Couples with differing views on religion

[7ontheline]

Good posts Jayy and ConstantineX. I am atheist/agnostic, although I agree that there are certainly cultural and personal effects of religion that can contribute to the overall good. My personal view is that religion is a net negative, but it's certainly impossible to truly quantify. I do think that hard-line literal religious types are really annoying and bad for the world in general.

My question to those who are religious but not extremely so is this: (mostly stolen from Sam Harris) - why do you feel you are allowed to re-interpret your religion through your own belief system? I agree with you that it seems more rational to view religion as a framework for your morals, life, etc. rather than as the literal "Word of God." However, if I am not mistaken, nowhere in the Bible, Koran, or whatever does it say that these books are to be used only as guidelines. This reduces your belief to nothing more than your opinion - still valid for your personal judgments, but not valid to apply to anyone else really.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
In any of situation the burden of proof relies on the person saying something IS a certain way.

[/ QUOTE ]

the burden of proof rests w/whoever intends to do the convincing.

if you say there is no god and i say i'm not sure, how is the burden of proof on me?

[Emmitt2222]

This thread basically touches on my life as a whole. My girlfriend is very Catholic and I am more [agnostic] undefined. I have been very Catholic through my whole life and I love the fact that I can look at both sides like many other people can't.

I think that religion can be very, very helpful. I have read a lot of the Sam Harris' and the Charles Dawkins' especially, and I don't agree that religion as a whole is detrimental. I see, for the most part, that Jesus was a very cool guy who understood a great deal about how to interact with people and live life. At the moment, however, I don't believe he is the savior of the world.

My girlfriend may be more understanding than some people because she used to be agnostic and chose in her teen years to choose Catholicism, despite not having strong Catholic parents. I believe she has a decent idea of where I am coming from. So, based on how I know religion can be helpful, I have worked out the agreement with her that we can bring our children up Catholic, but when they are of reason [what I consider around teenage years] I can sit down and tell them about how they are free to choose their own thoughts and beliefs about life.

I think I want to create a compromise wherein kids can have their structure, but not be set to live by it forever. Perhaps my gf will not let me do it when the time comes, or it will backfire, or my kids will hate me so much they won't even want to talk to me, but for now that's the plan. I really do like the conversation, nonetheless, and I think people should have it more often because it is very important.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a fact. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is at a stage where it's about as close as scientists get to fact in this field.

[RustedCorpse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In any of situation the burden of proof relies on the person saying something IS a certain way.

[/ QUOTE ]

the burden of proof rests w/whoever intends to do the convincing.

if you say there is no god and i say i'm not sure, how is the burden of proof on me?

[/ QUOTE ]


The obligation of proof is on the person saying something exists a certain way.
With regards to "I'm not sure" yea that is a conceivable ideal. Am I "sure" god doesn't exist? No, but I do know that logically he can't exist in any status that deserves worship or a modification of my life. At the same time I figure it's also conceivable that none of this is anything more than manifestations of my own head. Seems just as possible, unlikely, but possible. Therefore I said god does not exist, not as an act of faith, but because no one has presented a better explanation.

The problem with raising children under religion is that clergy do brainwash. I'm sorry but it's true. From personal experience I can remember at a young age having very legitimate questions on morality and life that were brushed aside by clergy. Or listening in church to some little side tangent about how such and such people are bad, wrong, misguided with no backing other than some ancient text.

Children are incredibly impressionable at this early age. Assume one of your children ends up being gay, or different in any myriad of ways, you quite probably will cause irrevocable conflicts in his mind.

Just to be clear, quite a few people in this thread call themselves Christian yet "don't believe in the book". A Christian, by an outside definition is anyone who believes that Jesus was the direct son of god, died, rose again, and that the bible is a collection of mandated teachings. If you don't fit those criteria I'm not talking about your mystic quasi-Christianity.

Are there benefits from religion? Some? More through the sense of community, and through individuals realizing that what's written down is nonsense (in regards to stoning people or other methods of punishment) But notice that is the choice of an individual. Not a faith. Without religion people can raise their children with community, strong morals, and a sense of wonder far greater and with less conflict than the teachings of a church.

[RustedCorpse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a fact. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is at a stage where it's about as close as scientists get to fact in this field.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of you are mis-using terms.

Read: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...437/theory.htm

That explains why most ignorant people like to say evolution is "just a theory"

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a fact. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is at a stage where it's about as close as scientists get to fact in this field.

[/ QUOTE ]


In general the term "evolution" is used in place of macroevolution which you state is not a fact. There is a large amount of evidence that is interpreted to support it, but it is still a theory and not an absolute proven fact.

On Microevolution I agree that it is proven that a species can make changes to survive.

My point was simply that dinosaurs existed is a fact. That evolution occured is not a fact.

~FishNChips

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a fact. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is at a stage where it's about as close as scientists get to fact in this field.

[/ QUOTE ]


In general the term "evolution" is used in place of macroevolution which you state is not a fact. There is a large amount of evidence that is interpreted to support it, but it is still a theory and not an absolute proven fact.

On Microevolution I agree that it is proven that a species can make changes to survive.

My point was simply that dinosaurs existed is a fact. That evolution occured is not a fact.

~FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]

Dinosaurs existing is also a theory. God could have easily planted the bones absent the creatures ever existing.

The common retort here is that there are many scientific theories we take as fact.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a fact. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is at a stage where it's about as close as scientists get to fact in this field.

[/ QUOTE ]


In general the term "evolution" is used in place of macroevolution which you state is not a fact. There is a large amount of evidence that is interpreted to support it, but it is still a theory and not an absolute proven fact.

On Microevolution I agree that it is proven that a species can make changes to survive.

My point was simply that dinosaurs existed is a fact. That evolution occured is not a fact.

~FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]

Dinosaurs existing is also a theory. God could have easily planted the bones absent the creatures ever existing.

The common retort here is that there are many scientific theories we take as fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster that I originally quoted was clearly using dinosaurs and evolution as "facts" that he would teach his kid that religious folks wouldn't. My guess is that the he is/was a business major who took a biology class, read that evolution occured, saw pictures of a few fossils and said "yep, that does it for me," and now thinks that anyone who questions it is a moron.

My point was simply that we KNOW that dinosaurs existed we are not able to absolutely prove evolution (as the previous posters linked article agrees). Is it the currently most accepted and most evidenced means for the existance of man, yes. Is it a "fact", no.

Anyhow... I'll drop the argument at this point (you're welcome to rebut this post and I'll concede you the last word) as we're way off topic.

OP - its pretty likely that you're going to run into issues if you are totally against any religion and your wife to be is set on taking the kids to church of some sort.

~FishNChips