Would you date/marry a Christian?

[ConservativeAtheist]

I don’t know if this is exactly the right forum for this topic, but it seems close enough. I am posing this question assuming most members of FDR are atheist. For any of you who are Christian, it is the opposite: would you date/marry an atheist? And, more generally, do you think it is advisable/worth it for an atheist-voluntaryist to pursue Christians for the purposes of dating/marriage.

 

 For the record, I was not raised religiously, and only believed in God incredibly briefly around the age of 6 or so. I have always had a bit of a soft spot for Christianity, perhaps because of the left’s opposition to it, and regularly attend Christian student groups at my college. I am a conservative personally/morally, and an anarcho-capitalist in the Austrian tradition.

 

I can see the obvious problems with an atheist marrying a Christian, notably: do you tell your children about Hell? As an atheist, I would say you shouldn’t. However, if you were a Christian, who believed non-believers went to Hell, you would be a terrible parent if you didn’t tell your children about Hell. You would also be a terrible spouse if you didn’t attempt to convert them, right?

 

Stefan has made the point that (paraphrasing) you don’t find the perfect person, you find someone “good enough” (I can’t recall his exact phrasing). I would say you don’t even need to find the person who is best for you, but someone who is good enough (who has the same foundational values as you). Over time, through shared experiences, you create the optimal relationship, and that person becomes the best person for you. Is religion a foundational value, or merely an accident of birth/upbringing?

According to a brief internet search, about 10% of Americans consider themselves atheist. And probably a single digit percent are libertarian, and about 10% philosophically oppose spanking. The chances of finding someone, especially female, who overlaps all 3 of these seems incredibly small. There is a lot of talk on the internet, and on these forums about MGTOW, feminism, etc. A lot of the talk is male complaining about how hard it is to find quality, feminine women. The Christian community, however, has a lot of these women. In “The Truth about STDs” and “The Truth About Sex”, Stefan presents the Teachman study and the Heritage Foundation study about premarital sexual partners and stable marriage rates. So fewer premarital partners = more stable marriages. The Christian church is virtually the only major societal organization encouraging women to wait until marriage. I’m not saying all (or even a majority of) Christian girls are virgins before marriage, but nearly all girls who do wait/are waiting until marriage are Christian.

 

There are a lot of one-off observations I have made in the past year or so getting to know Christians better. I have had more in depth, philosophical, conversations with Christians at Bible study than I’ve ever had at an atheist meetup. I’ve also noticed that often atheists, especially older atheists, are especially nasty when talking about Christians. In my campus groups, I’ve never heard a mean word said about atheists, or about homosexuals, and nobody has ever tried to convert me. Through prayer, and confession, Christians seem more interested in self-knowledge than the average american or even atheist/agnostic. It also instructive to remember that communism is an explicitly atheist philosophy, which famously opposed religion (at least in principle). Christianity gets blamed, perhaps rightly, for a lot of wars/death that occurred when the church and state were fused. But even if we blame Christianity entirely, it doesn’t come close to the amount of death given out by the atheist-communists in the 20^th century.

 

This was a very long post, and I want to facilitate a discussion on the matter. I figured this community would be optimal, and I am interested in everyone’s input. I couldn’t find any similar discussion on FDR (if anyone can I would greatly appreciate it). So, what do you guys think?

[dsayers]

Is religion a foundational value, or merely an accident of birth/upbringing?

A fantastic video that I think will shed some light on this is

I think Stef makes a very convincing argument. To answer your question, it is intentionally inflicted by parents, not accidental or genetic. It is not something that one arrives upon by way of logic, reason, or evidence.

 

Which is the first thing to look at when answering the titular question. Would I marry a Christian? No. The reason to get married is to publicly commit for the sake of your future children. I don't think it's safe for your future children to choose for them (since they cannot choose for themselves) a co-parent that lacks the capability of differentiating fact from fiction.

 

So what about dating? No. The reason to date is to find a suitable mate. So if I wouldn't marry a Christian, I'd be wasting both of our time dating one.

 

What about friendship? Most likely no. If I live in the real world, I have little to talk about with somebody who lives in Candy Land for example. How would we resolve potential conflicts if I think reality is the universal arbiter and they think a book is? I would be depriving my time and friendship from somebody who accepts their capacity for error. That wouldn't be fair to anybody involved.

 

I will gladly have conversations with Christians. Mostly to talk about the method by which they've arrived to their conclusion. As a "Christianity survivor," I choose to be responsible for trying to help others escape programming that was meant to groom them for subjugation by abusers.

 

Bottom line is I simply enjoy the time I spend with rational thinkers and find time spent on those who reject rationality to be tedious and not at all enjoyable.

[Torero]

Yes, my girlfriend is Catholic. No problems at all. I see much more danger in statism than in religion. Most religious people are relaxed and not the abortion doctor murdering creeps the pro-statist media portray them...

 

Level of moral thinking is also usually higher with religious people than with atheists.

 

Raised antitheist, atheist myself.

[dayna j.]

No, I would never date a christian or religious person of any persuasion.  I doubt I would even develop a friendship with a religious person.  I've had no problem meeting skeptical / non-religious people and see no need to go slumming.

[Eternal Growth]

Not at all. A world of exploitative lies isn't one that I would want to be responsible for either perpetuating or sanctioning. God doesn't exist and Christianity is at best is a collection of mildly (sometimes very) disturbing stories. I wouldn't enjoy talking to somebody whose mind was inactive, engaged in reality-avoidance, or just in a state of incorrigible empty conformity to the falsehoods of other people never mind having such as a partner, and I'd consider it highly unethical (by a rational standard of ethics which recognises reason as the survival mechanism of human beings and parenting as the voluntarily assumed moral obligation of supporting the development of children into independent adults) for Christianity to be taught to children. 

 

There's some value in the community aspect of religion, to be sure. But there are secular alternatives to that. The extent to which the religious are or can be "moral" is highly debatable. Obeying a higher power is not morality. Obeying other people is not morality. The religious are not raised to discover rational morality independently through the use of their own mind; they are instructed with mostly irrational, unintegrated absolutes, offered impossible rewards in exchange for obedience and threatened with punishments for thinking.

[Torero]

Not at all. A world of exploitative lies isn't one that I would want to be responsible for either perpetuating or sanctioning. God doesn't exist and Christianity is at best is a collection of mildly (sometimes very) disturbing stories. I wouldn't enjoy talking to somebody whose mind was inactive or engaged in reality-avoidance never mind having such as a partner, and I'd consider it highly unethical (by a rational standard of ethics which recognises reason as the survival mechanism of man and parenting as the voluntarily assumed moral obligation of supporting the development of children into independent adults) for Christianity to be taught to children. 

 

There's some value in the community aspect of religion, to be sure. But there are secular alternatives to that. The extent to which the religious are or can be "moral" is highly debatable. Obeying a higher power is not morality. Obeying other people is not morality. The religious are not raised to discover rational morality independently through the use of their own mind; they are instructed with mostly irrational, unintegrated absolutes and threatened with rewards for obedience and punishments for thinking.

 

You're talking about "the religious" as if it were to be a homogeneous group of people with the same views of life.

 

Most religious people in my experience just have a very lightly religious view, don't go to church but still believe in a god. They are apart from their views on the world/existence mostly rational.

 

Why excluding a complete group of people so strongly from your life?

[Eternal Growth]

You're talking about "the religious" as if it were to be a homogeneous group of people with the same views of life.

 

Most religious people in my experience just have a very lightly religious view, don't go to church but still believe in a god. They are apart from their views on the world/existence mostly rational.

 

Why excluding a complete group of people so strongly from your life?

 

What is stopping them from turning from "mostly rational" to "fully rational"? What holds this one irrational absolute in place?

 

The answer to that - whether the answer is treating feelings as absolute, social conformity, or something else - is why I would exclude them from my life. I cannot trust a person who refuses to integrate their ideas. To refuse to integrate somewhere is to refuse to integrate everywhere, because integrity relies on the whole. 

[Torero]

What is stopping them from turning from "mostly rational" to "fully rational"? What holds this one irrational absolute in place?

 

A deeply rooted belief and also wish that there's a deity "up there"?

 

I know quite some atheist people who are not only irrational but defend irrationality and (statist) immorality much harder than religious people their religion. Isn't that even worse? They are not suffering from religious indoctrination themselves, yet choose irrational and immoral standpoints where a religious person might not.

[Eternal Growth]

A deeply rooted belief and also wish that there's a deity "up there"?

 

I know quite some atheist people who are not only irrational but defend irrationality and (statist) immorality much harder than religious people their religion. Isn't that even worse? They are not suffering from religious indoctrination themselves, yet choose irrational and immoral standpoints where a religious person might not.

 

Once a person accepts the principle "something is true because I have a deeply rooted belief that it is true", or the principle "something is true because I wish it so", how can I know where they will stop? Once they've accepted those principles, I actually begin to hope they have as little integrity and consistency as possible. But it is precisely the values that my partner holds, and his demonstrated integrity to them, that provide me an assurance of sustainable virtue within a relationship.

 

Children spend more time in government schools than in church, and so the latter point about statheists being more resistant to reason than modern religious people is unsurprising. For the sake of practicality I'd still engage in value-for-value interactions with statheists (and religious people), but not take one as partner.

[dsayers]

A deeply rooted belief and also wish that there's a deity "up there"?

 

I know quite some atheist people who are not only irrational but defend irrationality and (statist) immorality much harder than religious people their religion. Isn't that even worse? They are not suffering from religious indoctrination themselves, yet choose irrational and immoral standpoints where a religious person might not.

Statism is a religion. By your own plea to not collectivize, there are also atheists who are far more mild than your average non-secular religious type. They all hold irrationality over reality, so what's the benefit of differentiating them?

[Will Torbald]

Short answer, no. Long answer, no. Marrying a person is also marrying their family, dealing with in laws, dealing with customs, churches, et al. I value intelectual integrity too much to settle for a "good enough christian girl" who is going to cry heaven when she hears me speak reason. If I can't be free in my thoughts around her, it's just worse than being alone.

[Torero]

Statism is a religion.

I both agree and disagree with this. It is true that many statists have a religious view on (and that) society needs to be "arranged".

 

But the big difference is rationality vs irrationality.

 

A religion or a personal belief is by definition not rational. So there's no use to put rational arguments against it. This deep inner feeling of belief is not affected by arguments.

 

Statism is different as it is a purely human concept, existing for real. It is possible to reply with reason and rationality.

 

That main difference to me is also the key to the success of having a relationship with a religious person (my first; my exes were all atheist, statist and leftist). I don't need to argue with my girlfriend about what she sees as "fate" or "coincidence". If she labels it as a sign from god and I label it "fate" or "coincidence" there's no love lost. She accepts evolution, geological history, all that. If she would be orthodox/fundamentalistic/utterly convinced that those scientific points are bogus, no, we wouldn't be in a relation.

 

 

 

By your own plea to not collectivize, there are also atheists who are far more mild than your average non-secular religious type. They all hold irrationality over reality, so what's the benefit of differentiating them?

 

I wonder if there is something as "your average non-secular religious type". So many individuals, so many world views. It's already hard to group 2 christian individuals with different views, how impossible does that become when we're talking billions of people?

[dsayers]

I both agree and disagree with this.

If religion means a system of beliefs, then I don't think agreeing is an option. You can accept or reject my claim, but don't mistake it for opinion.

 

Statism is different as it is a purely human concept, existing for real. It is possible to reply with reason and rationality.

Concepts don't exist. Did you mean to say that the effects of the behaviors of people who believe Statism is a valid concept are real? Because this is true of non-secular religions also. As is your accurate claim that it is possible to reply with reason and rationality. So again, I don't see the differentiation your bias seems to require. Though I thank you for sharing where it comes from.

 

I wonder if there is something as "your average non-secular religious type". So many individuals, so many world views. It's already hard to group 2 christian individuals with different views, how impossible does that become when we're talking billions of people?

I don't understand. You had said:

 

I know quite some atheist people who are not only irrational but defend irrationality and (statist) immorality much harder than religious people their religion.

All I did was express the contrapositive. Any issue you rightly have with the collectivization in my expression of the contrapositive also applies to what you expressed, which was my point.

[Torero]

If religion means a system of beliefs, then I don't think agreeing is an option. You can accept or reject my claim, but don't mistake it for opinion.

 

Ok, a claim, not an opinion.

 

Then I agree/support partly (with) the claim but the crucial part of a religion is the supernatural/transcendental/irrational-by definition. If you define religion as "a system of beliefs" then statism can be a religion.

 

If one involves the irrational part it wouldn't be.

 

I am not saying that supporting statism is purely rational, but the concept of the state is very tangible. How you want to count it (killed people oversees, oppressed people "at home", taking money from people who didn't voluntarily choose to sign that "social" "contract") is not the point. It is tangibly there, that concept. So yes, it very much exists. If not your salary would be 40-50 % higher, I hope...

 

 

Concepts don't exist. Did you mean to say that the effects of the behaviors of people who believe Statism is a valid concept are real? Because this is true of non-secular religions also.

 

A non-secular religion? To me secular means no mixing of the Two Priests; State and Church (or mosque, synagogue, temple or whatever). A non-secular religion then would be a religious state (like Saudi-Arabia, or for statists North-Korea), so religion enforcing statism?

 

I wouldn't call it behaviours of the people who believe Statism is a valid concept. And what means valid? I consider valid a pretty important word and the simplest scrutiny would make Statism invalid. But it is a concept, an idea and it is to all our disappointment very real, it exists.

 

But the thing is; it is not well-thought. At least in my experience in the world most people do not see the state as convincingly the best option. They're not anarchists, unfortunately, but they are not true supporters of The State. I also came across people who do, but even in socialist NW Europe it is not the majority. It's visible in the voting patterns; still too high but pretty low % of people who (still) do vote.

 

The vast majority of people do not really know they are inflicting violence upon others by (morally) supporting the state or statism. So their behaviours I cannot hold them accountable for. In my surroundings I am promoting libertarian philosophy, but let's say the average supermarket clerk is not into it and will never land on them. Are they vicious violators of valid property rights? Are these people convinced proponents of an immoral eternally growing monster? I wouldn't say so and it would put one in a socially impossible situation if one would only live like that.

 

Stefans philosophy enters much better with truth and sugar than with bitterness. And yes, the sugar is needed, in normal social situations.

 

 

 

As is your accurate claim that it is possible to reply with reason and rationality. So again, I don't see the differentiation your bias seems to require. Though I thank you for sharing where it comes from.

 

Religion - as I see it, including the superstitial/metaphysical part - cannot be replied with rationality. It is a different field. I am an atheist so it would be foolish to prove that god doesn't exist. It would be as foolish as fighting someone falling in love. It's a feeling and feelings go deeper than ratio. I don't see that as negative; we are emotional beings, but others here might not be pleased by it.

 

 

 

I don't understand. You had said:

 

All I did was express the contrapositive. Any issue you rightly have with the collectivization in my expression of the contrapositive also applies to what you expressed, which was my point.

I see your point and my idea was not to collectivise. That's why I chose the words "many", "much harder than" and not "all", "ever", etc.

 

Most absolutionist statements I don't like. And spot it's not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say "I don't like any absolutist statement" as it is an absolutist statement in itself. "Most", "many" is not; it describes -at least for me- first-hand experiences.

 

Now, my childhood was very different from yours, growing up in this indoctrination. But for me it was both opposite and the same (see the nuanced response at the start of this post); my parents were both; leftists, convinced statists and antitheists.

 

If theism is irrational, and yes, I see it that way, then I really cannot understand how a rational person could advocate antitheism.

 

It's like convincing an attractive young woman who lived without men around for years that falling in love* for life with that first well-built worker that drops by is not the wisest* idea...

 

*Wise would mean rational, while falling in love is irrational. Even if some parts can be rationalised (you know what you fall for), it is useless as the act itself is irrational. Just like superstitial/metaphysical beliefs (religion in the definition I use)

 

The same in relations. I'd rather convince my girlfriend/future wife of the irrationality of "rational" statism, then to have to bother what she thinks if she sees a nice sunset and if "god is talking to her or not". And in those situations, she finds me even more; rational atheists are less romantic and impressed by the wonders of nature, in my opinion.

 

It doesn't matter.

 

What matters are values and ethics. And while organised religion has exceeded all imagination in destroying just those, that does not mean that individual religious people are lacking those. In my not-so-limited experience atheist woman could do a lot with values and ethics.

 

Another point I discussed before shortly in an Amish thread is that religious people have something higher than the state or "what y'e see on TV" which many atheists (and surely the ones who haven't found philosophy) which I consider better than empty atheist statists.

 

If religion is limited to "what I believe (in) and doesn't harm others", which is except for horrible things like circumcision, forced indoctrinations etc. mostly the case in religious people I've seen on this planet, then what's the problem with having a partner who "sees" "signs" of "God"? Maybe I am thinking something irrationally (I see thinking more as a combination of thinking-rational and feeling-emotional, but that might be me) as well? Then why is she "wrong" and I am "right"?

 

Rationality is the reason (haha) I joined here. But that doesn't mean emotionality is as important. Especially in honest, valuable relations with other Homo sapiens.

 

It might well work differently from you and I cannot imagine the horrors you must have lived through when helplessly young, but that even supports the idea even more.

 

10 years ago I would have said "never a religious girl". I am glad my insights changed. That already happened before knowing my girlfriend, by the way.

[dsayers]

I am not saying that supporting statism is purely rational, but the concept of the state is very tangible. How you want to count it (killed people oversees, oppressed people "at home", taking money from people who didn't voluntarily choose to sign that "social" "contract") is not the point. It is tangibly there, that concept. So yes, it very much exists.

I think you have a blind spot for all the murder and destruction that has been carried out in human history due to religious beliefs. I think you downplay how harmful teaching children to not think rationally, to seek approval of external sources, and threatening with an eternity of suffering is.

 

Again, this does nothing to prove that religion exists. The clarification I've already offered stands that you are referring to the effects of the actions people take, not the concepts themselves. In fact, when you say the concepts are responsible, you're protecting the people who have voluntarily done these heinous acts.

 

Religion - as I see it, including the superstitial/metaphysical part - cannot be replied with rationality. It is a different field. I am an atheist so it would be foolish to prove that god doesn't exist.

You don't have to prove that god doesn't exist. You can point out that claiming god does exist would require extraordinary proof. You can point out that claiming god exists is claiming consciousness exists without matter an energy, in uniquity, happens to be the one they were taught about, and intervenes, and all the problems introduced by those claims. This is rationality in response to religion. How am I able to do this if, as you claim, it cannot be done?

 

There's only one way to meaningfully divide people: those willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not. The motivation for their aggression is irrelevant. How much aggression has come from religion vs Statism is irrelevant. I maintain that your adherence to a distinction is your bias and nothing more.

[WasatchMan]

Would you date/marry someone who believed and tried to convince others the world was flat?  

 

It really is no different to be a Christian - it is just more socially acceptable.

 

Fundamentally, if you believe that Jesus came down to earth through virgin birth, preached the word of god as the son of god, was crucified and rose again three days later just so that your "spirit" can also go to heaven when you die (just as long as you believe in him as the creator!) - you are proving your willingness to submit reality to your whim as much (if not more than) someone who is willing to believe that the earth is flat.

 

Someone who is willing to submit reality to their whim is probably not where you want to set the bar at when it comes to choosing a life partner. 

 

Why not aim higher? 

[Torero]

I think you have a blind spot for all the murder and destruction that has been carried out in human history due to religious beliefs. I think you downplay how harmful teaching children to not think rationally, to seek approval of external sources, and threatening with an eternity of suffering is.

 

I maintain that your adherence to a distinction is your bias and nothing more.

 

The start and end of your post show no respect for my arguments.

 

Still I will respond to the points you make.

 

- murder, atrocities etc. carried out "in the name of" religious beliefs

 

First point is to be skeptical about history. Current, present year history is rigged and hoaxed like crazy. How do we really know all those things that are described really happened? And all in that way?

 

I am not downplaying nor having a blind spot. Yet recognising that the State has an interest to paint history grimmer on Church to make them, State, come out as "the better option/solution". Especially in the crucial switch years between the 50s and the 70s of past century, where State in most parts of the world gained all power over Church a lot of "history" got "rewritten".

 

There's not 1 history, there's millions of them. Did religious atrocities occur? Of course, too many accounts to count... Are the people who committed them responsible?

 

I would say their responsibility depends. How easy was it to evade the military, state, church, mosque, any other coercive organisation in those years?

 

Now, from our comfy couches with intellectual arm rests we can easily say it's immoral to behave as a puppet for an evil system, but with illiteracy, diseases, cold climates, hunger, big depending families and warmongering "princes", "counts", "duques" and other psychos, it's a different thing. Did those people have access to moral thinking? If yes, and they deliberately refused, they would be responsible.

 

But I guess many of them wouldn't have a clue, lived their lives, fed their children and survived harsh winters without reliable heating...

 

So if they would be driven by religion or just unmasked "you have land and resources that I want to have, and taxation of the people is a nice bonus", that wouldn't matter, you say that yourself.

 

That religion has a delusional effect on people does not mean that all religious people are like zombies of some kind. You were religious yourself, you know better than I do.

 

Again, this does nothing to prove that religion exists. The clarification I've already offered stands that you are referring to the effects of the actions people take, not the concepts themselves. In fact, when you say the concepts are responsible, you're protecting the people who have voluntarily done these heinous acts.

 

If I have used the concept as a means of personalisation, then thanks for pointing that out. I try to avoid these things, as is with a far too abundant speech in news that "Germany wants...", well, "the German government wants..." that is.

 

I am not protecting them. I am trying to place their options for moral choice in a much poorer than today historical context. History for all of us was much much less luxurious than what we are used to in 2015.

 

You don't have to prove that god doesn't exist. You can point out that claiming god does exist would require extraordinary proof.

 

Why would I?

 

Proof (and extraordinary even more) is a rational response. Why would I respond rationally to an irrational standpoint? It's like playing rugby on a football (that is that sport you play with your feet and a ball; so not that American version...) pitch.

 

Two worlds.

 

If your girlfriend or the lady of liking would say to you "listen, I've dreamt this and this and I explain it like A, B, X" do you respond "there's no rationality in here, this conversation is over, don't waste my time you irrational female being..."? I certainly hope not, but one never knows...

 

You can point out that claiming god exists is claiming consciousness exists without matter an energy, in uniquity, happens to be the one they were taught about, and intervenes, and all the problems introduced by those claims. This is rationality in response to religion. How am I able to do this if, as you claim, it cannot be done?

 

I can point out that love doesn't exist. It's just a concept for dopamines, serotonines, feromones, cupidogenes, whatever kind of rational, scientific, chemical explanation. I can at every step during our first date outline all the rational options and only stay between the lines of artifical rationality. What do you think will happen?? Any second date in sight? Talking about blind spots.

 

Life is emotion and reason. If you want your life to be 100% rational or at least thriving towards that all the time, feel free to live it to the max is what I can say.

 

I just choose a different approach and especially on-topic I just illustrate the relation between a Dutch Atheist, raised antitheist and priceless Catholic Colombian beauty....

 

There's only one way to meaningfully divide people: those willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not. The motivation for their aggression is irrelevant. How much aggression has come from religion vs Statism is irrelevant.

 

Your statement is absolutist which I wouldn't like. I'd advocate there's never (absolutist necessary paradox) "only one way" to "meaningfully" divide people. That's utopian commi speech. The beauty of a free society is that there are more ways to find each other and to divide where necessary.

 

There are even situations in real life where the initiation of the use of force can be benevolent to many and not noticible by the victims.

 

And you call that irrelevant. I wouldn't. Statism is much harder to beat than religion. And the only one, like outlined above. To statism a rational response works. To falling in love, loving that coloured butterfly or seeing sunset clouds as a sign of god, it's senseless and unnecessarily spent energy.

 

So the difference between Statism and Religion is relevant from two sides; difficulty and rationality.

 

I think dividing us is not the best approach either. Seeing the truth doesn't come from ostracism in the world of luxurious social contacts. It comes from binding us and pointing arrows in the right direction.

 

Rational arrows do not hurt irrational targets.

[ConservativeAtheist]

Yes, my girlfriend is Catholic. No problems at all. I see much more danger in statism than in religion. Most religious people are relaxed and not the abortion doctor murdering creeps the pro-statist media portray them...

 

Level of moral thinking is also usually higher with religious people than with atheists.

 

Raised antitheist, atheist myself.

I am very interested in your experience. Does she agree with you on political issues (I assume you are a libertarian)? Do you have discussions about God/Religion? Is she bothered by you not being an atheist, does she or did she try to convert you? 

I agree with you 100% that statism is the prime danger of our day, not religion (at least not Christianity). 

 

Could you elaborate on the "level of moral thinking is also usually higher" part. Superficially, it seems religious christians have higher morals (even as compared to apathetic Christians  because of their [increased] fear of god. Maybe its the reverse: I speculate that maybe higher moral Christians are drawn to those like them and a system of thought that endorses their views. 

 

And do you think the distinction of her being catholic rather than protestant is material? Catholics often send their kids to catholic school up through college. Do you think this means a lot of catholics don't really believe in God, but just kind of stick to it because its so much a part of their community? Or does it make them more fundamentalist than the average Christian  It seems I always hear 2 contradictory stereotypes of catholics: that they are strict/dogmatic and that they are extremely permissible/liberal-left wing. I can see how both those could be true, even for the same person, but it seems unlikely.

 

 

No, I would never date a christian or religious person of any persuasion.  I doubt I would even develop a friendship with a religious person.  I've had no problem meeting skeptical / non-religious people and see no need to go slumming.

Where do you meet these other people? By skeptical do you mean explicitly atheist? 

 

I will gladly have conversations with Christians. Mostly to talk about the method by which they've arrived to their conclusion. As a "Christianity survivor," I choose to be responsible for trying to help others escape programming that was meant to groom them for subjugation by abusers.

 

Bottom line is I simply enjoy the time I spend with rational thinkers and find time spent on those who reject rationality to be tedious and not at all enjoyable.

What do you mean by "Christianity survivor"? Could you elaborate on your history, how you were raised religiously-speaking, and how you became atheist?

[dsayers]

Collectivizing while telling others not to collectivize is hypocritical. Saying that Statists do X, Y, and Z but religious folks don't when in fact they do is bias. Saying I'm not "respecting your arguments" (whatever that means) won't change this. Saying 2+2=4 is absolutist is not an argument. Saying we can't be certain of history/history is slanted with regards to religious atrocities, but not when it comes to State atrocities is hypocritical. And a performative contradiction since if you really adhered to "it is certain that nothing can be certain," you wouldn't respond to me at all since you'd be mindful that it might not be me if somebody hacked my PC, or the server, or a roommate used my PC, or a mod edited my post, etc. And irrelevant since we have all the present day info we need to understand that seriously fucked up shit is done in the name of religion (looks at own penis).

 

I apologize for the off-topicness.

[brucethecollie]

Something I have witnessed in my life is religious people being barely religious and then being somehow scared or inspired to be much more religious.  I can attest that this is very hard on a child...  I can recall philosophical talks with people who were religious turning into different kinds of talks-namely, turning into preaching based on their new found strengthened beliefs.  If someone already is accepts religious beliefs, what else might they accept down the road when life gets hard like when a loved one dies or they get sick?  That is the concern I'd have.  I grew up in the Bible Belt and have seen this wishy washiness many times.

[Torero]

I am very interested in your experience. Does she agree with you on political issues (I assume you are a libertarian)? Do you have discussions about God/Religion? Is she bothered by you not being an atheist, does she or did she try to convert you? 

I agree with you 100% that statism is the prime danger of our day, not religion (at least not Christianity). 

Welcome ConservativeAtheist and thank you for your interest.

 

She is (still) a statist, but working on it.    Everyone in my environment is statist, so it would become a bit lonely if that would be the breaking point.

 

I wouldn't call them "discussions". A discussion can mean a lot, but to me it smells like rationality and reason. Talks, yes, sure. And both our world views are similar on the crucial parts. And those count.

 

I guess you wanted to ask if she's bothered by yes being an atheist (me)? No, she's not. And at no point she tried to convert me. I've had a funny experience with a high upper class Colombian lady who was very religious though. But if cuddling while listening to some latin gospel is "horrible conversion tactics" we have to ban, fear and not tolerate, it's not that bad after all...

 

Exactly. Because it's tangible. And while irrational in its nature, still within the rational domain of mankind's constructions. Not within the heads and hearts of people who just think there's more between Earth and 'Heaven'. Those dreamy irrational ideas are not so harmful as stealing, killing and actively creating (economic) mayhem...

 

 

 

Could you elaborate on the "level of moral thinking is also usually higher" part. Superficially, it seems religious christians have higher morals (even as compared to apathetic Christians  because of their [increased] fear of god. Maybe its the reverse: I speculate that maybe higher moral Christians are drawn to those like them and a system of thought that endorses their views.

 

I can only speak for my experiences. About my girlfriend; fear is not something I have seen in her, especially not regarding God.

 

What I meant with level of moral thinking is that compared to antitheist (and thus statist) Holland, Latin America is very different. That shows in the way children are brought up in the higher middle classes, how people treat each other, how much distrust there is for politicians and other corrupt crooks, etc...

 

I link that to a less 60s-wave than in North America, Europe and Australia while still modernising their religious ideas.

 

The biggest gay discotheque of South America is located here in the city. It's a bit like in the US; not fully accepted with grandma and dad, but the  youth is progressive enough.

 

The moral part to me stems from the core statements of the Bible; ten commandments, some basic ethics, etc. That is missing in antitheist NW Europe and replaced with "values"  from politicians, statists, mass media and other people who have nothing to do with morality at all. It's a kind of ethical emptiness in the Old Continent.

 

 

 

And do you think the distinction of her being catholic rather than protestant is material?

 

Definitely. I already felt that in Holland where the south is traditionally catholic and the north and west protestant. Catholics in general have a much more relaxed attitude in life. Calvinism may have been good to save in the past, but the extremity of it in the country was and is enormous. 1 political party in the parliament (!) gains a constant 2.5 % support, bringing 2-3 MPs to The Hague and have their website closed on Sundays, do not allow women to actively participate in politics and some more astoundingly archaic "reformed christian" (as they call themselves) convictions... 

 

 

 

Catholics often send their kids to catholic school up through college. Do you think this means a lot of catholics don't really believe in God, but just kind of stick to it because its so much a part of their community?

 

In my experience here people do believe in god. They just don't go to church (a lot). Half the country lives in multi-million cities, that is also a big factor. The amount of religiosity in the modern metropoles is limited I must say. But people have their beliefs. And yes, catholic schools.

 

The quantity of jehovas is just like in Holland or less

The quantity and influence of muslims is negligible and those who are here are not of the same kind as in Europe...

 

Community and family are very important; that's a good ground for free thinking. Not in every case at all, but why focus on the most miserable cases where the growing and expanding middle class, the driver for any country, is an optimistic sign of mankind. In many parts of Latin America. It's not all War on Drugs and Jaulas de Oro...

 

 

 

Or does it make them more fundamentalist than the average Christian  It seems I always hear 2 contradictory stereotypes of catholics: that they are strict/dogmatic and that they are extremely permissible/liberal-left wing. I can see how both those could be true, even for the same person, but it seems unlikely.

 

What I've learnt traveling over the world is that people are not so easy to label and group. There's far more difference between individuals from one "group" (a label) than necessary similarities. So "the average Christian" or "more fundamentalist catholic" do not mean much (anymore)... Same for "your average muslim". In muslim countries I have been (2 of which where sharia law is active) treated very well and respectful for 99%. Doesn't mean their core ideas on men vs women or circumcision are suddenly moral or good, but first-hand experiences with (religious) people in general have been very positive.

[dsayers]

What do you mean by "Christianity survivor"? Could you elaborate on your history, how you were raised religiously-speaking, and how you became atheist?

Non-denominational Christianity was inflicted upon me as if it were factual. It was used as a way of threatening me by proxy to alter my behavior to the point of stunting natural curiosity, exploration, and rational thought. I was made to attend Sunday school and church every week. I was given books to read, all in lieu of an actual nurturing relationship with my actual parents. Most memorable to me was the way I had a crisis of conscience regarding my biological drive to masturbate and being told it was a sin to engage in lustful thoughts and behaviors. I often cried, feeling utter despair, promising God I would never do it again, yet couldn't seem to stop. I felt that I was dooming myself to an eternity of hellfire for something that is in fact both natural and healthy. This actually led to sexually deviant behavior, with victims :*(

 

Credit actually goes to George Carlin for sparking the beginning of my road to acceptance that there is no God. Sorry, I don't like the word atheist because it implies that theism is the norm and non-theism is a deviation. Even though George Carlin planted the seed of doubt, I was again terrified that the very thought that God doesn't exist would be tantamount to an eternity of hellfire. That's some seriously fucked up programming there! Even my father present day uses the logical fallacy of you should believe just because there's "no harm" if you're wrong. Which isn't believing, but I digress. It was fun watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit with him because we both watched the show, but he always felt the need to offset anything they said against religion.

 

I don't remember how or when I finally accepted that there is no God without any reservations or fear. Kind of like how if you're jarred from sleep, you cannot actually identify the specific moment you became lucid. It wasn't until I watched Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series years later that I was finally able to articulate thoughts on the subject. I'm being very literal here because this infliction of irrationality is as far reaching as reducing a person's vocabulary to make them less capable of resistance and escape. It is psychological imprisonment and torture, used in my case as a form of prior restraint of a creature forming, learning the world they're living in as is necessary for survival.

[ConservativeAtheist]

The moral part to me stems from the core statements of the Bible; ten commandments, some basic ethics, etc. That is missing in antitheist NW Europe and replaced with "values"  from politicians, statists, mass media and other people who have nothing to do with morality at all. It's a kind of ethical emptiness in the Old Continent.

 

Do you think the higher morals come from them being Christians, or that they would have higher morals regardless? If they stopped being Christian, would they also lose whatever sense of morality they had?

 

 

 

What I've learnt traveling over the world is that people are not so easy to label and group. There's far more difference between individuals from one "group" (a label) than necessary similarities. So "the average Christian" or "more fundamentalist catholic" do not mean much (anymore)... Same for "your average muslim". In muslim countries I have been (2 of which where sharia law is active) treated very well and respectful for 99%. Doesn't mean their core ideas on men vs women or circumcision are suddenly moral or good, but first-hand experiences with (religious) people in general have been very positive.

 

 

I see your point, but I think a large segment of Christians (at least in America), are only Christians because they were raised as such, and would abandon their belief system with only the slightest nudge. Do you think this is an accurate assessment?

 

Non-denominational Christianity was inflicted upon me as if it were factual. It was used as a way of threatening me by proxy to alter my behavior to the point of stunting natural curiosity, exploration, and rational thought. I was made to attend Sunday school and church every week. I was given books to read, all in lieu of an actual nurturing relationship with my actual parents. Most memorable to me was the way I had a crisis of conscience regarding my biological drive to masturbate and being told it was a sin to engage in lustful thoughts and behaviors. I often cried, feeling utter despair, promising God I would never do it again, yet couldn't seem to stop. I felt that I was dooming myself to an eternity of hellfire for something that is in fact both natural and healthy. This actually led to sexually deviant behavior, with victims :*(

That sounds very awful, and I am sorry to hear that happened to you. What do you mean by the last part, with the victims?

[Donnadogsoth]

I don’t know if this is exactly the right forum for this topic, but it seems close enough. I am posing this question assuming most members of FDR are atheist. For any of you who are Christian, it is the opposite: would you date/marry an atheist? And, more generally, do you think it is advisable/worth it for an atheist-voluntaryist to pursue Christians for the purposes of dating/marriage.

...

This was a very long post, and I want to facilitate a discussion on the matter. I figured this community would be optimal, and I am interested in everyone’s input. I couldn’t find any similar discussion on FDR (if anyone can I would greatly appreciate it). So, what do you guys think?

 

Interesting post, interesting question, CA.

 

As a Christian, I work at keeping my beliefs as fundamental as possible, by which I mean as principled as possible.  I'm a Catholic but I don't get bent out of shape about being Catholic; I defend Catholicism but largely because it is a bulwark of Western civilisation, less so because I believe every jot and tittle of Church dogma, which I don't, even as I respect the Church in general.

 

No, what I mean is, I approach Christianity from the perspective of classical humanism, viewing the Crucifixion as the pivotal event in human history in terms of what it means for every particular human being who has ever lived.  So that can constitute a principle of relationship of individual to Christ, of individual to all mankind, and of individual to universe.  That's my perspective.

 

My ideal wife would have to accept that principle, in some terms or other.  I would have to accept it, and I'm not entirely sure I do, or just like to think that I do.  So just as I'm coming from a Catholic start, approaching that principle, my ideal wife could be coming from an atheist start.  If it's a valid principle, and if we're self-conscious, honest people, we will arrive there, regardless of dogma or anti-dogma.