunchest ally when it came to my openly declaring myself an Atheist aged 11.

It annoyed her that people who didn't believe were so hypocritical as to pick and choose and felt that if they didn't agree with the doctrines of the Catholic Church they should find a denomination they did agree with and stop lying.

She greatly admired those who were honest about their lack of belief and refusal to 'play the game'.

After one trip to Lourdes she was full of praise for a man she met who was open about his Atheism but had brought his devout Great-Aunt to Lourdes because she believed. To my Grandmother the non-believer was the only person she had met there who displayed 'so-called Christian'(her words) charity.

VinLieger

Galvasean wrote: »

It's the term I made up to describe people who start threads in A&A dismissing atheists as arrogant/close minded etc. for not being open to the idea of a God and refusing to accept that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Ahh right i made it up as a fun way to describe myself as an agnostic who doesnt really care, but im very serious about not caring :P

Talking about a la carte catholics, a friend recently had a baby with his girlfriend, neither of whom would be fairly religous yet they chose to get it christened/baptised etc. Now i would never openly criticise/question them about it as it has nothing to do with me how they raise the child but its just bizarre to me as he has absolutely no time for the church in that he just doesnt care about religion yet hes willing to get his child baptised?

Dades

VinLieger wrote: »

Talking about a la carte catholics, a friend recently had a baby with his girlfriend, neither of whom would be fairly religous yet they chose to get it christened/baptised etc. Now i would never openly criticise/question them about it as it has nothing to do with me how they raise the child but its just bizarre to me as he has absolutely no time for the church in that he just doesnt care about religion yet hes willing to get his child baptised?

Maybe they're concerned about getting the child into a school.

Galvasean

VinLieger wrote: »

Talking about a la carte catholics, a friend recently had a baby with his girlfriend, neither of whom would be fairly religous yet they chose to get it christened/baptised etc. Now i would never openly criticise/question them about it as it has nothing to do with me how they raise the child but its just bizarre to me as he has absolutely no time for the church in that he just doesnt care about religion yet hes willing to get his child baptised?

Reminds me of an old schoolfriend of mine wwho had a baby a while back. She was very annoyed that the local church couldn't get her a baptism on the date of her choosing. It seemed hypocritical to me that she was complaining about the church when she had a kid outside of wedlock and hadn't set foot in a church in years (heck, last time we spoke she didn't even believe in God).

VinLieger

Dades wrote: »

Maybe they're concerned about getting the child into a school.

Galvasean wrote: »

Reminds me of an old schoolfriend of mine wwho had a baby a while back. She was very annoyed that the local church couldn't get her a baptism on the date of her choosing. It seemed hypocritical to me that she was complaining about the church when she had a kid outside of wedlock and hadn't set foot in a church in years (heck, last time we spoke she didn't even believe in God).

The school thing could well be the issue but my guess is its the a la carte grandparents who might be responsible in most cases like this

miss no stars

seamus wrote: »

Those who tend to make the most outspoken attacks on atheists and find themselves annoyed by atheists in my experience tend to be the same ones who are the least secure in their own beliefs. No doubt attacking atheism in the hope that it will strengthen their "faith".

Empty vessels.

I also think that those atheists (mostly teenagers) who go around actively seeking believers out with the aim of destroying their faith in (a) god(s) are also quite insecure in the same manner, whether through a sneeking suspicion that god's really watching, or through people saying "ah sure it's just a phase, they'll be back at mass in a year or two".

People who are secure about something don't go around attacking others for having a differing view, regardless of what their own view is.

lazygal wrote: »

I've found the devout Catholics who actually believe even the more unsavory elements of the teachings are more in tune with why me and my family opt out of things like a church wedding, christenings, communions and the like. They respect the fact we don't believe any of it and agree that if you don't like or follow the rules, you'd don't join the club or involve children in it.

However, there's a massive cohort of a la carte Irish Catholics who simply don't seem to get why you wouldn't have a church wedding and do all the 'normal' stuff they did. I don't know whether they haven't thought about why they do the communions or church weddings or whether its simply beyond their understanding that you wouldn't do them. I recently had a conversation with a woman I know who's just gotten engaged and said she booked the church. She said she wasn't one bit religious and resented the rules of the priest with music and readings and thought having to do a premarriage course was silly, but when I told her she didn't have to have a church wedding the look of incredulity was hilarious.

I'm finding it harder and harder to put up with this kind of thing, like being asked to christenings when the parents aren't married so obviously didn't follow the no sex before marriage rule, or communions when they family don't ever go to mass, or weddings when one person is a self described atheist but had a church wedding because their other half didn't want to upset her granny with a non church affair.

I have more respect for a woman I know through a friend, who isn't going through with IVF because its against Catholic teachings so is going the adoption route, to me that's being a more faithful Catholic. I can't understand it but I can respect it, but the most recent wedding I was at where the bride was pregnant walking up the isle and had a son as a pageboy? I have little or no time when people like that want their 'faith' facilitated by the school system.

Agree completely with everything except the bit underlined. Marriage is about give and take. If the OH wants a church wedding, who says the atheist's view should trump that? The way I look at that one is, church or no church doesn't affect whether the atheist comes out of it feeling properly married, but it can have a huge impact on someone who does genuinely believe in god (irrespective of religious observance, I'm talking about belief here). I know a girl who got married recently to a man who hadn't even been baptised and they had a church wedding. I can't remember the details (they were lost on me tbh) but the priest did one sort of ceremony for her and something else for him. They had the wedding in the church but technically he was only participating in the legal wedding, whilst she got some sort of blessing (sacrament?). She did say that she knew the priest from way back, so it's probably harder for most people to organise something like that meaning it's just easier to go along with it for the day. I find it hard to believe that a reasonable person who actually loves and cares about the person they're marrying wouldn't make that (very small) sacrifice to keep the person they love happy. Not to mention the in-laws!

Gbear

I think another factor with obnoxious atheist teenagers is that
1) They could just be obnoxious teenagers. They could just as easily be acting obnoxious about something else
2) They're excited to have found out about a new thing and that usually generates a bit of zeal - whether it's a new restaurant or a new way you live your life, people tend to get a bit excited when some novelty appears in their lives.

GarIT

miss no stars wrote: »

I also think that those atheists (mostly teenagers) who go around actively seeking believers out with the aim of destroying their faith in (a) god(s) are also quite insecure in the same manner, whether through a sneeking suspicion that god's really watching, or through people saying "ah sure it's just a phase, they'll be back at mass in a year or two".

The start is probably an accurate description of me. But im not insecure, maybe niave because because there's some part of me that thinks I can save the world from evil people like priests. I can see that religion causes so much harm and I try to help people by proving that religion (generally christanity) is stupid, it's not that I have any insecurity, I know there is no being that created the world and I can show you the maths that proves you can't walk on water so I have no doubt or reason to question. I have just seen lives destroyed by religion, read about millions of lives that were destroyed by religion and I want to try to stop people that I care about adding to the destruction.

Mark Hamill

miss no stars wrote: »

People who are secure about something don't go around attacking others for having a differing view, regardless of what their own view is.

Sure they do, science is based,no, requires it. The problem is people doing what you are doing here, equating attacking a viewpoint, with attacking a person.

miss no stars wrote: »

Marriage is about give and take. If the OH wants a church wedding, who says the atheist's view should trump that?

Its funny how people say this, but then assume its always the atheist who should give in relationships. You're forgetting that there is two OHs in a marriage, so your statement here can be equally written as:
If the OH doesn't wants a church wedding, who says the theist's view should trump that?

miss no stars wrote: »

The way I look at that one is, church or no church doesn't affect whether the atheist comes out of it feeling properly married, but it can have a huge impact on someone who does genuinely believe in god

Since when? I wouldn't feel right getting married in a church, specially not by some celibate old man (the least qualified type of person to be presiding over someone elses romantic relationship).
And if the theist in the relationship really believed in god then they wouldn't be marrying an atheist.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And if the theist in the relationship really believed in god then they wouldn't be marrying an atheist.

Why not?

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why not?

Why not, indeed. Love can conquer all, surely?

Peregrinus

Well, yes. Plus, it does strike me that it would have made about as much sense for Mark to suggest that if the atheist in the relationship were really sincere then they wouldn't be marrying a theist.

Is there a tiny irony here? The thread is about theists' tolerance of/respect for athiests, but does Mark's post suggest that the question could equally be put the other way around? Is he suggesting that sincere theists must be intolerant of atheists, at least to the extent of excluding them as potential marriage partners? And is this evidence that Mark himself is lacking in tolerance/respect for theists (in that he attributes intolerance to them as a class)? Say it ain't so, Mark!

Zillah

If someone genuinely believed that I was defying the will of God and condemning myself to an eternity of suffering...it seems ludicrous to think they would be ok with that and happily marry me.

Obviously most people don't really believe what they claim to believe.

Peregrinus

Zillah wrote: »

If someone genuinely believed that I was defying the will of God and condemning myself to an eternity of suffering...it seems ludicrous to think they would be ok with that and happily marry me.

And, again, is Zillah demonstrating intolerance of and a lack of respect for theists by impliedly attributing to them, as a class, the view that atheists are defying the will of God and condemning themselves to an eternity of suffering? This isn't a mainstream theistic position in Ireland.

Zillah wrote: »

Obviously most people don't really believe what they claim to believe.

Actually, the issue here is that most people don't believe what Zillah claims they believe. But, then, why should they?

stanley 2

seamus wrote: »

I view it much like the argument that the most vocal homophobes are likely to be homosexuals themselves, overtly attacking homosexuality so as to convince themselves (and others) that because they hate homosexuals so much, the couldn't possibly be one.

Those who tend to make the most outspoken attacks on atheists and find themselves annoyed by atheists in my experience tend to be the same ones who are the least secure in their own beliefs. No doubt attacking atheism in the hope that it will strengthen their "faith".

I should clarify that I'm referring to people who seek out atheists for debate/attack. I'm not saying that anyone who defends religion from criticism is latently atheist.

In groups, a la carte Catholics tend to dismiss atheists with quantity rather than quality, everyone firing comments/questions at the atheist, comfortable to have the group backup. One-to-one they're much weaker and will shy away when you start to scratch the surface, calling it "far too heavy a subject for a Monday night".

thinking about this line of taught would this make people who speak out against pedophile s likly to be pedophile

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes. Plus, it does strike me that it would have made about as much sense for Mark to suggest that if the atheist in the relationship were really sincere then they wouldn't be marrying a theist.

Is there a tiny irony here? The thread is about theists' tolerance of/respect for athiests, but does Mark's post suggest that the question could equally be put the other way around? Is he suggesting that sincere theists must be intolerant of atheists, at least to the extent of excluding them as potential marriage partners? And is this evidence that Mark himself is lacking in tolerance/respect for theists (in that he attributes intolerance to them as a class)? Say it ain't so, Mark!

No Mark's post doesn't. By the by, it makes perfect sense that people marry those with a similar philosophy or belief system to their own. I don't think it makes someone intolerant if they are a Christian for example and think that they should marry another Christian. Choosing how to marry is extremely important and will impact your day to day life, it should be considered very seriously.

I disagree that Mark is intolerant. He's simply pointing out one of the many potential issues that could arise in a relationship between a Christian (even if nominal) and an atheist.

Peregrinus

No, Mark doesn't seem (to me) to be saying that a theist might have concerns about marrying an atheist; he's saying that a theist must have such concerns, and that those concerns must be so strong that a real theist would not marry an atheist.

Obviously, disagreement about fundamental beliefs is going to be an issue in any marriage, but it seems to me that it's an issue for the theist and the atheist alike. But Mark presents it as an issue which it is impossible for a theist to negotiate while remaining true to his theistm, while he makes no similar assertion about an atheist.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, Mark doesn't seem (to me) to be saying that a theist might have concerns about marrying an atheist; he's saying that a theist must have such concerns, and that those concerns must be so strong that a real theist would not marry an atheist.

Obviously, disagreement about fundamental beliefs is going to be an issue in any marriage, but it seems to me that it's an issue for the theist and the atheist alike. But Mark presents it as an issue which it is impossible for a theist to negotiate while remaining true to his theistm, while he makes no similar assertion about an atheist.

I think a Christian very strongly ought to have such concerns when committing to marry an unbeliever. I'd say in practically 100% of cases it would be best for a Christian to marry a Christian.

I think Mark's point was very simple. Why must it be the atheist who has to give deference to some form of religion ny marrying in a place of worship over the believer giving deference to atheism. It's an entirely valid question. It's one of the primary reasons I support marrying within faiths.

It's not intolerant to not wish to participate in a church wedding if you don't believe. You're not stopping other people. Just you won't participate.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, again, is Zillah demonstrating intolerance of and a lack of respect for theists by impliedly attributing to them, as a class, the view that atheists are defying the will of God and condemning themselves to an eternity of suffering? This isn't a mainstream theistic position in Ireland.

Actually, the issue here is that most people don't believe what Zillah claims they believe. But, then, why should they?

Biblical Christianity is quite clear that the only way to salvation is Jesus and the only name under which can be saved is Jesus. He stood in our place on the cross from this perspective, in John's gospel Jesus makes clear that the one who doesn't believe is condemned already (John 3:18).

It's a tough truth from my perspective and why I long all the more for those who don't believe that they would know Jesus and be saved.

I think you're right that most people in Ireland don't believe what Jesus said theist or not.

Peregrinus

I didn't (and still don't) read Mark's comments as relating to whether an atheist and a theist should marry in church, but rather whether they should marry at all - his point being that a theist-atheist marriage (wherever celebrated) cast doubt upon the sincerity of the theist but not, apparently, on the sincerity of the atheist.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't (and still don't) read Mark's comments as relating to whether an atheist and a theist should marry in church, but rather whether they should marry at all - his point being that a theist-atheist marriage (wherever celebrated) cast doubt upon the sincerity of the theist but not, apparently, on the sincerity of the atheist.

Why would it cast doubt on the sincerity of the atheist? Atheism isn't a religion, it has no formal creeds. There are logical implications of being an atheist on worldview but none on behaviour or on who one ought to marry.

On the other hand the Bible strongly advises one to marry a believer.

So Mark's entirely right (as hard as it is to believe I said that ) to say that it casts doubt on the Christian at least.

Dades

stanley 2 wrote: »

thinking about this line of taught would this make people who speak out against pedophile s likly to be pedophile

No.

There are victims of pedophilia, therefore for all to condemn it is completely justified. There's no victim in a consensual homosexual relationship which begs the question as to why so many feel they have to protect society from it, and are often overtly vocal about it.

That said, personally I don't subscribe to the notion that hoards of vocal anti-gay protesters are secretly gay, though no doubt some are. Tad Haggard are you listening?!

Gurgle

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And if the theist in the relationship really believed in god then they wouldn't be marrying an atheist.

They're grand, its covered somewhere in the bibley thingy:

"Wives, if your husband is an unbeliever and he leaves then let him go. But if he stays then stay with him for he will be sanctified by your faith"

... or something to that effect.

miss no stars

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sure they do, science is based,no, requires it. The problem is people doing what you are doing here, equating attacking a viewpoint, with attacking a person.

Not quite. Religion is based on blind faith. Science is based on forming a hypothesis based on what's already known and testing that hypothesis. I was referring to those who go around attacking the person, rather than the belief, which to me is absolutely abhorrent. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Personally I don't see that anyone benefits from actively trying to destroy someone's beliefs if they weren't already questioning anything. If someone's a nice person who happens to believe in god and gets happiness and security from that, who is anyone to attack them for it and try to take that away from them?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its funny how people say this, but then assume its always the atheist who should give in relationships. You're forgetting that there is two OHs in a marriage, so your statement here can be equally written as:
If the OH doesn't wants a church wedding, who says the theist's view should trump that?


Since when? I wouldn't feel right getting married in a church, specially not by some celibate old man (the least qualified type of person to be presiding over someone elses romantic relationship).
And if the theist in the relationship really believed in god then they wouldn't be marrying an atheist.

My point was that for many atheists, getting married in a church isn't a deal breaker - it's just a venue that keeps the other half happy. I'm sure if someone with very mild beliefs was marrying a very militant atheist it would be the other way around - no church to keep the OH happy! I never said that all atheists should relent to their partners' wishes and get married in a church, just that for many - what difference does it make other than a happy/unhappy OH? It's called being reasonable. If one partner has very strong opinions in one direction and the other has differing beliefs but wouldn't be put out by going with what the first wants, why have an argument over it?

seamus

stanley 2 wrote: »

thinking about this line of taught would this make people who speak out against pedophile s likly to be pedophile

And people who speak out about rape are inherent rapists and people who speak out about murder are wanna murderers?

Eh, no. That's a straw man fallacy. As Dades points out, paedophilia causes injury, it has a victim. It is something where each of has the potential to be injured by it. Thus we are justified in speaking out against it.

Homosexuality and atheism on the other hand are things which do not have the potential to cause injury to the individual. Unless that individual feels that they could potentially be homosexual or atheist and feels that these are "wrong". In which case they will speak out against it.

ShooterSF

There is a stage in one's discovery of atheism (at least for me there was) when you can feel like you've just escaped a very convincing con man's tricks and of course you are going to want to try and help others to see through it. You believe that they like you will only be delighted for your help. I think that's true of any change in belief system, for example, you see how born again religious can be quite evangelical, it's the same base motivation even if it's coming from a different angle.
In this country I'd say it's even more likely people becoming atheists will be vocal as many will have been brought up from an early age being told by everyone that catholicism is true and to find out that, at best, that's a dubious statement is rather infuriating to people.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't a mainstream theistic position in Ireland.

If you don't believe in god, you don't get into heaven. Thats the basis of pretty much all religions everywhere. A theist who marries an atheist must, at some stage, recognise that that atheist is not getting into heaven, that at some time the theist and atheist are going to be separated forever. I don't see how a theist could be comfortable marrying someone knowing that that person will not get to spend eternity in heaven with them.

Mark Hamill

miss no stars wrote: »

Not quite. Religion is based on blind faith. Science is based on forming a hypothesis based on what's already known and testing that hypothesis.

Science starts with forming hypothesis, but the next step is to "attack" those hypothesis to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

miss no stars wrote: »

I was referring to those who go around attacking the person, rather than the belief, which to me is absolutely abhorrent. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Personally I don't see that anyone benefits from actively trying to destroy someone's beliefs if they weren't already questioning anything. If someone's a nice person who happens to believe in god and gets happiness and security from that, who is anyone to attack them for it and try to take that away from them?

Because no-one has any religious belief that exists in complete isolation from their any other beliefs or actions. Its people like those you describe, who just believe in god for security, that do things like call themselves catholic on the census despite being no such thing (and probably actively disliking the church) or tell people who call for secular education that "it did me no harm" or "go to a different school" (as if thats always an option). These people are the dull masses that stagnate any needed change towards secularism, they are worse the minority of anti-secularist religious fundies.

Look at it in terms of the theist marrying the atheist in a church. How many people in this country actually want a religious marriage, as opposed to a traditional marriage? How many theists would be happy with a completely non religious marriage that ticks the boxes like big, impressive hall and personal ceremony? But if we want to allow marriages to happen wherever the couple actually want, with whatever ceremony they want, who do you think would be the biggest obstacle to bringing in the legislation? Who's going to say "ah sure, you have to get married in a church, this is a catholic country"?

Should they be expected to defend their beliefs every minute of every day, from all kinds of attack, (valid, obnoxious or otherwise)? No, there is a time and place for everything. And a cordial level of discussion should be maintained if a reasonable outcome is expected.
But this notion that they get to hold onto their safety blankets while smothering everyone with them? These people need to grow up.

miss no stars wrote: »

If one partner has very strong opinions in one direction and the other has differing beliefs but wouldn't be put out by going with what the first wants, why have an argument over it?

There shouldn't be. And I'm not against compromises. My point was just that its always assumed that its the theist who strongly believes, while the atheist has no strong opinion.

Hotblack Desiato

miss no stars wrote: »

I was referring to those who go around attacking the person, rather than the belief, which to me is absolutely abhorrent. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Okay, but do you really see that happening? It's a favourite straw man argument of some theists that there are hordes of atheists roaming the streets looking for poor innocent believers to attack and insult. Questioning the basis of a religion is not the same thing as attacking or insulting believers, although a lot of them seem to think it is.

Personally I don't see that anyone benefits from actively trying to destroy someone's beliefs if they weren't already questioning anything. If someone's a nice person who happens to believe in god and gets happiness and security from that, who is anyone to attack them for it and try to take that away from them?

You can't destroy a belief or take it away from them. They can only do that themselves (and some will cling more strongly to it the more that belief is criticised.) Many people who were brought up as catholics in Ireland do not have a good understanding of what the RCC and the bible are really about, pointing out the inherent contradictions etc. may plant a seed that leads to someone eventually questioning their belief. But that's a path they have to walk down for themselves if they choose to do so.

Cultural catholics don't really give a damn, they just want to go along with the flow and not have to put any real effort into going to mundane ceremonies (as opposed to weddings, Xmas, baptisms, etc) or living their life in accordance with doctrines or to think about what their beliefs actually are. They don't want to come out of their comfort zone, and don't have a strong enough belief to justify it to themselves if they did start to question it.

My point was that for many atheists, getting married in a church isn't a deal breaker - it's just a venue that keeps the other half happy.

It would be for me, thankfully my OH is on the same page. I've dated cultural catholics who went to mass when they went home to their parents, but a regular churchgoer/active believer would end up wrecking my head (or I'd have ended up wrecking theirs.)

I'm sure if someone with very mild beliefs was marrying a very militant atheist it would be the other way around - no church to keep the OH happy!

'Militant atheist'? Oh dear. We don't call convinced belivers 'militant christians' do we?

I never said that all atheists should relent to their partners' wishes and get married in a church, just that for many - what difference does it make other than a happy/unhappy OH?

Many / most atheists detest the power/influence of organisations like the RCC and want to have no part in the perpetuation of their power and influence. Just going along with the flow means that nothing will change, it will continue to be expected of everyone to conform with the RCC, get their children baptised, send them to RC school, 'do' the sacraments, church wedding, church funeral. The vast majority of parents have no secular school option. In many parts of Ireland there is not even a secular graveyard. Secular of course meaning catering to those of all religions and none.

It's called being reasonable. If one partner has very strong opinions in one direction and the other has differing beliefs but wouldn't be put out by going with what the first wants, why have an argument over it?

Most catholics in Ireland are really cultural catholics, with no real belief, so by your reasoning above surely they should be the one to go along with a civil wedding?

Sarky

If only there was some kind of forum where christians could argue about which one of them was right.