Atheism

Originally posted by dadudemon
I find most of those arguments with a significant other can be solved by just letting it go. Just not worth it. There are a nearly infinite other things to enjoy together than the discussions on the existential.

I also, naively, think an evangelical Christian and staunch atheist can be happily married with children. 😐

Don't let me paint the wrong kind of picture. She's a Christian, but only in the loosest sense. It doesn't come up, and isn't an issue. But yeah, it's a shame that I have to walk on eggshells a bit. I could have really gotten into it with her on this, but refrained due to the potential fallout of the ensuing debate. Still, it's not a big deal to me. Like I said at one point a few pages back, as long as it doesn't intrude on my life, I'm kosher with it.

On the latter, first: lol, and second: no, I doubt it. I mean, technically yes, but statistically you'd be deluding yourself to think that kind of match has a reasonable chance at success. I'm sure we could find an exception. But the exception would prove the rule in this case, imo.

Originally posted by Digi
Don't let me paint the wrong kind of picture. She's a Christian, but only in the loosest sense.

YouTube video

Then it sounds like you got a keeper. 🙂

Originally posted by Digi On the latter, first: lol, and second: no, I doubt it. I mean, technically yes, but statistically you'd be deluding yourself to think that kind of match has a reasonable chance at success. I'm sure we could find an exception. But the exception would prove the rule in this case, imo.

I agree. The optimistic side of me foolishly thinks people can get over defining themselves primarily by their religious or irreligious beliefs.

For instance, since I am close to the atheist border, pretend I got married to a super pentecostal gal:

1. I wouldn't give a crap if she wanted to get married in a church: holds no eternal meaning for me but does her. Unless the church did something depraved, I don't really give a damn.
2. She can baptize our children and take them to church with her. As long as I get some time with my children to also teach them my beliefs (keep in mind, I'm supposed to be a staunch atheist in this scenario).
3. My daughters and sons could get married wherever and however they wanted: I'd still pay.

So, I don't see it as that much of an issue if people can just get over what I consider petty differences. Luckily, my wife and I are pretty much the same: agnostic but think there is definitely something like God out there, somewhere. My wife is a bit more religious than I am because she's a female and we all know that female stereotypes are true.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Then it sounds like you got a keeper. 🙂

Meh, we broke up. I'm not as torn up as I thought I'd be (though it was me that did the breaking). But yes, she was cool and the sex was good. Oh well; on to the next godless seductress...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. The optimistic side of me foolishly thinks people can get over defining themselves primarily by their religious or irreligious beliefs.

For instance, since I am close to the atheist border, pretend I got married to a super pentecostal gal:

1. I wouldn't give a crap if she wanted to get married in a church: holds no eternal meaning for me but does her. Unless the church did something depraved, I don't really give a damn.
2. She can baptize our children and take them to church with her. As long as I get some time with my children to also teach them my beliefs (keep in mind, I'm supposed to be a staunch atheist in this scenario).
3. My daughters and sons could get married wherever and however they wanted: I'd still pay.

You're using yourself as an example, which in this case lends itself to your argument. For the vaguely agnostic or theistic "middle" of society, yeah, this isn't much of an issue, and there won't be many religious sects that are incompatible with them. But as soon as you step out a standard deviation or two toward either end of the theistic spectrum, it gets much harder. I don't know what your experience is with dating - you said you're married - but I generally pre-screen for religious fanaticism in my dates and I've still been broken up with just over the atheist label. No discussion, no big falling out over beliefs, just a vaguely Christian, non-church-going girl saying "oh, you're atheist? kthxbai." I also realize the sampling size bias is present in this anecdote, but I use it only to say that this sort of romantic discrimination exists, and not just on the outliers of extremism.

I'd try to pre-screen for any religiosity at this point - it's tiring after a while trying to reconcile with each girl's religion - but that also limits me massively in the Midwest. I've stopped using atheist though. I say non-religious, and it means the same to me without creating unnecessary problems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
we all know that female stereotypes are true.

I can't shake the one about them being bad drivers. There are guy drivers that are assholes, or needlessly agressive. But I swear, every time I see a straight-up dumbass driver, it's female. Small sample size, selection bias, yada yada, I know...but it's a hard feeling to shake.

Originally posted by Digi
Meh, we broke up. I'm not as torn up as I thought I'd be (though it was me that did the breaking). But yes, she was cool and the sex was good. Oh well; on to the next godless seductress...

Too bad. But you're handsome (iirc...don't remember), in good shape, intelligent, and can hold a decent conversation about anything: the 4 out of 5 things 95% of straight American women like in a man. 🙂 (The fifth is money...lots of money: a fact proven by science...not even kidding).

Originally posted by Digi
You're using yourself as an example, which in this case lends itself to your argument. For the vaguely agnostic or theistic "middle" of society, yeah, this isn't much of an issue, and there won't be many religious sects that are incompatible with them.

I am far closer to atheist than a Pentecostal theist. In the real world, I argue more against theists and theistic issues than I do atheistic ones.....but that is probably due to where I live. While at the end of the day, I would say I am an "agnostic theist", I am much closer to atheism than outright bible-humping Christian theism.

Originally posted by Digi
But as soon as you step out a standard deviation or two toward either end of the theistic spectrum, it gets much harder. I don't know what your experience is with dating - you said you're married - but I generally pre-screen for religious fanaticism in my dates and I've still been broken up with just over the atheist label. No discussion, no big falling out over beliefs, just a vaguely Christian, non-church-going girl saying "oh, you're atheist? kthxbai." I also realize the sampling size bias is present in this anecdote, but I use it only to say that this sort of romantic discrimination exists, and not just on the outliers of extremism.

During the dating scene, I did all the breaking up and I did a lot of dating. I am the last person that should be used as an example because I was pretty much a jerk.

Religion was never an issue, though. In my adventures, I dated an atheist and a staunch Jew. Honestly, the atheist was one of the easiest going people I dated...but stunk too much (literally, malodorous), so I dropped her. 😐

Originally posted by Digi
I'd try to pre-screen for any religiosity at this point - it's tiring after a while trying to reconcile with each girl's religion - but that also limits me massively in the Midwest. I've stopped using atheist though. I say non-religious, and it means the same to me without creating unnecessary problems.

You could say "unsure" and that is generally more acceptable in the Midwest. Then, later, you could state why you cannot be sure to any degree that there is a higher being in existence...then the next convo could be, "I generally identify with atheism...now bend over." 😐

Originally posted by Digi
I can't shake the one about them being bad drivers. There are guy drivers that are assholes, or needlessly agressive. But I swear, every time I see a straight-up dumbass driver, it's female. Small sample size, selection bias, yada yada, I know...but it's a hard feeling to shake.

There was a study done about the ability of women to focus. They have a more difficult time than men on focusing on just 1 story when two are being read, simultaneously, than men. That could contribute to the why on the bad driving of women. However, the stats show men get into more wrecks and more deadly wrecks than women. But, imo, that has more to do with their aggression and thrill-seeking than it does in a lack in ability to drive.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Too bad. But you're handsome (iirc...don't remember), in good shape, intelligent, and can hold a decent conversation about anything: the 4 out of 5 things 95% of straight American women like in a man. 🙂 (The fifth is money...lots of money: a fact proven by science...not even kidding).

I'm financially stable. Not sure if that counts. But I absolutely believe the money thing you said.

If I were a few inches taller and agnostic/theist or Christian, I'd be the most eligible man for miles. Alas, I can't quite have everything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Religion was never an issue, though. In my adventures, I dated an atheist and a staunch Jew. Honestly, the atheist was one of the easiest going people I dated...but stunk too much (literally, malodorous), so I dropped her. 😐

LOL. I have yet to date a Jewish girl (not for lack of trying a couple times), but my primary goal at this point is to date a ginger atheist. I will openly make fun of her for having no soul and tell her she's going to hell, regardless of my belief (or lack thereof) in either. And then we will bang.

...it's the little things in life. 😊

Originally posted by dadudemon
You could say "unsure" and that is generally more acceptable in the Midwest. Then, later, you could state why you cannot be sure to any degree that there is a higher being in existence...then the next convo could be, "I generally identify with atheism...now bend over." 😐

I don't want to lie though. I'm not unsure at all. I like getting to the sex part, so I've been known to, er, avoid the issue for a while in fear of scaring girls off. But it feels ill-gotten if I have to tell outright lies to get there.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There was a study done about the ability of women to focus. They have a more difficult time than men on focusing on just 1 story when two are being read, simultaneously, than men. That could contribute to the why on the bad driving of women. However, the stats show men get into more wrecks and more deadly wrecks than women. But, imo, that has more to do with their aggression and thrill-seeking than it does in a lack in ability to drive.

I've seen those stats on crashes. I refuse to believe them. Every totaled car or multi-wreck person I've ever known is female. Obviously, rational Digi tells me I'm guilty of insane selection bias, but emotional Digi tells him to stuff it.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm financially stable. Not sure if that counts. But I absolutely believe the money thing you said.

If I were a few inches taller and agnostic/theist or Christian, I'd be the most eligible man for miles. Alas, I can't quite have everything.

I'll find it, the study...

Not it but close: Fat men can attract good looking females and there is a linear relationship between their BMI and how much more money they have to make to keep attracting those females:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2047078/Women-dont-mind-fat-men-long-rich.html

I cannot comment about this study while at work for obvious reasons:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html

But one of my fav sexologists, Helen Fisher, has studied this stuff for ages. Just Google her name and she's done lots of work in this area. The study she did that I'm talking about is where she showed images of previously rated males (another group rated the look of the males, purely based on their looks) and then these images were shown to another set of women with a made up profession. Then that same set was shown to another set of women with a profession and income. Almost universally, the man with lots of income was rated very highly no matter how attractive he was rated by the first group (for instance, an ugly man (2 or 3) was rated a 9 or a 10 if he made a crap ton of money). Profession had a bit to do with it but the income had much more to do with their attractiveness. 😐

Originally posted by Digi
LOL. I have yet to date a Jewish girl (not for lack of trying a couple times),

The Jewish gal was SMOKIN' hot. She was also very pushy and b*tchy: hooray for stereotypes, yet again.

Originally posted by Digi
but my primary goal at this point is to date a ginger atheist. I will openly make fun of her for having no soul and tell her she's going to hell, regardless of my belief (or lack thereof) in either. And then we will bang.

...it's the little things in life. 😊

crylaugh

That's...absurdly awesome. 😐

Originally posted by Digi
I don't want to lie though. I'm not unsure at all. I like getting to the sex part, so I've been known to, er, avoid the issue for a while in fear of scaring girls off. But it feels ill-gotten if I have to tell outright lies to get there.

Oh, I thought you had said prior that there is a part of you that doubts and you cannot call yourself a gnostic atheist?

But you should lie: that's what everyone else does, according to another study about budding relationships...........

Originally posted by Digi
I've seen those stats on crashes. I refuse to believe them. Every totaled car or multi-wreck person I've ever known is female. Obviously, rational Digi tells me I'm guilty of insane selection bias, but emotional Digi tells him to stuff it.

I honestly know of only 1 male that died in a car crash and several females that died in car crashes. Anecdotal Dom agrees with Anecdotal Digi. Rational Dom, who had to do an analysis in one of his stat classes on car accidents, stuck with the numbers and ignored the selection bias.

It is this unthinking emotional justification for belief that I cannot adhere to.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll find it, the study...

Not it but close: Fat men can attract good looking females and there is a linear relationship between their BMI and how much more money they have to make to keep attracting those females:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2047078/Women-dont-mind-fat-men-long-rich.html

I cannot comment about this study while at work for obvious reasons:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html

But one of my fav sexologists, Helen Fisher, has studied this stuff for ages. Just Google her name and she's done lots of work in this area. The study she did that I'm talking about is where she showed images of previously rated males (another group rated the look of the males, purely based on their looks) and then these images were shown to another set of women with a made up profession. Then that same set was shown to another set of women with a profession and income. Almost universally, the man with lots of income was rated very highly no matter how attractive he was rated by the first group (for instance, an ugly man (2 or 3) was rated a 9 or a 10 if he made a crap ton of money). Profession had a bit to do with it but the income had much more to do with their attractiveness. 😐

Interesting. I'll do some digging. All kinds of psychological factors go into attraction, though, and this is obvious on any level, not just empirical. So this doesn't surprise me much.

And it seems to be the opposite with women. They can get away with more if they're attractive:
YouTube video

Or to put it another amusing way that I've seen online:
Women rating men: Looks + Personality + Money
Men rating women: (Money + Personality) x Looks
...in the long-term, this tends to break down. In the short-term, it seems terrifyingly accurate in my experience.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The Jewish gal was SMOKIN' hot. She was also very pushy and b*tchy: hooray for stereotypes, yet again.

I really want to google "hot jewish women" now, but my ethnic guilt (and being at work) is preventing it. For now...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, I thought you had said prior that there is a part of you that doubts and you cannot call yourself a gnostic atheist?

But you should lie: that's what everyone else does, according to another study about budding relationships...........

Gnostic? Goodness, no. I'm an atheist. Period, done. It describes me quite well. If you want to go one step further, I'm a materialist (i.e. don't believe in a transcendent reality or supernatural phenomena) and a determinist. There's not much wiggle room there. Calling myself anything else is a white lie, even if it's only to say something like "I'm not religious."

I just avoid the topic when I think it might be an issue. It's a more conscience-friendly lie. At least until I can win her over with my charm and sexual prowess, all for the glory of our Lord Satan.

fdog

Originally posted by Digi
Interesting. I'll do some digging. All kinds of psychological factors go into attraction, though, and this is obvious on any level, not just empirical. So this doesn't surprise me much.

And it seems to be the opposite with women. They can get away with more if they're attractive:
YouTube video

Or to put it another amusing way that I've seen online:
Women rating men: Looks + Personality + Money
Men rating women: (Money + Personality) x Looks
...in the long-term, this tends to break down. In the short-term, it seems terrifyingly accurate in my experience.

I really want to google "hot jewish women" now, but my ethnic guilt (and being at work) is preventing it. For now...

Gnostic? Goodness, no. I'm an atheist. Period, done. It describes me quite well. If you want to go one step further, I'm a materialist (i.e. don't believe in a transcendent reality or supernatural phenomena) and a determinist. There's not much wiggle room there. Calling myself anything else is a white lie, even if it's only to say something like "I'm not religious."

I just avoid the topic when I think it might be an issue. It's a more conscience-friendly lie. At least until I can win her over with my charm and sexual prowess, all for the glory of our Lord Satan.

fdog

Originally posted by Newjak
You see your plan was going strong until you tried to win her over with your charm and sexual prowess. Everyone knows you don't have either one 😛

The hell is this? Do I come into your comic discussions and tell you to stop flirting with the teenage fanboys? I could. Everyone's slightly embarrassed about it. The whole d*ck-pic thing was really a low point.

But no, I respect your pedophilic wishes and let you do your thing. Because I'm a decent human being like that.

Sheesh!

Originally posted by Digi
The hell is this? Do I come into your comic discussions and tell you to stop flirting with the teenage fanboys? I could. Everyone's slightly embarrassed about it. The whole d*ck-pic thing was really a low point.

But no, I respect your pedophilic wishes and let you do your thing. Because I'm a decent human being like that.

Sheesh!

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm following the footsteps of the mods who came before me uhuh

Well, I do love stickin' it to 14-year-old Hulk fanboys. Metaphorically, of course. In debate...

awecreep

Originally posted by Digi
Well, I do love stickin' it to 14-year-old Hulk fanboys. Metaphorically, of course. In debate...

awecreep

YouTube video

I f*cking love Penn Jillette.

I thought I was an atheist. But I found out I was I'm really an agnostic.

I think ...

You can be both.

How so when one doesn't believe and the other just doesn't know? ..

Did you watch that Penn Jillette video above you? He mentions the difference between them. Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist, and agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of God's existence. You can believe in something without knowing that it's true, just as you can believe that something doesn't exist without knowing it doesn't exist. He argues that anyone who believes in God (and doesn't have a mental disease) is also an agnostic--no one can KNOW God exists, even if their convinced he does. Belief =/= knowledge. Course that only covers one side of atheism. As QualiaSoup said, you can be an atheist without having the belief that God doesn't exist--since you can lack having a belief about the issue either way:

YouTube video

That QualiaSoup video is one of my favorites ever. It's a really good summation of atheism as most people understand it or use it to describe themselves.

It must have been you who originally posted it, I take. Someone posted it here a few years ago and I found a new favourite channel.