Author someotherguy Posted April 14, 2010 Author Posted April 14, 2010 religion is a core value, marriage does not work if the core values of both partners are not in tune. perhaps she did not lie to you, or disguise her desire to be religious, perhaps it is something she is just now getting into. with that being said, people contantly change, values change, you either grow together, or you grow apart. I think you may be on to something here. She did engage in some pretty disrespectful behavior in her failed marriage, and I've been wondering if maybe her new-found desire for religiosity may be a reflection of her guilt/regret over that behavior. I can guarantee I will not "find religion". However, due to my own psychology, I would feel profoundly bad if by virtue of being in a relationship with me, she missed out on what would otherwise have been a fulfilling lifestyle choice for her. Religion is hugely important to her family, she's currently the black sheep due to her previously somewhat lackluster stance on the issue, and she gets a lot of pressure to conform to their views, which is part of the reason she wants to. I can foresee a future where we're together and she decides to conform more to my views, and thereby alienates her family, which would be terrible. Belief systems are even more important when considering the implications resulting from the existence of children in the equation. Our child rearing styles will be heavily influenced by our views on religion, and this could also be a major point of contention. I admire your open-mindedness, but as for believing "we", as in atheists, might be wrong, that's the viewpoint of an agnostic, not an atheist. I am not trying to antagonize anyone here, but the fact is I am absolutely steadfast in my resolve about the non-existence of any god. That is what atheism is. And yes, I will categorically state that I know there is no god, just as someone who would call themselves a Christian should be able to say that they absolutely believe that there is. To get back on track, my point was not to inflame some religious debate, it was to examine the importance of religion as a core tenet within a relationship. I guess the question ultimately becomes, what is the likelihood of resentment growing between us over this issue? Would she resent me for "silently encouraging" her to suppress her desire to be religious? Would I resent her for suggesting I am somehow missing something in my life by not being religious? I'm asking for the aggregate wisdom of the members of this forum, calling me names won't help anything.
FryFish Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 And yes, I will categorically state that I know there is no god, just as someone who would call themselves a Christian should be able to say that they absolutely believe that there is.It seems I jumped to your defense too soon. You truly are the zealot. You cant KNOW that there is no god... There very likely is no god but you cant know that.
TheBigQuestion Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Anyone who still buys into Judeo-Christian theology in the 21st century is not worth your time as a serious dating partner if you happen to be an atheist. People are free to believe whatever they want, but religious faith is by definition an irrational belief, no more rational than believing in Zeus. If you want to avoid people like this, more power to ya.
Author someotherguy Posted April 14, 2010 Author Posted April 14, 2010 It seems I jumped to your defense too soon. You truly are the zealot. You cant KNOW that there is no god... There very likely is no god but you cant know that. A zealot is someone who displays "fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor" I do none of these things. I don't proselytize my knowledge to anyone within earshot. I haven't founded nor do I participate in any organizations or activities that espouse that my knowledge is the only truth in existence. I don't regularly read and memorize sections of books claiming to have special significance in regards to my knowledge. Hmmm, now that I think about it, those all sound like activities of pretty typical religious folk. As for proving there is no god, come on, that is the oldest, most tired argument in existence. You can't prove a negative.
FryFish Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 As for proving there is no god, come on, that is the oldest, most tired argument in existence. You can't prove a negative.Yet you claim you KNOW there is no god... Dude, am agnostic/atheist. I dont believe that there is a god and in fact am quite sure there isnt one... but we both KNOW that neither of us can KNOW for sure one way or the other.
TheBigQuestion Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 A zealot is someone who displays "fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor" I do none of these things. I don't proselytize my knowledge to anyone within earshot. I haven't founded nor do I participate in any organizations or activities that espouse that my knowledge is the only truth in existence. I don't regularly read and memorize sections of books claiming to have special significance in regards to my knowledge. Hmmm, now that I think about it, those all sound like activities of pretty typical religious folk. As for proving there is no god, come on, that is the oldest, most tired argument in existence. You can't prove a negative. Not only that, being an atheist does not require any "faith" at all, in response to some ludicrous statement another poster made here previously. It's a simple conclusion based on what human beings CAN know through their senses, and one that doesn't rest on superstition, childhood brainwashing, or guilt for being a "bad person" earlier in life. It's not a claim of absolute knowledge (which many religious people claim they KNOW God exists because they can "feel" his presence). Anyone who can trace back the evolution of the current Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion and the fact that its worldwide propagation was politically driven, that the so called "word of God" was written by man and altered constantly over the years, that no religion is any more correct regarding issues of theism/worship, that the primary way in which religion is propagated is through brainwashing young children and preying on the emotionally weak and vulnerable, but STILL chooses to believe in it IS being intellectually dishonest and self-delusional. Not someone I'd date. If you can't tell, religious beliefs are a dealbreaker for me.
FryFish Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 It's not a claim of absolute knowledgeNot for the rational... but someotherguy actually MADE the claim of absolute knowledge... And yes, I will categorically state that I know there is no god, just as someone who would call themselves a Christian should be able to say that they absolutely believe that there is.
TheBigQuestion Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Yeah that's a bit odd. Most of the most famous/outspoken atheists will say that it's not a matter of absolute knowledge.
dazzle22 Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Ah, yes, and this is the kind of spirited debate you can look forward to as daily dinner conversation with your 'inlaws and wife' if you take this relationship to one of two inevitable conclusions... Belief or non-belief in God for most people is not just a core belief, it is THE core belief out of which everything else about the way they live emerges from....the root of the tree if you will. That is why people get so heated about it. You are 'chopping at the roots of their tree'... The old adage that you should 'keep your eyes wide open before marriage and half closed after' is sage advice but something that very few people in the initial stages of love or limerance listen to. Now is truly the time to ask whether you can live with a very religious family as possible inlaws. Heck, even ask yourself if you can tolerate little idiosyncrosies of the other person for the rest of your life possibly. I say this is a risky relationship. But then I am a non religious person who was in a first marriage with someone who became a very fundamentalist Christian and the conclusion there was parallel lives, not great compatable soulmates.
allina Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 To be utterly, completely honest, I have serious issues respecting people who are blinded by religious beliefs. They can be my friends, family, and associates, but I will not willfully get into a relationship with someone who goes to church, reads the bible regularly, and uses religious nonsense in serious arguments. Can you be a successful couple and have wildly differing views on something that seems so important? My views are nearly identical to yours. I know that I would not be able to date a religious person, it just wouldn't work for me. I am unable and unwilling to welcome any religion in to my life. I think a relationship can work with different views on certain things. But wildly different views on religion? I don't think so.
JamesM Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 And yes, I will categorically state that I know there is no god, just as someone who would call themselves a Christian should be able to say that they absolutely believe that there is. Why is it that you KNOW that there is no god while a Christian can only BELIEVE there is a God? Perhaps they can know as you know...or perhaps you can only both believe? I will say it again...no one can know either way. Period. Unless you have searched every portion of the universe, there is no way that you can say that God does not exist. And as long as you view it as you know and she can only believe then there is no way that the two of you will ever respect each other's POV. Not only that, being an atheist does not require any "faith" at all, in response to some ludicrous statement another poster made here previously. It's a simple conclusion based on what human beings CAN know through their senses, and one that doesn't rest on superstition, childhood brainwashing, or guilt for being a "bad person" earlier in life. It's not a claim of absolute knowledge (which many religious people claim they KNOW God exists because they can "feel" his presence). Ah...that is what all atheists like to say. :rolleyes:To know that there is a God requires faith, but to know that there is not a God is simply a simple or logical conclusion. Many have concluded that there is a God based on logic and rationale even though they themselves were either raised an atheist or had originally decided that there was no god. We only need to begin with Anthony Flew. As for those who know there is a god based on a religious experience, it can be very true. Just because someone does not have the same experience is no indication that others cannot have such an experience. I know of some who have married and one believes there is a god and the other does not. However, when the one who believes that there is not a god thinks that his or her decision is more rational or not a result of brainwashing, then it is not the theist that will be the intolerant one. that the so called "word of God" was written by man and altered constantly over the years, Uh...read the history of how the Bible began and you will find that it actually has remained very constant over the years. Translations today match up very closely to the original Greek manuscripts. Please don't say that there are over two hundred variations without explaining what all of those variations really are. that the primary way in which religion is propagated is through brainwashing young children and preying on the emotionally weak and vulnerable, Every parent raises their children as they believe. It is no more brainwashing to raise them as you believe or as I believe. As for preying on the weak and vulnerable....I think it would be good for you to read a few scholarly books on theology and the existence of God. I am always fascinated at how many very educated and intelligent people have excellent arguments for God's existence. but STILL chooses to believe in it IS being intellectually dishonest and self-delusional. Not someone I'd date. If you can't tell, religious beliefs are a dealbreaker for me. And if someone chooses to ignore the multitude of evidence for a god...even if he or she ignores how such a god should be worshiped, then he or she cannot learn from those who have drawn completely different conclusions based on the evidence. To call someone who reaches a different conclusion as "intellectually dishonest" and "self-delusional" gives evidence of an attitude of what some might call...arrogance. Such a person had better stay out of a relationship with someone who has not reached such levels of...shall we say...intellectual superiority (at least in his or her own mind). What it boils down to is very simple...when two commit to a relationship, the ones that survive best for the long run are those in which both persons have common beliefs in the major areas of life...and religion/lack of religion is one of the most major areas that people disagree...as evidenced here.
TheBigQuestion Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 (edited) Don't misrepresent what I said or mistake me for the OP. I never said I KNOW there isn't a God. I said I'm an atheist, meaning I don't see a reason to believe in God because I realize that belief in any deity is simply a product of culture in a given place and era. Therefore, belief in Allah is no more rational or plausible than believing in Ra. Both figures are ontologically of the same class. Brainwashing doesn't have to be done consciously. If adults are raising their kids and teaching them "this is the word of God, these are the rules of God, these are the customs" from a very young age, an age where they are not able to make informed decisions for themselves, it is still brainwashing. As for "religious experiences," there is nothing that separates most of these from delusional or psychotic episodes. I was a philosophy major and did some graduate coursework in philosophy of religion. Pretty much every argument for the existence of God is some variation/combination of the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments, all of which are fatally flawed in some way or another. No one in human history has ever come up with a logically airtight argument for the existence of God. All of them are either circular (implicitly assume what they are trying to prove), ignorant of the facts of science, favor one religious viewpoint over another (red herrings), or simply give humanity too much credit (i.e. assume a anthropocentric view of the universe). You can't fool me on this one. Furthermore, you can be intelligent and still be emotionally vulnerable and weak. Are you denying that most people become religious either by "being raised that way" or feeling that they are broken people and end up using it to fill some sort of inner void? I'm well aware that translations of the Bible remain fairly consistent. I was speaking holistically about the evolutions/divisions in Christianity and how most of these were political in nature, and that there is therefore no need to believe that the tenets of what one worships are the tenets of a true God, no reason to believe that what's in the Bible are the true words of God, other than the fact that "it says so in the Bible." Couldn't it just be like any other point in history where groups of people tried to explain the world around them and tried to form codes of ethics without our current scientific abilities, and as a result came up with a few clever ghost stories? The answer is most plausibly: yes. The fact that there are people who believe this crap and base it on the premise (no matter how marginally) "It's the right religion because it says it is" is absolutely horrifying to me, because that's what a majority of religions say anyway. I'd rather throw myself head first into a woodchipper than be forced to date someone who believed anything close to that. If refusing to date an ignoramus makes me arrogant, then I'm as arrogant as can be. Oh yeah, worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg Edited April 15, 2010 by TheBigQuestion
JamesM Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 (edited) Don't misrepresent what I said or mistake me for the OP. I never said I KNOW there isn't a God. I thought I WAS referring to the OP. Sorry if you took it to mean you. If adults are raising their kids and teaching them "this is the word of God, these are the rules of God, these are the customs" from a very young age, an age where they are not able to make informed decisions for themselves, it is still brainwashing. Since this relates to the OP and possible family, then I can say that no matter how parents raise their children, it can be called brainwashing. Every parent teaches their children one POV or another. Pretty much every argument for the existence of God is some variation/combination of the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments, all of which are fatally flawed in some way or another. No one in human history has ever come up with a logically airtight argument for the existence of God. Having also studied philosophy, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. Explaining why the arguments are or are not flawed will get us way off track on this thread. While no one has come up with an airtight case for a God, no one has proved his non-existence either. As I stated before, factually knowing there is or isn't a God is not possible. Are you denying that most people become religious either by "being raised that way" or feeling that they are broken people and end up using it to fill some sort of inner void? No, because your second half of that phrase will describe how most Christians at least describe themselves...broken sinners saved by grace. I don't know the statistics, but it is true that many follow how they were raised. This does not indicate the truth or falseness of a belief. One would have to say that anyone who follows how he or she was raised is only doing as each has been brainwashed. Many come to the knowledge that there is a God through an examination of the evidence and draw logical conclusions. The fact that there are people who believe this crap and base it on the premise (no matter how marginally) "It's the right religion because it says it is" is absolutely horrifying to me, As it is to me. However, "this crap" indicates a POV that is even more horrifying to me. While I certainly believe my POV is correct or I would not hold to it, I do not think this gives me the right to call someone else an ignoramus or tell them that what they believe is "crap." It may be IMO but it certainly will not help me convince them of that. If refusing to date an ignoramus makes me arrogant, then I'm as arrogant as can be. I refuse to date an ignoramus, too. We at least agree on that. Why you define someone as an ignoramus may differ from me though. Personally, I truly do have difficulty in treating someone less than equal to me because of what he or she believes. Each of us are human beings who deserve respect. I am guessing that you do agree with me....dating someone who thinks completely different is not a good recipe for a great future relationship. I would say that two atheists in a marriage or two Christians in a marriage or two Muslims in a marriage would be better than having one of each together. It is not impossible to date and marry someone of a different or no religion, but it will make things much more difficult. As for your little video clip (thanks), I have so many rebuttals that this thread would be closed as we got way off topic. Edited April 15, 2010 by JamesM
Author someotherguy Posted April 15, 2010 Author Posted April 15, 2010 Since we're woefully off track anyway, lol: I'm still waiting to read a logical, intelligent, coherent argument for the existence of god... Simply saying "no-one has disproved it" is total BS. You don't disprove things that don't exist. Here's a very simple question: of all the gods mankind has put his collective faith in over hundreds of thousands of years, how likely is it that the Christians finally got right what millions of people before them somehow got wrong? Why is Zeus or Bacchus any less likely a divine power than yahweh?
JamesM Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Since we're woefully off track anyway, lol: Actually, we haven't been far off track, but if we do even if it is by you, then your thread will be closed. I'm still waiting to read a logical, intelligent, coherent argument for the existence of god... Methinks that if you did some serious research, then you would find some logical coherent arguments. However, as most of us do, we tend to read what will agree with us and ignore that which doesn't. And yes, I include myself. I have taken the time to read some books with completely differing POVs, but it is hard to do so with an open mind. It can be done. Reading such books has made me think. Personally, reading what you have posted, then I can say from my POV that a relationship with any theist would be pure torture for you...and her.
Bejita463 Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 While no one has come up with an airtight case for a God, no one has proved his non-existence either. That's not really how it works. Burden of proof is on those making a claim, not on those questioning it.
FryFish Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Many come to the knowledge that there is a God through an examination of the evidence and draw logical conclusions. This is untrue. Methinks that if you did some serious research, then you would find some logical coherent arguments.Meknows this is untrue.
Author someotherguy Posted April 15, 2010 Author Posted April 15, 2010 Methinks that if you did some serious research, then you would find some logical coherent arguments. However, as most of us do, we tend to read what will agree with us and ignore that which doesn't. And yes, I include myself. I have taken the time to read some books with completely differing POVs, but it is hard to do so with an open mind. It can be done. Reading such books has made me think. This was a totally predictable response. Your assumption that I have not "done my research" is infantile. I studied theology at an exclusive private Lutheran college as part of my undergrad. I also studied psychology and philosophy. I have read the arguments, and I have broken their nonsense 'proofs'. Your job, as the claimant, is to prove your point. And remember, logic demands consistency, and you're not allowed to use base assumptions that prove to be circular references. There is a god because there is a god because there is a god is not permissible.
VertexSquared Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 That's not really how it works. Burden of proof is on those making a claim, not on those questioning it. This. There is absolutely no proof of God, currently. Many things are explainable through other means. For that which we do not know, we simply say we don't know (at least, from an atheist perspective). To say that that which is unknown is the work of a God is a claim demanding some sort of substantiation -- the onus is on you to explain why you believe in something. The onus is *not* on the counterparty to "disprove" it. Otherwise we'd be disproving damn near everything -- fairies under the table, gnomes in my garden, hidden blue hedgehogs in my liver, etc. The problem with God, logically, is that he's defined as something by many to be outside of whatever proof or answers we DO come up with. It's actually an *illogical* response to "move the goalposts" or buy into the "God of the Gaps" argument. There are an infinite number of things we can believe in when it comes to something we don't know the answer to. As a result, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
reservoirdog1 Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Can you be a successful couple and have wildly differing views on something that seems so important? Speaking as an atheist, in my view it's definitely possible. However, for me, there would be a few things I would require of the woman in question. 1) We respect each other's views and beliefs. 2) No proselytizing by you. I will not be with somebody who wants to "convert" me. I don't need converting. My views on religion are just as valid as yours. 3) You can go to church, synagogue, mosque, etc., no problem. I may go once in awhile as your companion, but that will be at my option. I have no problem meeting or entertaining the friends you make at your place of worship. 4) Your religion must not interfere with our ability to have a healthy sex life. 5) You won't quote scripture at me during arguments/discussions/debates etc. You must be a THINKING person of faith. Sound reasonable?
JamesM Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 That's not really how it works. Burden of proof is on those making a claim, not on those questioning it. Yes and no. However, if I make the claim that you do not exist, then I must be able to prove that to be the case. Just because someone else has failed at proving you do exist IMO does not mean that you do not exist. This is untrue. Meknows this is untrue. Actually, people do reach the conclusion that a God exists based on factual evidence and logical conclusions. This may lead them to a personal God or it may not. Anthony Flew as an example, reached the conclusion that there is a God, but he has not (to my knowledge) claimed to be a Christian. This was done based on an examination of evidence, and certainly not from a personal experience or upbringing. This was a totally predictable response. Your assumption that I have not "done my research" is infantile. First off...keep the infantile remarks to yourself.:)I did not say that you had not done any research. I simply said doing some serious (and later open minded) research would show you that there are logical and coherent arguments. That does not mean that you would agree with the arguments. I have read many good arguments for God not existing but have also read many poor ones. I studied theology at an exclusive private Lutheran college as part of my undergrad. I also studied psychology and philosophy. I studied the above subjects at a public university and was exposed to many POVs. I think I drew different conclusions than you. I have read the arguments, and I have broken their nonsense 'proofs'. Good for you. Your job, as the claimant, is to prove your point. I am not going to prove my point because I have already said that neither side can convincingly prove the existence or non-existence of God. Each can only show how they think the evidence supports their own. And remember, logic demands consistency, and you're not allowed to use base assumptions that prove to be circular references. There is a god because there is a god because there is a god is not permissible. Again...this thread is not for that, nor do I have the time to get into such a thread as I have done on LS (and other boards) numerous times. I know without a doubt that I will not convince you. As one atheist said when I asked what would convince him that God existed, he said that it would take a personal visit. However, in a later post, he said that if someone came to his door claiming to be God, then he would call 911 for some mental professionals to take away such a crazy person. The point being....nothing could convince him. Books have been written for both sides. This has happened for centuries. I highly doubt that either of us will have a new argument that will cause a breakthrough. The truth will be known at the day of our death. Either we will fade away into oblivion, or we will wake up to the realization that God has been here all along.
FryFish Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 However, if I make the claim that you do not exist, then I must be able to prove that to be the case.lol.... NO. You start from such a disadvantage in this debate that in order for you to properly participate you will need to take a course on applied logic. Fajita is here and capable of proving his own existence. You can say "hey, I dont believe that Fajita exists!!!" and we can say "well, objective, observable reality proves you wrong"... And that can all happen without him piping up and saying "OY! Im right here!"... You god has yet to be observed by ANYONE and has yet to say OY! Actually, people do reach the conclusion that a God exists based on factual evidence and logical conclusions.Actually its based entirely on subjective interpretations of their own personal experiences. ... This was done based on an examination of evidence, and certainly not from a personal experience or upbringing.Incorrect. Otherwise we would ALL be theists.
Bejita463 Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Yes and no. However, if I make the claim that you do not exist, then I must be able to prove that to be the case. Just because someone else has failed at proving you do exist IMO does not mean that you do not exist. If you were to make the claim that I do not exist and that claim were to be refuted, the person challenging your claim is the one who obtains the burden of proof. Fajita is here and capable of proving his own existence. You can say "hey, I dont believe that Fajita exists!!!" and we can say "well, objective, observable reality proves you wrong"... And that can all happen without him piping up and saying "OY! Im right here!" I'm not a fajita. You're a fajita. Your FACE is a fajita.
Recommended Posts