Atheism and the ladies

random_punter_2

Over the past few months I've found myself increasingly "fundamentalist" when I comes to supporting Atheism. The apathy of Christians and the ignorance to what Atheism is about is very annoying. I've reached the point where when Im out on the beer I bring it up every time, I'm sure its getting boring to my mates and Im even tired myself of explaining evolution via beer mats. Does anyone else find it the same, that they are tired of not having mates they can hang around who come from the same belief system. Not to talk about religion per sey but to at least know they are coming from the same background. I sometimes bring it up with women who always respond with the same bull**** responses to back up religion. I've reached the point where I dont think I could consider a girlfriend who isnt atheist. So this is a call-out, albeit desperate, if you are female 20 to 25 in the Dublin or Kildare area, interested in having a decent conversation over a few pints send me a pm, it would be great to see another atheist in the flesh and a refreshing break from the usual.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

evangelical atheists are almost as annoying as evangelical religious crazies... an air of smugness and superiority is all that is required

Dave!

It's not usually a topic I bring up when trying to "woo" the ladies, I have to say. It would probably, as Mordeth says, make you seem very smug that you're so eager to bring it up.

Besides, a nightclub is not the place to start a secular revolution I don't think! They'll probably forget about it by the morning.

Beruthiel

random_punter_2 wrote:

I've reached the point where when Im out on the beer I bring it up every time

Why?
Religion, or the lack there of, is a very personal thing and most people do not wish to discuss it.
I would never air my views unless asked or the converation was brought up by someone else.

Scofflaw

Nightclub? Definitely the wrong place. Pub, yes, or party, but almost by definition anyone in a nightclub is out for an evening of practical rather than theoretical materialism.

Also, a word of caution - I am myself married to a fellow atheist, but you won't get her to discuss atheism, I'm afraid - women tend to be more practical about it than men, in my experience. Your best bet is to make male atheist friends - generally, the women they know will either be atheist/agnostic or at least tolerant.

Still, I wish you luck.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

random_punter_2 wrote:

Over the past few months I've found myself increasingly "fundamentalist" when I comes to supporting Atheism .... if you are female 20 to 25 in the Dublin or Kildare area, interested in having a decent conversation over a few pints send me a pm, it would be great to see another atheist in the flesh and a refreshing break from the usual.

LOL ... this is really just a singles add isn't it

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

LOL ... this is really just a singles add isn't it

It sure wins a prize for originality though:D

random_punter_2

Beruthiel wrote:

Why?
Religion, or the lack there of, is a very personal thing and most people do not wish to discuss it.
I would never air my views unless asked or the converation was brought up by someone else.

Because in my mind our place in this universe is the most important thing. I can not think of a more important question than why we exist. Why do people not wish to discuss it? The more members to a debate the more interesting the result.

Zillah

random_punter_2 wrote:

Because in my mind our place in this universe is the most important thing. I can not think of a more important question than why we exist. Why do people not wish to discuss it?

Because important things are rarely enjoyable things. Now, I personally enjoy debating an incredible amount, but I'm not so naive as to think thats the case with everyone.

And I'm not doing it because the subject is important, its because its fun. For me.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Because important things are rarely enjoyable things. Now, I personally enjoy debating an incredible amount, but I'm not so naive as to think thats the case with everyone.

And I'm not doing it because the subject is important, its because its fun. For me.

I've often thought so.

random_punter_2 wrote:

Because in my mind our place in this universe is the most important thing. I can not think of a more important question than why we exist. Why do people not wish to discuss it? The more members to a debate the more interesting the result.

It makes a lot of people's heads hurt. Also, most people have a sort of mishmash of unexamined but comforting semi-beliefs about life, the universe, and everything (stuff like "there's a sort of benevolent big sky-father looking after it all, and so bad things will only happen to bad people, which I'm not, and death isn't final, there'll be something nice the other side") - the spiritual part of rose-tinted spectacles. If you rip into this comfortable padding, you make people very uncomfortable.

If you do it right, you send them off about their lives alone, naked, and afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

o1s1n

Mordeth wrote:

evangelical atheists are almost as annoying as evangelical religious crazies... an air of smugness and superiority is all that is required

Have to agree. You get that same "I'm conversing with a brick wall" feeling with both.

I have lengthy conversations with my girlfriend about life, the universe and everything. They can get quite heated, but I always find them extremely interesting. I'd go insane going out with someone who had no time for anything beyond her own little world.

I feel for you OP. She's out there somewhere. Possibly making an old Creationist cry, right this very second.

Scofflaw

o1s1n wrote:

She's out there somewhere. Possibly making an old Creationist cry, right this very second.

Mmmm. Well, that would work for me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

random_punter_2 wrote:

Because in my mind our place in this universe is the most important thing. I can not think of a more important question than why we exist. Why do people not wish to discuss it? The more members to a debate the more interesting the result.

Because unfortunately some people just don't really care about such questions. Some people are happy enough to just shrug their shoulders and admit that they're not too bothered either way. And maybe they're as well off. Though personally I do find it a bit sad that those people are happy enough to go through life without ever really contemplating the nature of their own existence.

Zillah

o1s1n wrote:

Have to agree. You get that same "I'm conversing with a brick wall" feeling with both.

Why? Do these Atheists not make valid arguments? Do they not understand the logic of your own arguments?

Or is it just because they insist you're wrong?

Dades

Zillah wrote:

Why? Do these Atheists not make valid arguments? Do they not understand the logic of your own arguments?

Or is it just because they insist you're wrong?

I believe the original reference was to "evangelical" atheists, as opposed to the common-or-garden variety.

Which are you, Zillah?

Science makes baby creationists cry.

Esmereldina

Interesting thread... for the OP, why don't you start posting in the atheist forum a little more to get to know the people there first before asking them out on dates

I am an atheist with quite a few religious friends and I wouldn't bother discussing religion that much with them, likewise with my family. I have learnt over the years that there really is no point arguing about religion or faith with them, as these people can always end an argument (or think they are ending it/winning it) with something like 'but it's in the bible/the priest says it/you just have to have faith (!)', so that all your carefully thought out, logical arguments are in vain :mad:

Why do you need to explain evolution to your friends though? Most religious people I know (in Ireland anyway, not so with my American relatives...) accept evolution, and don't see it as being incompatible with their beliefs.

I am an athiest of the more 'practical' variety (according to this thread anyway... Perhaps this is more a female characteristic as Scofflaw suggested, though I wouldn't like to generalise too much along gender lines;) ). I'm not hugely interested in where the universe came from (though I agree that it's a fascinating subject and would like to look into the literature on it at some stage), I just don't really think that a benelovent god was behind it. My atheism informs my views about the world, but I don't think about the philosophical basis for it all the time. I agree that these are very important questions to discuss, but there are lots of other important things out there to argue about too... no need to discuss the origin of the universe every time you go to the pub

18AD

I think most peoples personalities reflect their fundamental beliefs, so often there's no need at all to discuss these things. And I find I 'click' best with people with similar ones to myself without it being out in the open.

My best friends have completely different beliefs to myself, and I find the range of different views more interesting than sticking with something I know. I'd think that being in agreement with everyone is rather unchallenging, in the case where these things are discussed.

Tim Robbins

I think what you have hightlighted is the problem with atheism / theism dichotomy.
Atheists in general find it hard to accept that something irrational and illogical can change people's lifes for the better. And theists find it hard to accept that atheists cannot accept that something has actually changed their own life.

If you ask me, you'd be better off understanding people's differences than trying to get everyone to understand your logic.

I would also try to understand that theism is operating at meme and gene level. Many atheists just think it's one or the other.

The other thing I would do is accept that you might actually be wrong or you might someday decide to change your opinion.

Other than that, I feel your pain.

robindch

> Atheists in general find it hard to accept that something irrational and
> illogical can change people's lifes for the better.

No atheist I'm aware of -- including the most quoted (and mis-quoted) of all, Richard Dawkins -- has said this. What he and others have pointed out, though, is that just because something has an effect on people, doesn't mean that the something is true. Compare it to the doctor who tells a terminally ill cancer patient that he's fine: it's a consoling thought which is still completely untrue. Atheists generally put religious belief into a similar category of "somethings".

> And theists find it hard to accept that atheists cannot accept that
> something has actually changed their own life.

Having read these boards for quite a while, I believe it's more accurate to say that theists find it hard to accept that atheists don't need belief in a deity to make them happy, to make them behave sociably, to give their lives "meaning" etc. As above, all atheists I'm aware of have noticed that religious beliefs change the way that religious people think about the world.

> I would also try to understand that theism is operating at meme and gene
> level. Many atheists just think it's one or the other.

Again, I haven't come across any atheists who think this. More info?

> The other thing I would do is accept that you might actually be wrong or
> you might someday decide to change your opinion.

All atheists that I'm aware of have arrived there because they've checked out religions fairly thoroughly and found them wanting for one reason or another. If some new convincing evidence comes to light that suggest that one religion or another is true, I'd be the first to change my mind. But I don't get the impression that religious people would change their minds, regardless of the evidence.

What would it take to make you change your mind, and become an atheist?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

> Atheists in general find it hard to accept that something irrational and
> illogical can change people's lifes for the better.

No atheist I'm aware of -- including the most quoted (and mis-quoted) of all, Richard Dawkins -- has said this.

Well Dawkins may not have said that word for word as I have put it. My point was not based ona quote from Dawkins. So are you straw manning me?

I think it is fair to say he has a major problem with religion and theology he can't seem to see any good in it.
He seems to completely miss the point that something illogical can actually be very beneficial to the humans and that in fact something illogical might be a good thing.

robindch wrote:

What he and others have pointed out, though, is that just because something has an effect on people, doesn't mean that the something is true.

I agree with that. But that's not point. The point is something false (i.e. a Delision in the belief in God] can have a positive effect on people's lives.
What's more important the logic of truth or somebody having a happy life?
How do we as humans assign importance?
This is more of philosophical question, which Dawkins completly misses IMO.

robindch wrote:

Compare it to the doctor who tells a terminally ill cancer patient that he's fine: it's a consoling thought which is still completely untrue. Atheists generally put religious belief into a similar category of "somethings".

The problem with your argument is you are using an analagy which is not logical. I can easily give you an analogy to the contrary.
Arguing by analogy is not logical. As an atheist and skeptic, I am sure you know this so I won't labour that point.
Furthermore, whether we like it or not Robindch, we could actually be wrong and there could actually be a God. I doubt it. But I accept I could be wrong even if I never receive evidence in my life on this planet.

robindch wrote:

> And theists find it hard to accept that atheists cannot accept that
> something has actually changed their own life.

Having read these boards for quite a while, I believe it's more accurate to say that theists find it hard to accept that atheists don't need belief in a deity to make them happy, to make them behave sociably, to give their lives "meaning" etc.

Fair enough. Yes I would agree with you there. But remember a lot of theists here are fundamentalist hardliners - some of them interpet the Bible literally every sentence of it and refuse to accept evolution or the age of the earth. Most theists are actually afraid to come and have chat IMO which is a major shame if you ask me.

robindch wrote:

> I would also try to understand that theism is operating at meme and gene
> level. Many atheists just think it's one or the other.

Again, I haven't come across any atheists who think this. More info?

Well more info for what? That atheists think that, or that theism operates on gene and meme level.
The former is anecdotal and accept I should be using a sample set, but I have no access to a decent size. The latter, check Dawkins for meme (I'm sure you knew that) and Bruce Hood for gene (although this is more at hypothesis stage but it's a very interesting one).

robindch wrote:

> The other thing I would do is accept that you might actually be wrong or
> you might someday decide to change your opinion.

All atheists that I'm aware of have arrived there because they've checked out religions fairly thoroughly and found them wanting for one reason or another. If some new convincing evidence comes to light that suggest that one religion or another is true, I'd be the first to change my mind. But I don't get the impression that religious people would change their minds, regardless of the evidence.

What would it take to make you change your mind, and become an atheist?

I am atheist already. As far as I am concered the amount of suffering in the world is evidence to me of there being no all caring, all knowing, all powerful being. The evidence of evolution is indicative that we exist by accident not intent of a thinking God. That's good enough for me atheism to be my position.
But I respect those who take a different view. I think I take a different view on theism and theology than you. For me, it represents humanity. How illogical, irrational and emotional our species is.
I find it intriguing that people can have life changing experiencs on something that is completely illogical and based non obejctive evidence. I don't think this has been explored enough.

I also think that most people cannot accept atheism as they cannot deal with the uncertainty of life.
If it meant people kept religion had less stress, less suicide etc. than I don't have a problem at all with anyone wishing to avoid a logical analysis of their irrationality.
I think the problem with Dawkins is he thinks irrationality automatically means bad, when the truth is irrationality can be good or bad or irrelevant.
He's done quite well out of reason and rationality. But not everyone does.
There is no fixed rule.

robindch

> My point was not based on a quote from Dawkins. So are you straw manning me?

Nope. I was wondering why you appeared to be doing a bit of straw-manning yourself! As I said, I've not heard anybody propose the view that you were criticizing, so I'm wondering where it came from

> He seems to completely miss the point that something illogical can actually
> be very beneficial to the humans and that in fact something illogical might
> be a good thing.

Again, he's not arguing that it doesn't have any benefits (or perceived benefits) at all. Rather, he's arguing that the "bad" things it causes far outweigh the "good" things. I disagree, btw, that religion is "very beneficial" -- could you list some of the things that you believe fall into this category?

> What's more important the logic of truth or somebody having a happy life?

If religion could be boiled down to this simple dichotomy, then I can't imagine anybody having any objection to it. Perhaps you have in mind something a bit similar to a belief in the tooth fairy: an example of a completely harmless consoling belief. However, that's not what I see in religion -- internally, it's something which produces guilt and rewards irrationality; externally, it's something which legitimizes and even encourages violent ingroup/outgroup partition. I should also add that in my own personal experience (others may differ) I find that religious people tend to be less happy on average than non-religious ones on account of these two facts. Which isn't a great surprise, if you consider that religion asserts a patently false view of the world, and religious people seem spend a lot of time trying to correlate what they see with what they believe and end up with some pretty crazy and paranoid opinions after doing so (see this post for some details )

> I think the problem with Dawkins is he thinks irrationality automatically
> means bad, when the truth is irrationality can be good or bad or irrelevant.

No, I think you're misinterpreting Dawkins. I've never heard him saying that all irrationality is bad and I don't think it's likely that he would say such a thing. All he's saying is that religion, as a force in society, does far more bad than good and as such, needs to be expunged somehow. And he's going about it, I think, in a reasonably good way, though it's not to everybody's taste as he says himself.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

> My point was not based on a quote from Dawkins. So are you straw manning me?

Nope. I was wondering why you appeared to be doing a bit of straw-manning yourself! As I said, I've not heard anybody propose the view that you were criticizing, so I'm wondering where it came from

No, a straw man is when you deliberately misintrepet someone's else point and argue that. You know that. Who did I deliberately misintrepret in this thread?
I gave my opinion, which to recap is: "Atheists in general find it hard to accept that something irrational and illogical can change people's lifes for the better."
Have you check out these people?
http://www.rationalresponders.com/
http://atheismnews.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/richard-dawkins-interview-rational-response-squad/

An atheist's focus is more logically correct. In this pursuit they can often overlook that something that is logically incorrect may be better for some people. They also omit the question: which is more important something that is logically correct, or logically incorrect and providing of happiness?
That's my opinion, I've no sample set of atheists for it.

robindch wrote:

> He seems to completely miss the point that something illogical can actually
> be very beneficial to the humans and that in fact something illogical might
> be a good thing.

Again, he's not arguing that it doesn't have any benefits (or perceived benefits) at all. Rather, he's arguing that the "bad" things it causes far outweigh the "good" things. I disagree, btw, that religion is "very beneficial" -- could you list some of the things that you believe fall into this category?

He completly misses the point that religion can have benefits.
There's a social aspect to it for example. Some Polish people here in Dublin if homesick can meet Polish people at the Church near me. They are not coming out of Church roaring evolution is only a theory they are chatting with their friends and appear happy.
Irish people used to do the same in London. Also, for some people if a loved one dies, religion can be quite helpful to them too. There are also some decent enough charities to come from theists, Trocaire for example have saved lifes.
Some Christians I know think it helps them deal with nihilism for example.
I don't argue the benefits outweight the negatives, I don't actually know.
It's hard one to measure the negatives against the positives, especially considering we are not all the same. So there is the individual and there is the society. Two completly different things.
My point is that there are benefits that some (not all) atheists often overlook - usually militant atheists.
In the same way, many theists overlook, the benefits of atheism. It goes both ways. This is part of the human condition I think, not particular to any belief or lack of belief system. We are species are not always good at judging value. Again just my opinion

I argue we're not all the same, religion may have been head recking for you, but your mates in the Christianity forum seem to get some sort of enjoyment out of it for example.

robindch wrote:

> What's more important the logic of truth or somebody having a happy life?

If religion could be boiled down to this simple dichotomy, then I can't imagine anybody having any objection to it. Perhaps you have in mind something a bit similar to a belief in the tooth fairy: an example of a completely harmless consoling belief. However, that's not what I see in religion -- internally, it's something which produces guilt and rewards irrationality; externally, it's something which legitimizes and even encourages violent ingroup/outgroup partition. I should also add that in my own personal experience (others may differ) I find that religious people tend to be less happy on average than non-religious ones on account of these two facts. Which isn't a great surprise, if you consider that religion asserts a patently false view of the world, and religious people seem spend a lot of time trying to correlate what they see with what they believe and end up with some pretty crazy and paranoid opinions after doing so (see this post for some details )

I don't agree.
It's different things for different people. The flaw in your argument is the totality of it. You seem to airbrush out the shades of grey.
The other problem in your argument there is you are using your own biased anecdotal evidence. Again I could easily counter with some biased anecdotal evidence to the contrary but that would be pointless. It will only proof the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

robindch wrote:

> I think the problem with Dawkins is he thinks irrationality automatically
> means bad, when the truth is irrationality can be good or bad or irrelevant.

No, I think you're misinterpreting Dawkins. I've never heard him saying that all irrationality is bad and I don't think it's likely that he would say such a thing. All he's saying is that religion, as a force in society, does far more bad than good and as such, needs to be expunged somehow. And he's going about it, I think, in a reasonably good way, though it's not to everybody's taste as he says himself.

Well in the context of religious irrationality, I think it is fair to say he does think it's bad.
Do you disagree with that? He doesn't want to modernize religion or give more respect to the mainstream, he more or less wants to wipe it out the mainstream as he sees facilitating the hardcore who kill in the name of religion.
I argue making an assumption on cause and effect here, not always logical.
What if, we did eradicate religion, how does that eradicate the capacity to kill? What if the number of killings is the same, it just manifests without religious nutjubs but just nutjobs.

Also, you're twisting my words a bit, I didn't say "all irrationality", I said "irrationality" and w.r.t. to Dawkings I mean religious irrationality not nationalism or some other irrational concept.

The other thing is Robindch when you say I misintrepet Dawkins. How do you measure the degree of misintrepetation? How do you know you don't misintrepet Dawkins more or less than me. Are you an apostle of Dawkins or something?
Is their no subjective element to intrepetation, hence the word intrepetate as opposed to "mapping" or "translation function". Is there not a relative context where one can postulate an argument or a point with respect to a relative context - do you deny the individual? Or should we all have the same opinions on Richard Dawkins?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

No, a straw man is when you deliberately misintrepet someone's else point and argue that. You know that. Who did I deliberately misintrepret in this thread?

Not quite. A straw man argument is one you set up yourself because it's easy to attack. You need not be misinterpreting anyone.

In this case, your opinion would hardly be a straw man, though, since it is your opinion, and you have offered it as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Not quite. A straw man argument is one you set up yourself because it's easy to attack. You need not be misinterpreting anyone.

In this case, your opinion would hardly be a straw man, though, since it is your opinion, and you have offered it as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

From wikipedia:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

"Misrepresentation", deliberatly misinterpreting same thing IMO.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

From wikipedia:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

"Misrepresentation", deliberatly misinterpreting same thing IMO.

Fair enough - on the other hand, it is not required that you attribute this argument to any specific opponent. Nor would I consider Wikipedia the last word!

If I set up an argument like "atheism only works if x is the case" where x is easy to disprove, I have certainly set up a straw man - to whom have I attributed it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> From wikipedia:

The wikipedia definition implies an intention to mislead, and this one from the good folks at Nizkor does not. But it was too late to post last night when I came across this, so I blew my runny nose a few times and went to bed instead. FWIW, in the original posting, I wasn't implying that anybody had any intention to mislead, but rather that I couldn't quite make out why criticism was being levelled at a view that nobody apparently supported.