Ehh... Something about church

Jhcx

Just back from mass. Had been quiet sometime since i had last gone and i felt horrible in there. Was like going to prison or being beaten.

And at the end seeing the priest bow before the box i couldnt keep a straight face. And kind of shocked me that I was told to believe all that and i grew up believing all that and kinda find it very disturbing. First time ive ever had those thoughts but really was something out of a dream.

I like to think of myself as an Agnostic Catholic. Just to keep the family happy and that some of my beliefs(personal) clash with being atheist so its easier to just go along with believing and not believing and sticking to what i was raised with.

But anyone else get that feeling that its all crazy and unrealistic. I felt like an idiot being there standing, sitting, standing , sitting. most exercise id say ive done in a month. :pac:

MagicMarker

Unless you believe in a God then none of your beliefs clash with being an atheist.

Jhcx

MagicMarker wrote: »

Unless you believe in a God then none of your beliefs clash with being an atheist.

See that's the thing. I can't say god is not there . Some part of me wants to believe that there's one man there who can alter ones life .

MagicMarker

Jhcx wrote: »

See that's the thing. I can't say god is not there . Some part of me wants to believe that there's one man there who can alter ones life .

You don't have to say god is not there, just that you have no belief.

Right now, do you believe in god? If the answer is not yes, then you're an atheist. Simples.

Helix

Jhcx wrote: »

I like to think of myself as an Agnostic Catholic

there's no such thing

to be catholic you have to believe in god, to be agnostic you have to believe that you cannot know whether or not there is a god. you cannot be both, surely?

strobe

Jhcx wrote: »

[
Some part of me wants to believe that there's one man there who can alter ones life .

He's called Jhcx, dude.

Jhcx

there's no such thing

to be catholic you have to believe in god, to be agnostic you have to believe that you cannot know whether or not there is a god. you cannot be both, surely?[/Quote]

Well your right but I still believe in baptism , marriage in the church. And while I may find it hard to believe that there is a god I still look to this person in times of need. but 99% of the time I don't involve religion in anything. It's more so science to explain a lot of daily things. But I wouldnt change the religion I was brought up with cause there all as bad as each other imo.

But anyway this thread isnt about what I believe its more so that the point of mass is ridiculous imo.

MagicMarker

How can you think mass is ridiculous but still "believe" in baptism and marriage in a church?

just because you believe in a god does not mean it is the christian one and even if it were the christian one that does not mean it is the catholic denomination either

you've as much as admitted you know it's silly, why don't you either find another religion/denomination or realise you just don't believe it

i mean mass is a pretty strong cornerstone of those ones, if you just want some general other belief find one and stop sticking with your comfort zone just because it's all you know

Dades

Helix wrote: »

there's no such thing

to be catholic you have to believe in god, to be agnostic you have to believe that you cannot know whether or not there is a god. you cannot be both, surely?

Why not? One deals with belief, the other deals with knowledge.

Most believers are agnostic about whether they know if there's a god. And if they're not - they should be.

Helix

Dades wrote: »

Why not? One deals with belief, the other deals with knowledge.

Most believers are agnostic about whether they know if there's a god. And if they're not - they should be.

because to be a catholic you have to accept that jesus is your saviour and he is the son of god. you can't do that if you don't believe in god

Helix

Helix wrote: »

because to be a catholic you have to accept that jesus is your saviour and he is the son of god. you can't do that if you don't believe in god

There is a difference between knowledge and belief.

Most Irish Catholics - if indeed they are Catholics at all - are agnostic theists: they don't know if a god exists, but they believe there is one. Similarly, I would surmise that most atheists are agnostics atheists: they don't know if a god exists, but they aren't convinced by any claims that there is one.

The supposed mutual exclusivity of theism and gnosticism is an imaginary one which arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of terminology.

Gbear

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a difference between knowledge and belief.

Most Irish Catholics - if indeed they are Catholics at all - are agnostic theists: they don't know if a god exists, but they believe there is one. Similarly, I would surmise that most atheists are agnostics atheists: they don't know if a god exists, but they aren't convinced by any claims that there is one.

The supposed mutual exclusivity of theism and gnosticism is an imaginary one which arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of terminology.

Strictly speaking then, there's no such things as gnosticism.

Oh, and this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eURInRZgE

mooliki

Jhcx wrote: »

I like to think of myself as an Agnostic Catholic. Just to keep the family happy and that some of my beliefs(personal) clash with being atheist so its easier to just go along with believing and not believing and sticking to what i was raised with.

But anyone else get that feeling that its all crazy and unrealistic. I felt like an idiot being there standing, sitting, standing , sitting. most exercise id say ive done in a month. :pac:

Your belief in a god is a personal issue, your Catholicism however is that "standing, sitting, standing , sitting", priests bowing, ritualism, of which mass is a pretty heavy part of. Catholicism is essentially just a set of manner and rules by which someone is expected believe in one particular god. If you find the practices of that church ridiculous then it makes no sense to consider yourself Catholic. But that (arguably) doesn't have any direct bearing on whether or not you think there's a god. If you think Catholicism is ridiculous and other religions are "all as bad as each other", nothing stops you from believing in whatever gods you want without following religious dogma or assigning yourself a particular label. Then you can look at the whole issue of whether or not you think there's god a little more subjectively.

Jhcx wrote: »

But anyway this thread isnt about what I believe its more so that the point of mass is ridiculous imo.

Since you're posting in A&A, I'd imagine it's pretty safe to say most people here see Catholic mass as ridiculous!

Helix

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a difference between knowledge and belief.

Most Irish Catholics - if indeed they are Catholics at all - are agnostic theists: they don't know if a god exists, but they believe there is one.

that's nonsense though

nobody believes in something they don't think is real. to do so would surely be a sign of underlying mental problems

Helix

Helix wrote: »

that's nonsense though

nobody believes in something they don't think is real. to do so would surely be a sign of underlying mental problems

It's not nonsense. Belief and knowledge are different. They have faith that their god is real, making them agnostic theists. It's an assertion which can't be demonstrated to be true, and unless they have some kind of divine experience (and they are, for some reason, dismissive of the possibility they were hallucinating) they cannot know for certain.

I believe life probably exists somewhere else in the universe. Do I know this is true? Of course not.

I believe that I am sitting in a chair. I also know this is true because all my senses independently confirm it. I can ask someone else in my house if I'm sitting in a chair and they'll all say 'yes'. It's a position on which one actually can have certainty because there is empirical, demonstrable evidence.

Fortyniner

After many years of absence I went to an RC church wedding a couple of years ago. I have to agree with the OP on how bizarre and ridiculous the whole episode seems.

Mind you the rest of the audience were by no means in awe of the proceedings, with people tramping about behind and in front of the priest, chatting merrily and taking photographs. This was in rural France, and I don't think any of them were church-goers.

Helix

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not nonsense. Belief and knowledge are different. They have faith that their god is real, making them agnostic theists. It's an assertion which can't be demonstrated to be true, and unless they have some kind of divine experience (and they are, for some reason, dismissive of the possibility they were hallucinating) they cannot know for certain.

I believe life probably exists somewhere else in the universe. Do I know this is true? Of course not.

I believe that I am sitting in a chair. I also know this is true because all my senses independently confirm it. I can ask someone else in my house if I'm sitting in a chair and they'll all say 'yes'. It's a position on which one actually can have certainty because there is empirical, demonstrable evidence.

you're not looking at it the way i intend it. if you didnt think there was life on other planets, would you still believe there was? of course you wouldn't

the belief in something existing is you saying that yes, you think that it is the case. how can someone believe in something that they aren't sure exists? that's not believing in it

retroactive

My grans memorial was on Saturday.

During the mass the priest referenced Mother Theresa, an english anthem in the olympics, mentioned an indian ceremony was being held next week and prayed that god would offer guidence to our politicians. All of which could be criticised and compounded the idea, in my mind, that the church was fighting a losing battle to stay relevant.

The specifics were very hard to make out as this man in a funny gown was speaking into the lectern. He was simply the worst aurator that I have come across.

Sit, stand, kneel, sit again. I couldn't help but look around me and wonder if it was an almost empty exercise class for geriatrics.

I went into that church for the first time with an objective mind and came out wondering how anyone could buy into such a sycophantic ritualised panic about death.

TwoShedsJackson

Jhcx wrote: »

Was like going to prison or being beaten.

A slight exaggeration, perhaps?

swimming in a sea

retroactive wrote: »

My grans memorial was on Saturday.

During the mass the priest referenced Mother Theresa, an english anthem in the olympics, mentioned an indian ceremony was being held next week and prayed that god would offer guidence to our politicians. All of which could be criticised and compounded the idea, in my mind, that the church was fighting a losing battle to stay relevant.

Unless the priest talked the truth about what a thundering c*nt Mother Theresa was then that is good enough in its self not to go in his church.

As for praying for politicians, that's the problem there, most of these slimy politicians think they are on a mission from God, like Blair & Bush. Religion and politics should be kept strictly separate.

yellowlabrador

specially for the op

retroactive

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Unless the priest talked the truth about what a thundering c*nt Mother Theresa was then that is good enough in its self not to go in his church.

As for praying for politicians, that's the problem there, most of these slimy politicians think they are on a mission from God, like Blair & Bush. Religion and politics should be kept strictly separate.

Exactly Like I said - all of which could be criticised. "I went into that church for the first time with an objective mind and came out wondering how anyone could buy into such a sycophantic ritualised panic about death."

I lol'd at my line "Sit, stand, kneel, sit again. I couldn't help but look around me and wonder if it was an almost empty exercise class for geriatrics." Atleast I amuse myself.

So to answer the OP, yeah there is something - It's a completely surreal world getting further and rather out of touch with reality

Dades

Helix wrote: »

you're not looking at it the way i intend it. if you didnt think there was life on other planets, would you still believe there was? of course you wouldn't

the belief in something existing is you saying that yes, you think that it is the case. how can someone believe in something that they aren't sure exists? that's not believing in it

You're not grasping the basics of the this question.

The alien life is a perfect example. Like Helix, I believe there is life (however simple) elsewhere in the universe. Do I know there's life elsewhere? Of course not - we haven't discovered any evidence as yet.

So you can believe something without knowing it. This is especially true in the realm of theology where what you "believe" cannot be seen, heard, touched or detected in any objective manner.

Jhcx

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Jhcx wrote: »

Was like going to prison or being beaten.

A slight exaggeration, perhaps?

Nope wad horrible my stomach was turning.

seamus

retroactive wrote: »

So to answer the OP, yeah there is something - It's a completely surreal world getting further and rather out of touch with reality

When you're at a wedding or similar it appears a little less surreal. Probably because such occasions are full of ritual and tradition anyway, and much of the "oddness" in a mass is then punctuated by music and such, so you tend not to notice the weirdness any more.
The readings and all that stuff also come from a fixed list, and apart from a few archaic ones, it's all pretty inoffensive stuff.

It's when you go to a mass that's just another Sunday mass that the whole oddness of the thing strikes you and you hear readings about some guy and his magical powers, and then there's the chanting and sitting and standing and kneeling and queueing and hand-waving, that it all comes home.

It's as bat**** crazy as anything any cult can come up with, it's only by sheer force of numbers and tradition that the people involved don't take a step back and think "WTF am I doing?".

Helix

Dades wrote: »

You're not grasping the basics of the this question.

The alien life is a perfect example. Like Helix, I believe there is life (however simple) elsewhere in the universe. Do I know there's life elsewhere? Of course not - we haven't discovered any evidence as yet.

So you can believe something without knowing it. This is especially true in the realm of theology where what you "believe" cannot be seen, heard, touched or detected in any objective manner.

you believe in something because you think that there is a much higher chance of it being true than it being untrue. knowing doesn't come into it. nobody knows anything, at its most base level

Dades

Helix wrote: »

you believe in something because you think that there is a much higher chance of it being true than it being untrue. knowing doesn't come into it. nobody knows anything, at its most base level

Hence agnosticism.

I get the point that every truth could be wrong (are we in the Matrix?), but theological claims are a long way from being an accepted truth and are therefore very much open to questioning. The very fact that people require *faith* to believe them indicates that knowledge is not there.

It's not belittling anything, either. Most atheists would be agnostic atheists despite encountering a complete lack of any evidence. It's the intellectually honest thing to do - assuming you understand the difference between knowledge and belief.

aidan24326

Jhcx wrote: »

Just back from mass. Had been quiet sometime since i had last gone and i felt horrible in there. Was like going to prison or being beaten.

No fan of mass myself but that's a ridiculous thing to say. It's nothing like going to prison or being beaten.

I like to think of myself as an Agnostic Catholic. Just to keep the family happy and that some of my beliefs(personal) clash with being atheist so its easier to just go along with believing and not believing and sticking to what i was raised with.

You say you felt silly being there, found it all a bit sbsurd but are still happy to attach the label 'Catholic' to yourself? Why would you do that?

You can't be a Catholic without buying into the dogma that goes with it. The Immaculate Conception, The Holy Trinity, Transubstantiation, Jesus ascending to Heaven etc - if you don't believe in those things then you're not a catholic. End of.

And it would be greatly helpful if people like yourself stopped wrongly calling themselves catholic when you clearly don't believe in what that religion demands of you. Then we'd know how many Catholics there really is in Ireland rather than the hugely skewed numbers we get from the census.

Let's play a little game of analogy, where two people are having a discussion.

"I was at the Communist Conference the other day and I didn't like it. Everything about it was weird, like the way they believe in common ownership of the means of production and a stateless society in which money doesn't exist."
"Oh... aren't they fundamental tenets of communism, though?"
"I suppose, but I'm more of a centrist communist. I use that label to keep the family happy, too. I mean, I believe in private enterprise, the existence of a state and money."
"Centrist communist? That doesn't even make sense. Surely if you reject the most important of Marx's ideas, you're not a communist. Maybe you're a capitalist..."
"No, no, I'm definitely some kind of communist and not a capitalist. Capitalism clashes with some of my beliefs. It's just easier to go along with what I was raised with.
"What are you talking about? You just said you agree with what are the foundations of capitalism. How can you say you're a communist if you don't agree with communism?"

This is what it's like. The 'communist' isn't making any sense. In fact, the analogy doesn't quite capture the silliness because capitalism is an economy philosophy which requires beliefs, while atheism is simply the lack of belief in something. If you use 'agnostic' to mean 'I don't know if a god exists and I don't believe either way' then you are an atheist by definition. Stop with the contradictions. You don't choose your beliefs or lack of beliefs, they just are. The labels are what we use to describe them. Unless you actually believe that a god exists then you're an atheist and not a Catholic. If you believe that a god exists but you don't agree with the fundamentals of Catholic dogma then you're a theist but still not a Catholic.

aidan24326

That's it exactly. It's like a guy calling himself a Man Utd supporter even though he doesn't watch their games, has never been to Old Trafford, can't name the players and isn't even that interested in soccer in the first place. We have countless thousands of people in this country who are exactly like that about their supposed catholicism.

Gbear

If we're rigid about this definition of agnosticism then I would suggest that we remove it from the subforum name or else add it to all the other religious subforum names.

If agnosticism pertains to knowledge then nobody can accurately claim to be a gnostic with regards to religion one way or the other.

You can be certain in your beliefs - certainty doesn't affect whether you're agnostic or not.

If somebody claims to not be an agnostic they're either lying or they're wrong. Nobody is in possession of the requisite knowledge to be a gnostic theist and it's probably a logical impossibility to be in possession of the requisite knowledge to be a gnostic atheist.

The term is completely redundant, no?

Gbear

Gbear wrote: »

If we're rigid about this definition of agnosticism then I would suggest that we remove it from the subforum name or else add it to all the other religious subforum names.

If agnosticism pertains to knowledge then nobody can accurately claim to be a gnostic with regards to religion one way or the other.

You can be certain in your beliefs - certainty doesn't affect whether you're agnostic or not.

If somebody claims to not be an agnostic they're either lying or they're wrong. Nobody is in possession of the requisite knowledge to be a gnostic theist and it's probably a logical impossibility to be in possession of the requisite knowledge to be a gnostic atheist.

The term is completely redundant, no?

Pretty much...

But the strict definitions of atheism (as a statement pertaining to belief) and agnosticism (as a statement pertaining to knowledge) are generally only understood by regulars of this forum, I'd guess. It seems that the vast majority of people--and hence the vast majority of people on Boards--define atheism as something along the lines of "thinking there is no god" and agnosticism as "not being sure if there is a god"; they view atheism-agnosticism-theism as a continuum, with atheism at one extreme, theism at the other, and agnosticism smack bang in between the two. So, in light of that, the name of the forum being Atheism & Agnosticism makes it more accessible.

Helix

Dades wrote: »

Hence agnosticism.

I get the point that every truth could be wrong (are we in the Matrix?), but theological claims are a long way from being an accepted truth and are therefore very much open to questioning. The very fact that people require *faith* to believe them indicates that knowledge is not there.

It's not belittling anything, either. Most atheists would be agnostic atheists despite encountering a complete lack of any evidence. It's the intellectually honest thing to do - assuming you understand the difference between knowledge and belief.

does christianity not demand that they take that stuff on as fact though? is that not the single most important facet of the religion, that they accept christ as their saviour? they can't do that if they accept, even to the smallest degree, that there may not actually be a god

Helix

Helix wrote: »

does christianity not demand that they take that stuff on as fact though? is that not the single most important facet of the religion, that they accept christ as their saviour? they can't do that if they accept, even to the smallest degree, that there may not actually be a god

They have to accept and believe it, yes. Christianity doesn't require its followers to know that their religion is true: believers can't know. If belief required absolute knowledge then religion wouldn't require faith. Faith is, to some degree, believing despite holding an agnostic viewpoint.

You're conflating two seperate ideas: belief and knowledge. It's important to draw a distinction between the two when discussings ideas like this.

Helix

gvn wrote: »

They have to accept and believe it, yes. Christianity doesn't require its followers to know that their religion is true: believers can't know. If belief required absolute knowledge then religion wouldn't require faith. Faith is, to some degree, believing despite holding an agnostic viewpoint.

You're conflating two seperate ideas: belief and knowledge. It's important to draw a distinction between the two when discussings ideas like this.

it's the same thing though

they believe that they know it to be true

nobody believes something that they reckon is false, never mind build their entire morality system around it

Helix

Helix wrote: »

it's the same thing though

they believe that they know it to be true

nobody believes something that they reckon is false, never mind build their entire morality system around it

I'm sure if you ask a rational, honest theist whether or not they know their religion to be true they'll tell you that they don't; just like I, or you, or any other atheist, do not know that there is no god.

If, as you say, belief and knowledge are the same, then what is the purpose of faith? Why is faith portrayed as such an important aspect of religion if it's not required? It wouldn't be required because if they knew their religion to be true they wouldn't need faith, would they?

Belief and knowledge are not the same. I can believe something to be true without knowing it to be true. As a crude example: I believe that the Earth will continue to rotate on its axis, and that because of this after the Sun sets tonight it will rise in the morning. Do I know this to be true? No, but I--and you--still believe it.

Galvasean

aidan24326 wrote: »

It's like a guy calling himself a Man Utd supporter even though he doesn't watch their games, has never been to Old Trafford, can't name the players and isn't even that interested in soccer in the first place

Actually, I've met quite a few Man United 'fans' like this down through the years...

aidan24326

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually, I've met quite a few Man United 'fans' like this down through the years...

So have I. But the point stands. It seems to be a deeper issue pf people needing to attach themselves to a certain group without necessarily considering what membership of that group entails. Descriptive labels have to mean something otherwise we should abandon them altogether. I might as well call myself a murderous gay communist while we're at it.

Helix

gvn wrote: »

I'm sure if you ask a rational, honest theist whether or not they know their religion to be true they'll tell you that they don't;

you give them far, far too much credit

people don't believe in things en masse, when they freely accept that there's a chance they could be wrong. you might think that's the way it is, but it's really not

there are very, very few people who would believe in something that they weren't essentially positive about (even though they may hedge their bets publicly). nobody puts all that effort into folllowing something unless they genuinely reckon that they're definitely right

they don't have evidence, that's where the faith comes in, but they are sure they're right. otherwise why bother? devout followers of religion simply don't entertain the idea that they could be wrong

equivariant

Helix wrote: »

it's the same thing though

no I don't think that they are.

they believe that they know it to be true

nobody believes something that they reckon is false, never mind build their entire morality system around it

that is not (i think) what gvn is saying. The point is that "knowing" something is true amounts to being able to deduce the statement from observable evidence combined with the rules of logic. Roman Catholicism, in fact, rejects this form of knowledge. It requires that followers accept god's existence on faith i.e. without knowledge. So I would say that in fact that catholicism requires its followers to be agnostic theists.

seamus

Helix wrote: »

they don't have evidence, that's where the faith comes in, but they are sure they're right. otherwise why bother? devout followers of religion simply don't entertain the idea that they could be wrong

I respectfully disagree.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're trying to apply the labels in far too pure a manner, á la No True Scotsman.

You do raise a good point - "If you're not 100% sure, then why bother?". If we could answer that question, then we might be able to go some way to dismantling organised religion in an orderly manner. Fear, guilt, tradition, ignorance, all possible reasons why someone would spend their time thumping bibles without being 100% sure of the existence of God.

It's also a probabilities thing. Ask most theists and they will say that they believe in God because they reckon it's more likely that he does exist than he doesn't. In the same way that Galvasean illustrates that people can believe in extraterrestrial life because it probably exists, taking all things into account, that's how many (if not most) theists will justify their belief in God.

You're also trying to apply rationality ("you're wasting your time unless you're 100% sure") to something which is inherently irrational. You can say that it's a contradiction, an internal, personal hypocrisy. But that won't change the fact that people believe without surity.
In fact there are vast swathes of doctrine devoted to this phenomenon to deal with "doubting" and "crises of faith" and so on and so forth. Most religions practically require their followers to not look for surity - to believe without evidence.

Dades

Helix wrote:

there are very, very few people who would believe in something that they weren't essentially positive about (even though they may hedge their bets publicly). nobody puts all that effort into folllowing something unless they genuinely reckon that they're definitely right

Just to add - it isn't a bother to believe in a God. Many people want to, and will resist evidence to the contrary. It's why religion still exists.

joseph brand

seamus wrote: »

It's also a probabilities thing. Ask most theists and they will say that they believe in God because they reckon it's more likely that he does exist than he doesn't. In the same way that Galvasean illustrates that people can believe in extraterrestrial life because it probably exists, taking all things into account, that's how many (if not most) theists will justify their belief in God.

Statistically there could be life all over our Milky Way galaxy (160 billion+ planets). Not to mention the chance of life being present in the other 100 billion+ galaxies in our Universe.

The chances of there being an all powerful god who made the Universe out of something , waited over 13 billion years to make humans and then worries what I'm thinking? And he looks like a strong father figure who makes theists feel secure.

It wouldn't work if he was depicted as looking like the god in South Park.

recedite

Helix wrote: »

you're not looking at it the way i intend it.

As the priest with his bible said to the atheist :pac:

Gbear wrote: »

If agnosticism pertains to knowledge then nobody can accurately claim to be a gnostic with regards to religion one way or the other.

The key word there is claim. Theists regularly claim to know that their holy book or religion is truth. In their own minds, they may not be able to distinguish a strong belief from knowledge. Or they may have received a "revelation"; an emotionally charged experience which they consider to be definitive proof. In such cases they can self identify as gnostic theists. Gnostic atheists on the other hand, are as rare as hen's teeth.