Love and Religion

[NeoTheOne]

Should Religion Come In between Love (true love).

[j2k4]

Should Religion Come In between Love (true love).

Should?

Who can tell?

That it often does tells us all there is to know about the circumstance.

I wonder how much of the time it (as an obstacle) wins or loses?

[vidcc]

People of different religious or political beliefs get together and stay happily together all the time. So I would say that it shouldn't.
This doesn't mean it never does.

[j2k4]

People of different religious or political beliefs get together and stay happily together all the time. So I would say that it shouldn't.
This doesn't mean it never does.

Kinda what I said, but lacking the same clarity, and wasting approximately fifteen more letters in the effort. :dabs:

[NeoTheOne]

two people love each other more then anything , there made for each other, the biggest obstacle is religion , what should they do?

[MagicNakor]

In that instance, they ought to be able to work around it.

:shuriken:

[bigboab]

It never affected my marriage or my families marriages.:) Everyone of them are 'mixed' marriages. I have found that very few people are that religious to let it come between them and their partners.

[JPaul]

two people love each other more then anything , there made for each other, the biggest obstacle is religion , what should they do?

If someone has deeply held beliefs (and I include atheism in that) then it is part of who they are. If someone else cannot accept that belief then they do not truly love them. If you love someone then you accept who they are, surely their belief system is what defines that.

I have friends who are a truly mixed marriage. He is bretheren (sp) she is totally atheistic (not an agnostic bone in her body). They have been married for 28 years and love each other deeply. Each knew who the other was when they married and that is who they fell in love with. Warts and all.

[Ava Estelle]

... she is totally atheistic (not an agnostic bone in her body).

This statement brings up an interesting question: What, if any, are the differences between Agnostics and Atheists?

Here's an interesting point of view, one of many.

Atheism vs. Agnosticism (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm)

[Biggles]

Religion is love....and if anyone says otherwise they will be hideously tortured for all eternity.

Simple really :)

[bigboab]

Religion is love....and if anyone says otherwise they will be hideously tortured for all eternity.

Simple really :)

How do you know this? Tell your torturer to type in an answer.:)

[Biggles]

Religion is love....and if anyone says otherwise they will be hideously tortured for all eternity.

Simple really :)

How do you know this? Tell your torturer to type in an answer.:)

He would but he says his hands are a bit messy at the mo. :shifty:

[j2k4]

Warts and all.

Sorry, I can't abide warts. :noes:

[bigboab]

Wrong thread. Siesta time.

[Barbarossa]

Should love (true love) get in the way of religion :blink:

[JPaul]

... she is totally atheistic (not an agnostic bone in her body).

This statement brings up an interesting question: What, if any, are the differences between Agnostics and Atheists?

Here's an interesting point of view, one of many.

Atheism vs. Agnosticism (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm)

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

[j2k4]

This statement brings up an interesting question: What, if any, are the differences between Agnostics and Atheists?

Here's an interesting point of view, one of many.

Atheism vs. Agnosticism (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm)

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

I know people who define themselves as an agnostic or an atheist based on which word they like the sound of. :dabs:

[vidcc]

Some people take their religion more seriously than others. (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?storyid=2006-11-22T112056Z_01_BKK284926_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-LIFE-THAILAND-MONK.XML&type=oddlyEnoughNews&WTmodLoc=Oddly+Enough-C3-More-2) :pinch:

This thread made me think about the priests not being able to marry and I looked up the reasoning behind it to see if it matched what I thought was the reason. It was an interesting read (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_priests_cant_marry.htm). One part I'm sure wasn't intended to make me smile as it did though

There was much theology around the concept of a priest being the "bride of Christ" (Jn 3:29, Rev 18:23, 19:7, 21:9, 21:17. This was considered in the Church's decision. Scripture fairly consistently awards celibacy a higher spiritual calling than marriage.

Gay marriage :unsure:

[JPaul]

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

I know people who define themselves as an agnostic or an atheist based on which word they like the sound of. :dabs:

God knows how these people's minds work.

[j2k4]

I know people who define themselves as an agnostic or an atheist based on which word they like the sound of. :dabs:

God knows how these people's minds work.

Sweet irony, that.

[NeoTheOne]

here is the situation guys , there is a boy and a girl , from differnt religions , they love each other then their life, they really do , and the only thing that is the obstacle is the parents, they have accepted each others religion ,it doesnt bother them that their from a differnt religion , its only there paretns and now the girl is worried . what should the boy say to the girl , what should they do?

[vidcc]

Well then that's the parents problem. Once the boy and girl become adults then there is no obstacle other than bad feelings within the family. I think it's sad that some parents would disown their children over such a thing.
If they are not yet adults and it is indeed true love then they can wait.

Parents will usually want what's best for their children, this isn't always easy. Sometimes what's best for the children isn't what's best for the parents. This sounds like a case of the parents wanting what's best for them.

I say this but my daughters will not be allowed to date until they are 35 ;)

[NeoTheOne]

Its so true , The boys parents can easily accept her , and they wont mind sure it wont be a one hit wonder, itll take time , like a week or two, but the girls paretns are really hot headed. And shez worried sick , so the boy told her to pray and to pray . and who ever is religious here, can you please pray to , the boy really loves the girl , truly does, and the girl loves him too , more then him (thats what she claims lol).

Also any ideas on how they can convice the girls parents? something good,

[MagicNakor]

A week or two for what? :huh:

:shuriken:

[j2k4]

Also any ideas on how they can convice the girls parents? something good,

There is no magic bullet for such a circumstance, neo.

The only sure thing is trying to be sneaky won't work at all, and her parents will react strongly.

A head-on reasonable approach has the best chance.

Avoid any inclination to deceive or do any sort of fancy-steppin', 'cuz it will not work, I promise.

Good luck.

[NeoTheOne]

Also any ideas on how they can convice the girls parents? something good,

There is no magic bullet for such a circumstance, neo.

The only sure thing is trying to be sneaky won't work at all, and her parents will react strongly.

A head-on reasonable approach has the best chance.

Avoid any inclination to deceive or do any sort of fancy-steppin', 'cuz it will not work, I promise.

Good luck.

Yea yea, There not going to do any stupid movie trick , theyll play it honest and truthfully.

[j2k4]

There is no magic bullet for such a circumstance, neo.

The only sure thing is trying to be sneaky won't work at all, and her parents will react strongly.

A head-on reasonable approach has the best chance.

Avoid any inclination to deceive or do any sort of fancy-steppin', 'cuz it will not work, I promise.

Good luck.

Yea yea, There not going to do any stupid movie trick , theyll play it honest and truthfully.

Yeah, but what I mean is, don't shrink from it, take matters in hand.

[JPaul]

Those Capulet's can be really recalcitrant.

[JPaul]

Mum, Dad, Letitia and I are very much in love and there is every chance that we will wed and spend the rest of our lives together. With all of our hearts we wish you to part of that life and the lives of any children God may bless us with. However if you chose not to be part of that life please rest assured that we will still have it. It will be sadder for you not being there but it will happen.

[NeoTheOne]

Mum, Dad, Letitia and I are very much in love and there is every chance that we will wed and spend the rest of our lives together. With all of our hearts we wish you to part of that life and the lives of any children God may bless us with. However if you chose not to be part of that life please rest assured that we will still have it. It will be sadder for you not being there but it will happen.

Amazing Man ima forward that to them.

And Yea LOL capulets, it is much very like Romeo and Juiliet, well i hope it doesn't end like how that did in this case its two families , who dont hate each other , but the religious differences will start a fight . damn , im not saying religion is bad, but whats the point when it wont give the follower the freedom to love who he/she wants.

[Ava Estelle]

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

Well according to Thomas Huxley, who coined the phrase, everyone is agnostic, because whatever you claim to know about such things you really don't. You may think you do, but by his criteria, unless your claim is demonstrable, it cannot be proved. So you could still be religious, deeply religious, and you could still believe all the tenets of your religion, but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

[JPaul]

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

Well according to Thomas Huxley, who coined the phrase, everyone is agnostic, because whatever you claim to know about such things you really don't. You may think you do, but by his criteria, unless your claim is demonstrable, it cannot be proved. So you could still be religious, deeply religious, and you could still believe all the tenets of your religion, but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

No argument from me old bean. Any religion worth it's salt will tell you that it is based on faith. Christianity certainly does.

I don't actually know that China exists either, I just take that on faith. If you think about it pretty much everything we "know" is taken on faith. Anything outwith our own personal experience is taken on faith.

Feck for all I know you could be an Englishman in his fifites living in Australia and killing his days talking trash on the internet. You tell me you are not, so I take that on faith too.

However given that the chaps topic is actually about religion it's probably fairer to use the word as it pertains to that particular subject, rather than it's broader meaning.

[lynx]

Well according to Thomas Huxley, who coined the phrase, everyone is agnostic, because whatever you claim to know about such things you really don't. You may think you do, but by his criteria, unless your claim is demonstrable, it cannot be proved. So you could still be religious, deeply religious, and you could still believe all the tenets of your religion, but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

No argument from me old bean. Any religion worth it's salt will tell you that it is based on faith. Christianity certainly does.

I don't actually know that China exists either, I just take that on faith. If you think about it pretty much everything we "know" is taken on faith. Anything outwith our own personal experience is taken on faith.

Feck for all I know you could be an Englishman in his fifites living in Australia and killing his days talking trash on the internet. You tell me you are not, so I take that on faith too.

However given that the chaps topic is actually about religion it's probably fairer to use the word as it pertains to that particular subject, rather than it's broader meaning.
If we can't prove the existence of God and that makes everyone (believers or otherwise) agnostic, then the term is meaningless.

I think I prefer your original definition.

[JPaul]

No argument from me old bean. Any religion worth it's salt will tell you that it is based on faith. Christianity certainly does.

I don't actually know that China exists either, I just take that on faith. If you think about it pretty much everything we "know" is taken on faith. Anything outwith our own personal experience is taken on faith.

Feck for all I know you could be an Englishman in his fifites living in Australia and killing his days talking trash on the internet. You tell me you are not, so I take that on faith too.

However given that the chaps topic is actually about religion it's probably fairer to use the word as it pertains to that particular subject, rather than it's broader meaning.
If we can't prove the existence of God and that makes everyone (believers or otherwise) agnostic, then the term is meaningless.

I think I prefer your original definition.

Yup, I pretty much agree with that too.

Religion is based on faith, I suppose the obvious conclusion from you last is that Atheism is too.

[Ava Estelle]

However given that the chaps topic is actually about religion it's probably fairer to use the word as it pertains to that particular subject, rather than it's broader meaning.

You mean the Christian version? "He\she doesn't believe in God but admits they could be wrong."

That was coined by Dr Wace at a church congress in 1888. He wrote ...

"His difference from Christians lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the authority on which they are stated. He may prefer to call himself an agnostic; but his real name is an older one - he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever."

This, of course, is completely untrue, as Huxley stated quite clearly ..

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."

An unbeliever is the same as a believer, they both think they know the 'truth', whereas Huxley maintained the truth couldn't be known.




If we can't prove the existence of God and that makes everyone (believers or otherwise) agnostic, then the term is meaningless.

How can it be meaningless if it has a meaning?

You should remember here that Huxley coined the word to describe his own thoughts, the term was never intended to end up in general use, and certainly not as the Christian church interpreted it.

"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant;"

[lynx]

If we can't prove the existence of God and that makes everyone (believers or otherwise) agnostic, then the term is meaningless.

How can it be meaningless if it has a meaning?

You should remember here that Huxley coined the word to describe his own thoughts, the term was never intended to end up in general use, and certainly not as the Christian church interpreted it.

"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant;"I meant meaningless in the sense of being pointless.

We generally use the word to define differences between groups or individuals. If we change the meaning so that there is no difference, then using the word at all has little purpose in that area.

Huxley's definition seems to be "not gnostic", an entirely different proposition from the usually accepted idea. While Huxley may have come up with this word to describe his own thoughts, it seems that another definition of the word arose concurrently.

[Ava Estelle]

While Huxley may have come up with this word to describe his own thoughts, it seems that another definition of the word arose concurrently.

Quite right, Huxley upset the Christian church by suggesting that the 'certain knowledge' (gnosis) upon which the Christian 'faith' was based was unknowable.

Look at these definitions here (http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enAU175AU175&q=define%3a+agnostic)... notice the one near the bottom ... "a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)"

This is similar to JP's definition ... "It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility."

Neither of these is strictly true, a true agnostic would say only that the truth was unknowable, how can you be open to the possibility of the unknowable becoming knowable? We're not talking about the 'unknown' here, but the unknowable.

[lynx]

The problem with Huxley's definition of agnostic is that it is based on the presumption that there is something that is not knowable.

The definition of atheist is not (i believe) in dispute. Huxley's assertion is that even atheists must be agnostic, yet by definition an atheist rejects the argument that there is something that is not knowable and is therefore not agnostic.

Consequently, by the very act of denying that definition (of agnostic) the atheist is not defined by it, and therefore the very definition itself is invalid.

I think. :ermm:

[Ava Estelle]

The problem with Huxley's definition of agnostic is that it is based on the presumption that there is something that is not knowable. Absolutely, why's that a problem? Surely there are many things that are unknowable? In this particular case though, it's the proof or otherwise of the existance of a god or gods that's the issue.


The definition of atheist is not (i believe) in dispute. Huxley's assertion is that even atheists must be agnostic, yet by definition an atheist rejects the argument that there is something that is not knowable and is therefore not agnostic. I would have thought the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. The atheist would say he's not agnostic, yet has no more chance of proving god doesn't exist than a theist has of proving otherwise. One could still be an atheist yet believe there are things that are unknowable, what happened before the big bang for instance.


Consequently, by the very act of denying that definition (of agnostic) the atheist is not defined by it, and therefore the very definition itself is invalid. I don't think Huxley expected either side to agree with him, although he probably found more converts amongst atheists than theists.

[JPaul]

You mean the Christian version? "He\she doesn't believe in God but admits they could be wrong."



I thought most people used that version, irrespective of who had coined it. Or something similar. Do non-Christians have another meaning.

[Skweeky]

I feel this thread appeals to me

I feel saddened by the fact that JPaul won't approve of my marriage to Gem, just because he's protestant (and thus,a Hun) and I am Catholic ( and thus, support Celtic).

Shame on you.

Just to let you know, we shall still have our life and the children the Lord blesses us with and it shall only be more joyous without you around.
Is that really what you wish for?

[Ava Estelle]

You mean the Christian version? "He\she doesn't believe in God but admits they could be wrong."
I thought most people used that version, irrespective of who had coined it. Or something similar. Do non-Christians have another meaning.

JP, it's the rider that's the contentious issue here, "but admits they could be wrong".

An agnostic would not admit they could be wrong as it's a dead issue, the very definition of agnostic states that they see the proof or otherwise of the existence of god as unknowable, so they don't make the claim that they don't believe, only in as much as they don't disbelieve either. So to say they could be wrong would be to say they had come to a conclusion one way or the other.

As to other meanings, there are, of course, many interpretations (http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enAU175AU175&q=define%3a+agnostic).

[j2k4]

I feel this thread appeals to me

I feel saddened by the fact that JPaul won't approve of my marriage to Gem, just because he's protestant (and thus,a Hun) and I am Catholic ( and thus, support Celtic).

Shame on you.

Just to let you know, we shall still have our life and the children the Lord blesses us with and it shall only be more joyous without you around.
Is that really what you wish for?

I sense a misapprehension here, football allegiances aside. :huh:

[JPaul]

@ Ava (lol)

I kind of think that's what I said.

"It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility."

[JPaul]

... and it shall only be more joyous without you around.


That's a bit harsh.

Let me make a few other points, if that's OK.

Protestant, what does that mean, other than "not Catholic". It's a generic term and tells one nowt about the actual beliefs of the individual.

"Hun = Protestant", no I think not.

I will neither approve or disapprove of said marriage, I don't even know the chap. However if he makes you happy then I am sure the good Lord will smile upon you union.

I wish for nothing other than you and the chap you find yourself to be in love with having a long and happy life. I wish the same for any children your union may be blessed with.

Albeit that they may be wee huns.

[j2k4]

Just to let you know, we shall...have our life and the children the Lord blesses us with and it shall only be more joyous...

We are glowing with pride for you and the path you've chosen, Sonja.

Don't ever think otherwise.

I don't believe we'd have guessed you'd be contemplating marriage and family, going back a few years...:)

[Biggles]

You mean the Christian version? "He\she doesn't believe in God but admits they could be wrong."



I thought most people used that version, irrespective of who had coined it. Or something similar. Do non-Christians have another meaning.

I have always taken Agnostic to mean that by definition the infinite and ineffable is an unknown that cannot be pinned down by definition. There may be no connection with our existence or that connection may be on many levels.

Organised religion (of whatever hue) seeks to declare that the infinite is revealed and that by following a set of quite finite dogma the infinite is connected to us. The Agnostic would argue that this is something of a leap of faith rather than a proveable fact - not being wholly convinced the Agnostic cannot therefore make that leap.

To the committed believer, the Agnostic is just being difficult and to the Atheist the Agnostic is hedging his bets. However, I think the Agnostic standpoint can be considerably more sophisticated than either of those positions would suggest.

[JPaul]

Thus says the Wiccan Agnostic :blink:

[Biggles]

Thus says the Wiccan Agnostic :blink:

:shifty:

When I said sophisticated I meant downright Machiavellian.

[JPaul]

You, Sir are a Prince.

[Ava Estelle]

To the committed believer, the Agnostic is just being difficult and to the Atheist the Agnostic is hedging his bets.

The position of the church in the original debate was that people fall into two categories, believers and infidels, (unbelievers). They saw no middle ground, you either believed or you didn't.

Huxley asserted that he neither believed nor disbelieved, and the reason he gave was that he felt neither side could justify their stand using the burden of proof. He further asserted that, according to his own conclusions, proof could not be attained, by either side.

This position was unacceptable to the church, it flew in the face of all their teachings on the subject, so they set about categorising agnostics according to their own interpretation. They claimed that agnostics were infidels, who accepted that they could be wrong.

This was categorically rejected by Huxley. As he had taken no position on the right or wrong of either side's case, what exactly was it he could be wrong about? He made it quite clear that he neither believed nor disbelieved either side, that he did not have a foot in either camp, and that the church was wrong to define agnostics as such.

The church, of course, has a wider audience than Huxley, and their interpretation took hold along with the true version.

[lynx]

I thought most people used that version, irrespective of who had coined it. Or something similar. Do non-Christians have another meaning.

JP, it's the rider that's the contentious issue here, "but admits they could be wrong".

An agnostic would not admit they could be wrong as it's a dead issue, the very definition of agnostic states that they see the proof or otherwise of the existence of god as unknowable, so they don't make the claim that they don't believe, only in as much as they don't disbelieve either. So to say they could be wrong would be to say they had come to a conclusion one way or the other.

As to other meanings, there are, of course, many interpretations (http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enAU175AU175&q=define%3a+agnostic).
Sorry for the late response, work occasionally interferes.

I don't accept your argument that an atheist needs to prove the non-existance of god, and because he can't he's an agnostic. Disproving the non-existance is an impossibility, all that can be done (if one wants to bother) is show that so called proofs of existance don't have substance.

You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it. Who says they are unknowable? They may be currently unknown, but that's a completely different ball game.

I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.

You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics.

[bigboab]

JP, it's the rider that's the contentious issue here, "but admits they could be wrong".

An agnostic would not admit they could be wrong as it's a dead issue, the very definition of agnostic states that they see the proof or otherwise of the existence of god as unknowable, so they don't make the claim that they don't believe, only in as much as they don't disbelieve either. So to say they could be wrong would be to say they had come to a conclusion one way or the other.

As to other meanings, there are, of course, many interpretations (http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enAU175AU175&q=define%3a+agnostic).
Sorry for the late response, work occasionally interferes.

I don't accept your argument that an atheist needs to prove the non-existance of god, and because he can't he's an agnostic. Disproving the non-existance is an impossibility, all that can be done (if one wants to bother) is show that so called proofs of existance don't have substance.

You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it. Who says they are unknowable? They may be currently unknown, but that's a completely different ball game.

I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.

You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics.


Good post.:)

P.S. They did allow me soft, unedible crayons.:wacko:

[Ava Estelle]

I don't accept your argument that an atheist needs to prove the non-existance of god, and because he can't he's an agnostic.
I didn't say that.


You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it.
I said before the big bang, not the big bang itself.


Who says they are unknowable?
I do.


I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.
If you can't find something I said to argue against, why make things up?



You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics
I see you've fallen into the same old trap of quoting silly analogies and believing them to be profound.

[JPaul]

What the chap who coined the phrase meant is sort of irrelevant. Words change their meaning all the time. Look at words like sinister, gay, wicked, the list is ended.

So what's important is the current, normal accepted meaning of the word. Even then you are struggling as different dictionaries may give you different meanings. Indeed you may get different meanings in the same dictionary. Even if you limit it to it's relgious sense you may get either of these.


1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

There appear to be degrees of agnosticism.

Which is really rather unhelpful. Like I said earlier I have always taken it to mean the latter of the two.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

There's an interesting word in Scots Law

Sist

1. (Scots Law) To stay, as judicial proceedings; to delay or suspend; to stop.

2. To cause to take a place, as at the bar of a court; hence, to cite; to summon; to bring into court. [Scot.]

How mad is that.

[lynx]

I don't accept your argument that an atheist needs to prove the non-existance of god, and because he can't he's an agnostic.I didn't say that.
Actually you did, just not in the post I quoted. Try post 39 instead.


You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it.
I said before the big bang, not the big bang itself.
So? How does that make it unknowable?


Who says they are unknowable?
I do.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know you'd been appointed absolute arbiter of such things.


I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.
If you can't find something I said to argue against, why make things up?
Because it's what I think you've done.


You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics
I see you've fallen into the same old trap of quoting silly analogies and believing them to be profound.The point isn't how silly the analogy may be, and it was deliberately silly so that it wasn't confused with any story about god. The point is that as an outside observer you wouldn't consider the people who don't believe the story to be agnostics, nor would you place any requirement on them to disprove the story.

Now apply the same logic to a story about god. In the same way there's no reason to label atheists as agnostics simply because the story happens to be about god.

[lynx]

What the chap who coined the phrase meant is sort of irrelevant. Words change their meaning all the time. Look at words like sinister, gay, wicked, the list is ended.

So what's important is the current, normal accepted meaning of the word. Even then you are struggling as different dictionaries may give you different meanings. Indeed you may get different meanings in the same dictionary. Even if you limit it to it's relgious sense you may get either of these.


1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

There appear to be degrees of agnosticism.

Which is really rather unhelpful. Like I said earlier I have always taken it to mean the latter of the two.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

There's an interesting word in Scots Law

Sist

1. (Scots Law) To stay, as judicial proceedings; to delay or suspend; to stop.

2. To cause to take a place, as at the bar of a court; hence, to cite; to summon; to bring into court. [Scot.]

How mad is that.Please desist. :blink:

[JPaul]

That's what I thought too.

[Ava Estelle]

I didn't say that.
Actually you did, just not in the post I quoted. Try post 39 instead.

I didn't say it in post 39 either.


You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it.
I said before the big bang, not the big bang itself.
So? How does that make it unknowable?

Because it happened before the universe came into being, therefore there cannot be proof, only theory.


Who says they are unknowable?
I do.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know you'd been appointed absolute arbiter of such things.

Really? No-one told you?


I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.
If you can't find something I said to argue against, why make things up?
Because it's what I think you've done.

Well you're wrong, there is no compulsion on either a theist or atheist to prove anything, it's only the agnostic that is concerned with proof. An atheist can admit he cannot prove his case but still call himself an atheist, he could claim he doesn't need to prove anything as his position doesn't depend on proof but on intuition and logic. In the same way a theist could also admit to not being able to prove anything, but claim it is unnecessary to do so because their beliefs are based on faith, not proof.


You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics
I see you've fallen into the same old trap of quoting silly analogies and believing them to be profound.The point isn't how silly the analogy may be, and it was deliberately silly so that it wasn't confused with any story about god. The point is that as an outside observer you wouldn't consider the people who don't believe the story to be agnostics, nor would you place any requirement on them to disprove the story.

Now apply the same logic to a story about god. In the same way there's no reason to label atheists as agnostics simply because the story happens to be about god.

Your analogy is irrelevant because (a) we're talking about a specific subject here, it doesn't need an analogy and (b) no-one has said anyone is an agnostic if they can't prove something.

[lynx]

I didn't say that.
Actually you did, just not in the post I quoted. Try post 39 instead.

I didn't say it in post 39 either.


I said before the big bang, not the big bang itself.
So? How does that make it unknowable?

Because it happened before the universe came into being, therefore there cannot be proof, only theory.


Who says they are unknowable?
I do.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know you'd been appointed absolute arbiter of such things.

Really? No-one told you?


I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.
If you can't find something I said to argue against, why make things up?
Because it's what I think you've done.

Well you're wrong, there is no compulsion on either a theist or atheist to prove anything, it's only the agnostic that is concerned with proof. An atheist can admit he cannot prove his case but still call himself an atheist, he could claim he doesn't need to prove anything as his position doesn't depend on proof but on intuition and logic. In the same way a theist could also admit to not being able to prove anything, but claim it is unnecessary to do so because their beliefs are based on faith, not proof.


You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics
I see you've fallen into the same old trap of quoting silly analogies and believing them to be profound.The point isn't how silly the analogy may be, and it was deliberately silly so that it wasn't confused with any story about god. The point is that as an outside observer you wouldn't consider the people who don't believe the story to be agnostics, nor would you place any requirement on them to disprove the story.

Now apply the same logic to a story about god. In the same way there's no reason to label atheists as agnostics simply because the story happens to be about god.

Your analogy is irrelevant because (a) we're talking about a specific subject here, it doesn't need an analogy and (b) no-one has said anyone is an agnostic if they can't prove something.
Are you promoting the Big Bang theory as the only possible solution, while at the same time proposing that it is only a theory? :wacko: That still doesn't mean that what went before (if anything) is unknowable, just that we don't yet know how to find out. Otherwise all you are doing is introducing the Big Bang as an alternative for god.

You were promoting Huxley's ideas, and he most certainly was saying that both theists and atheists were actually agnostics but do not realise it. You also say that agnostics require proof. The combination of those positions is that theists and atheists require proof, even if they don't realise it.

The analogy shows Huxley's ideas to be total poppycock, hence it is completely relevant. The proposal that ideas don't need to be disproved for them to be disregarded doesn't dissolve just because the word god is introduced into the mix.

In a situation where belief is a factor, it has to be looked at as if the observer were not affected by it otherwise the observer's own preconceptions prevent objective analysis.

[Ava Estelle]

You were promoting Huxley's ideas, and he most certainly was saying that both theists and atheists were actually agnostics but do not realise it.

Prove it, show me where he said that.



You also say that agnostics require proof. The combination of those positions is that theists and atheists require proof, even if they don't realise it.

Bullshit.



The analogy shows Huxley's ideas to be total poppycock, hence it is completely relevant. The proposal that ideas don't need to be disproved for them to be disregarded doesn't dissolve just because the word god is introduced into the mix.

Getting desperate here Lynx, you'll be bringing Father Christmas into it next.




In a situation where belief is a factor, it has to be looked at as if the observer were not affected by it otherwise the observer's own preconceptions prevent objective analysis.

If you say so, I've much more interesting things to do than trying to unravel your mind, or continue arguing over what you think people meant whilst totally disregarding what they said.

You and JP might be able to keep this bullshit up ad infinitum, but I can't be bothered, carry on without me.

[lynx]

Prove it, show me where he said that.



You also say that agnostics require proof. The combination of those positions is that theists and atheists require proof, even if they don't realise it.

Bullshit.



The analogy shows Huxley's ideas to be total poppycock, hence it is completely relevant. The proposal that ideas don't need to be disproved for them to be disregarded doesn't dissolve just because the word god is introduced into the mix.

Getting desperate here Lynx, you'll be bringing Father Christmas into it next.




In a situation where belief is a factor, it has to be looked at as if the observer were not affected by it otherwise the observer's own preconceptions prevent objective analysis.

If you say so, I've much more interesting things to do than trying to unravel your mind, or continue arguing over what you think people meant whilst totally disregarding what they said.

You and JP might be able to keep this bullshit up ad infinitum, but I can't be bothered, carry on without me.
Combination of ideas are part of logic, analogy and comparison are part of reasoned argument. If you can't follow those norms then you are probably right to give up, though I completely fail to understand why you have to take it so personally.

[JPaul]

You and JP might be able to keep this bullshit up ad infinitum, but I can't be bothered, carry on without me.

That's actually quite funny, I agreed with you in post 32, that relgious people could be considered agnostic. As could Atheists, because either one doesn't actually know the truth. I won't speak for Atheists, however as I said earlier any religion worth it's salt will accept, nay teach, that faith is at it's core.

Please see my last re the definition being important. See, your original position was that people don't know. Which you then changed to can't know. So you yourself switched definitions, which is nice.

The stomping off was good tho', nice touch.

[Ava Estelle]

That's actually quite funny, I agreed with you in post 32, that relgious people could be considered agnostic.

I'm sorry JP, I didn't mean anything detremental to you, it's just that you and Lynx seem to be able to argue for page after page after page until the original meaning is lost, and I can't be bothered. When someone starts to argue the meaning of what I was thinking, or inferring when my words have, I hope, been quite plain, I just don't see the point of continuing.

As to my position on this, I have tried throughout this thread to represent the original concept as laid down by Huxley, I understand the word has taken on different meanings and I have tried to put the reasons for this into perspective.

I'm not stomping off, I just can't be arsed.



If anyone wants to interpret this for themselves, here are some good places to start.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_huxley/huxley_wace/part_01.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_huxley/huxley_wace/part_02.html

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/

[JPaul]

It was always my understanding that an Agnositic was not convinced that God existed and felt that it required to be proven. However they remained open to the possibility. An Atheist on the other hand had come to the conclusion that God did not exist.

Well according to Thomas Huxley, who coined the phrase, everyone is agnostic, because whatever you claim to know about such things you really don't. You may think you do, but by his criteria, unless your claim is demonstrable, it cannot be proved. So you could still be religious, deeply religious, and you could still believe all the tenets of your religion, but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

With all due respect you haven't maintained the same position. You started by saying that people were agnostic because they "didn't" know. Which changed to "couldn't" know. However as I explained already either is an acceptable use of the word. I also have no problem with either, again as I have made clear I am perfectly comfortable with faith being involved in the deal. Whether it be religion or atheism. That being the case it makes no odds to me whether something is unknown or unknowable.

With regard to whether something is unknowable, how do we know what is unknowable. We can say that something is currrently unknown, however at some time in the future it may become knowable, therefore it isn't unknowable, just unknown. Who knows.

[Ava Estelle]

... but if you accepted the simple 'truth' that you simply don't know, you'd be agnostic. This would apply equally to atheists.

With all due respect you haven't maintained the same position. You started by saying that people were agnostic because they "didn't" know. Which changed to "couldn't" know.

I think you're being a little picky there JP, whatever the words I used there my meaning was clear.



With regard to whether something is unknowable, how do we know what is unknowable. We can say that something is currrently unknown, however at some time in the future it may become knowable, therefore it isn't unknowable, just unknown. Who knows.

I can only give you Huxley's own words ...

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

[JPaul]

With all due respect you haven't maintained the same position. You started by saying that people were agnostic because they "didn't" know. Which changed to "couldn't" know.

I think you're being a little picky there JP, whatever the words I used there my meaning was clear.



But that's the difference between the 2 definitions, the pickiness. One means you don't know and one you can't know.

So you moved from one definition to the other. However like I said it doesn't change my position. I still take your point as being a sound one. I can see how one can argue that, in a religious sense, everyone is an agnostic. That means that it all boils down to faith.

Personally I prefer

http://www.ilmondodielena.it/buffy/faith/fgm_l3.jpg to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/t.woof/gigs/FaithBrown_IMG_9099-sq-tx.jpg

[NeoTheOne]

Well what about 2 other religions like Hindu and Muslim , If one person from one religion falls in love with another person in another religion , and by falls in love i mean falls in love with the person for who he/she is , then should they be stopped from marrying each other

[bigboab]

Well what about 2 other religions like Hindu and Muslim , If one person from one religion falls in love with another person in another religion , and by falls in love i mean falls in love with the person for who he/she is , then should they be stopped from marrying each other

No.

[MagicNakor]

Well what about 2 other religions like Hindu and Muslim , If one person from one religion falls in love with another person in another religion , and by falls in love i mean falls in love with the person for who he/she is , then should they be stopped from marrying each other

I think you'll find that if two people really love each other, spiritual and/or political differences can be overcome, and are part of the reason they fell in love in the first place. "I love you, despite your beliefs" just doesn't sound right. ;)

:shuriken:

[thewizeard]

True love? Well if you are talking about being attracted to someone's feremons... then yes.

[thewizeard]

I feel this thread appeals to me

I feel saddened by the fact that JPaul won't approve of my marriage to Gem, just because he's protestant (and thus,a Hun) and I am Catholic ( and thus, support Celtic).

Shame on you.

Just to let you know, we shall still have our life and the children the Lord blesses us with and it shall only be more joyous without you around.
Is that really what you wish for?

Sonja that's only because JPaul realises you are destined to be with me :D

A truly illuminated fellow.

[TYPE R]

in my eyes Religion com 1st even if it is turn love

[NeoTheOne]

in my eyes Religion com 1st even if it is turn love

So your saying if two people love each other more then anyone in the world , two people who are perfect for each other, 2 people that cant live without each other should not get married because of there opposing religion?

[Everose]

Religion is love....and if anyone says otherwise they will be hideously tortured for all eternity.

Simple really :)



I agree. :D

[NeoTheOne]

Religion wins...

She left him , no matter how much she loves him she thought that religion would get in the way and she left him..

[MagicNakor]

Sorry to hear that Neo. :(

:shuriken:

[JPaul]

Sorry to hear that Neo. :(

:shuriken:

Likewise.

[NeoTheOne]

However , She couldnt live without him

and shez back in 18 hours, ready to face the world


she says she was confused , she doesnt know what shez doing , lets see where this takes them

[j2k4]

However , She couldnt live without him

and shez back in 18 hours, ready to face the world


she says she was confused , she doesnt know what shez doing , lets see where this takes them


Is love a wonderful thing at all.














(At all.)















Our very own FST soap-opera. :huh:

[NeoTheOne]

Fst Soap opera LMFAo ,its really happing though , well things seem calm now but she has this whole thing about parents not agreeing going on and how she feels guilty

[NeoTheOne]

The main reason that she wants to leave him is that her parents are really abusive , really really really really really abusive to her , and she is scared to leave them for two reasons, 1. She feels that they will litterly kill her, 2. she feels they will face embaressment even though she hates them she still cares :| however , she feels(keyword feels) that she can sacrifice the love for her parents , imo her paretns have brought her up in such a way that if she feels good about anything she feels she is doing something wrong . any advice on what to do?

[vipdiablo]

Religion is love....and if anyone says otherwise they will be hideously tortured for all eternity.

Simple really :)

i think that this is the very wright for this statement it fabulas ;)