religion concerning dating

[robert1986]

Would someone who is religious be a deal breaker?

Would an Atheist be better ?

I see downsides to both. Many religious folks believe in a deity and many Atheists belive in the State. 

I'm not religious though I grew up Christian. I totally reject religion. 

How does religion factor in to dating? 

Do you not ask? 

I had a woman say to me once " I'm religious and you are not . I don't think we are compatible." She already had kids and they moved out. 

How do you deal with religion and dating? Do you mention it upfront ? 

[Sir Exotic]

Religion in and of itself doesn't really matter that much, only what it entails.

Someone who is religious, is superstitious, and that's what you should care about.
When someone says they believe something on faith, it's not necessarily what they believe that you should care about, but the fact that they believe something on faith.
Faith is believing something without evidence (or "pretending to know things that you don't know, or know you don't know")
Faith is a rejection of reason, logic and evidence, and should therefore be rejected, and shunned.

Another objection is that a religious person will hold the supernatural, and/or supernatural being (god) as more important than you. If for you there is someone more important than me, then have a committed love relationship with them, and leave me out of it. I am the most important person to my wife, and she is to me.

My biggest objection to (some/most) religious people, is that they believe in a hell, believe that non-believers go there, and worship the god that is going to send them there.
I could not be in a romantic, sexual or even friendly relationship with someone who believes that I am going to hell, and worships and/or claims to love the thing that is going to send me there. To claim to love or like that person is a rejection of myself.

I would only ever marry an atheist, but not because they are an atheist, but for why they are an atheist. If they are an atheist for bad reasons, and those bad reasons (could even be based on faith) are things that I should reject, I couldn't accept it. I wouldn't marry someone because they are an atheist, but because they'd have the correct foundation where that atheism is built on. 

What it comes down to, and I think Stefan would be perfectly in line with me saying this: Principles.

If you apply principles (logic, evidence, reason and morality) to anything, the result would be Atheism, Anarchism, Capitalism, Peaceful Parenting (I guess the most important 4 "positions"), etc.

So don't choose someone because they are an atheist, but for how they got there, and of course don't judge someone based on just one of their positions.
An atheist who 'worships' the state is not someone who strictly follows or applies principles to everything, so even if they arrived at atheism for the right reasons, that doesn't make them 'good enough'. Although, a person who has arrived at many good positions for the right reasons, would probably be easily convinced to change their mind on the things they haven't gotten right yet.

Stefan's wife was a Christian when they met, and I don't know the story, but I'm assuming that she was easily convinced/persuaded of Stefan's arguments against religion/faith for the right reasons.

Hope that helps
 

[robert1986]

Well thanks for the effort but I knew all of that already. My main concern for dating do I say " Atheists only " or what? 

Do I put the preferance of "no religion"?

I'm trying to put this in the context of dating. I don't want to scare anyone off but at the same time I don't want to be used. 

Do I put the no religion preferance upfront? This way if they reject me it's only 10 minutes of my time?

Or do I say Reason , Evidence and Logic instead of religion?

[aviet]

I like Jos' clear arguments, but I would add to his point on the notion that a religious spouse would view you as someone who will go to hell as not true in all cases. A lot of religious people are virtually only culturally religious and their belief in theology is very close to zero and selective.

I also think it's important to remind yourself that you're not going to get every single trait that you may desire. You will have to compromise and you no doubt have your own flaws that someone will have to overlook to consider you. For me if someone like a Lauren Southern or Faith Goldy came on my radar, I'm going to be interested as I've not met anyone in real life who even comes close to having such an array of traits I find desirable. That they are both mildly religious is something I'd have to accept.

The crux of the issue is that the traits that FDR-types typically seek tend to be split between Christian conservatives and atheists (who tend to be leftists). Given the choice between the two I'd always go for Christian conservative. Given that I've barely encountered anyone from either group doesn't give me a lot of luxury to be ultra-picky. Women also tend to be a lot less philosophical then men. If that's something you're interested in and then you're looking for some quite specific and uncommon philosophical ideas, you're looking at a very small number of women.

[Sir Exotic]

Then excuse me, from your message I didn't have much information to judge where you were coming from.

I would go with the latter: reason, evidence and logic (philosophy)

But based on the platform or circumstance this might not be an option (for example a dating website where the only option is religion or no religion.)

Personally I would go for no religion if we keep it simple, but if you're willing to take the risk and ask the question, that'd be fine too.
If they're the right person and accept reason, evidence and logic, they'll come around, just ask yourself if it's worth it.
You can take the chance with someone who thinks spanking is great, and chance their mind, but I think we'd agree that it'd be much easier to just find someone who already agrees on the bigger things.

[Sir Exotic]

5 minutes ago, aviet said:

I like Jos' clear arguments, but I would add to his point on the notion that a religious spouse would view you as someone who will go to hell as not true in all cases. A lot of religious people are virtually only culturally religious and their belief in theology is very close to zero and selective.

I agree with most of what you said (in your entire message), but I'd like to mention that if we're talking about someone who is culturally religious, I wouldn't call them religious in the first place. I would just say that they have certain values. For me, and I think for most people, religiosity necessarily includes a belief system, and not just the values that one holds.

Otherwise I'd probably be a "cultural satanist", although.. satanism doesn't require a supernatural belief and is a philosophical position by definition. Not relevant to the topic, but I just thought that was an interesting point.

[robert1986]

Ok so go for the core foundation then work from that?

Personal religion i suppose is alright so long as kids don't have to go into the religion. This rules out fundamentalists obviously. 

So I suppose someone could be religious as long as it's their own preferance . Like vanilla or chocolate. So long as they don't expect others to believe it. My worries with that is women use "faith" for guidance. Talking to something that can not exist worries me. Ask me for guidance . That's my worry. 

[Sir Exotic]

2 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

Religion in and of itself doesn't really matter that much, only what it entails.

Someone who is religious, is superstitious, and that's what you should care about.
When someone says they believe something on faith, it's not necessarily what they believe that you should care about, but the fact that they believe something on faith.
Faith is believing something without evidence (or "pretending to know things that you don't know, or know you don't know")
Faith is a rejection of reason, logic and evidence, and should therefore be rejected, and shunned.

Those are my thoughts on that specific issue. Personal religion would still be a problem for me, not because it is wrong or immoral, but because of what it entails.

[robert1986]

Yes. Talking to something that cannot exist instead of going to you for help. That's my fear. 

My roommate was religious until I said " I found you in the homeless shelter . Had I respected your religion you would still be there. I intervened and I am what's real. You are housed because of my generosity . So if you want faith then give me $1000 for the deposit and move out. If it wasn't for me you would not be housed"

 

He got the picture . I don't want a repeat of that 

Why don't men suggest women thry know who are single? Cone on. If you know good people offer a suggestion to others. Women do this.

[Tyler H]

Jos made many good points. Just one minor correction; I believe Stef said his wife was a deist when they met, I don’t think she was a Christian specifically. 

If also like to add that while it is ideal to find a rational woman who can think and adhere to reason and evidence, any compromises you make are your decisions. If you’re willing to sacrifice truth so you can nab someone like Faith Goldy or Lauren Southern (let’s be honest, if they looked like Lena Dunham you would easily dismiss them for their religion) then you are absolutely free to make that decision for yourself. What Stef has said, to which I absolutely agree, is that the religious instruction of your children should be a deal breaker. You do not have the right to teach children something that is false as though it were true. You absolutely cannot threaten them with eternal torture for non-compliance. Religious indoctrination harms the development of their psyche. An agreement must be made that the children will not be exposed to hell, taught religion as fact, or instructed in catechisms.

It could be argued that because children are so dependent on their parents, even the parent’s personal faith could influence the child to want to believe whatever the parent believes. This is why I would steer clear of any superstitious partner. 

The recent content on religion has been woefully incomplete, absent criticisms that are entirely valid. 

I recently listened to this podcast that I think you may find helpful. 

FDR2395 - Mail bag referencing first caller in next call in show. 

FDR2396 - Said caller (first call)

[Sir Exotic]

8 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Jos made many good points. Just one minor correction; I believe Stef said his wife was a deist when they met, I don’t think she was a Christian specifically. 

You're right! I heard this a few weeks ago actually when listening to an older podcast (Sex with the faithful, I believe it was) and Stefan indeed said that his wife was a deist.

[Tyler H]

2 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

You're right! I heard this a few weeks ago actually when listening to an older podcast (Sex with the faithful, I believe it was) and Stefan indeed said that his wife was a deist.

Oh cool, thanks for confirming!

[barn]

On 09/25/2017 at 9:50 PM, robert1986 said:

Would someone who is religious be a deal breaker?

Isn't the right question to ask: would the lack of respect (or mutually) be an issue?

Barnsley

[Jsbrads]

A very common reality observed by Medved, is that areligious people of a given faith in the US, eventually become more religious after a child is born and they start thinking about how to raise a child.

Im guessing you wanna be pretty sure your spouse isn’t going to be teaching your children the glories of the dark one once the kid reaches five years old. 

I am very concerned about winding up with a Leftist. If they express something in a profile, I’m done, but if they don’t, then I try to get to know them better as opposed to quizzing them on whether or not we can date.