Girlfriend is religious, I'm atheist.. Can this work?

Angilion · 18 Dec 2013 at 08:48

Theophany said:
It's an outlier case objectively. It's a very new religion any way you cut it and has courted as much controversy as the most established of religions. :/

Yes...just like Christianity soon after it was started.

zenf · 18 Dec 2013 at 08:51

Theophany said:
It's an outlier case objectively. It's a very new religion any way you cut it and has courted as much controversy as the most established of religions. :/

How do you objectively determine an outlier case? What about the Church of Mormon, started by Joseph Smith less than 200 years ago and it has 15 million members now, is that an outlier case?

Theophany · 18 Dec 2013 at 08:53

Angilion said:
Yes...just like Christianity soon after it was started.

I refer you to my earlier comment about being argumentative for its own sake.

zenf said:
How do you objectively determine an outlier case? What about the Church of Mormon, started by Joseph Smith less than 200 years ago and it has 15 million members now, is that an outlier case?

Are you familiar with mathematics and patterns of distribution?

By the same reasoning, Mormonism would also be an outlier case. I don't see what the number of followers has to do with anything outside the context of Twitter.

Freefaller · 18 Dec 2013 at 08:56

It's Angilion he likes the sound of his own voice... or look of his own font in this case.

zenf · 18 Dec 2013 at 08:59

Theophany said:
Are you familiar with mathematics and patterns of distribution?

By the same reasoning, Mormonism would also be an outlier case. I don't see what the number of followers has to do with anything outside the context of Twitter.

To an extent I am... If you're not using the number of followers, how are you objectively determining which religions are outlier cases?

Are you familiar with the terms subjective/objective?

Angilion · 18 Dec 2013 at 09:02

Theophany said:
I refer you to my earlier comment about being argumentative for its own sake.

You're claiming an extremely obvious and objective distinction where one doesn't really exist. You're providing nothing to support that position.

I'm arguing against that position for a reason.

elmarko · 18 Dec 2013 at 09:02

The difference between Scientology is that it's not only just a belief system - but it's also pseudo-scientific. It presents it's hocus pocus as science & fails under critical scrutiny - the more specific a belief get's the more it opens it'self up-to examination (then the usual failure as a result of it).

The exceedingly vague 'A god which exists outside of our universe' belief is indeed unknowable - which is part of it's strength (it can't be disproved). On the other hand mind readers, spoon benders & e-meters are all pseudo-scientific & almost always falsifiable.

Belief in a deity is far more respectable (intellectually) than any pseudo-scientific belief which is patently false & can be proved so.

smelly_legend · 18 Dec 2013 at 09:04

I suggest you bring the child up as a devote catholic spy, only to bring the church down from the inside.

!bluetonic! · 18 Dec 2013 at 09:07

OMG.. This thread has been completely derailed by a religious argument.

Let us get back on track.

Girlfriend is religious, I'm atheist.. Can this work?

1. Has she got a tidy labia?
2. Has she got pretty, feminine feet, size 6 or below?

If you can answer yes to these questions, then it can work out.

zenf · 18 Dec 2013 at 09:07

elmarko said:
The difference between Scientology is that it's not only just a belief system - but it's also pseudo-scientific. It presents it's hocus pocus as science & fails under critical scrutiny - the more specific a belief get's the more it opens it'self up-to examination (then the usual failure as a result of it).

The exceedingly vague 'A god which exists outside of our universe' belief is indeed unknowable - which is part of it's strength (it can't be disproved). On the other hand mind readers, spoon benders & e-meters are all pseudo-scientific & almost always falsifiable.

Belief in a deity is far more respectable (intellectually) than any pseudo-scientific belief which is patently false & can be proved so.

I do agree with you but I would still argue that how intellectually respectable a belief is is subjective.. Who are we to judge? Do scientologists really deserve to be disrespected because we believe that their beliefs are even more silly than other religions?

And many religious people, including a colleague who is actually quite intelligent, believe the story of Noah's ark literally happened... As in, a male and female of every species on the planet on a single ship. That's well up there with scientology when it comes to silliness, imo, but that's supposed to be respectable?

Pestilence · 18 Dec 2013 at 09:31

smelly_legend said:
I suggest you bring the child up as a devote catholic spy, only to bring the church down from the inside.

Or, more likely, end up going down inside a church.

zenf · 18 Dec 2013 at 09:33

Pestilence said:
Or, more likely, end up going down inside a church.

smelly_legend · 18 Dec 2013 at 09:39

Pestilence said:
Or, more likely, end up going down inside a church.

boom boom!

A good point 'tho. This is why the child's training must be disciplined and true. No place for one to go weak at the knees.

elmarko · 18 Dec 2013 at 10:19

zenf said:
I do agree with you but I would still argue that how intellectually respectable a belief is is subjective.. Who are we to judge? Do scientologists really deserve to be disrespected because we believe that their beliefs are even more silly than other religions?

And many religious people, including a colleague who is actually quite intelligent, believe the story of Noah's ark literally happened... As in, a male and female of every species on the planet on a single ship. That's well up there with scientology when it comes to silliness, imo, but that's supposed to be respectable?

I guess really it relates to how falsifiable an idea or concept is.

Literal interpretations are bound to be flawed due to how poor our understanding of the world was historically - personally I find specific religious dogma far more absurd than say simple belief in a deity (because these require the suspension of our laws of nature or directly contradict with our historical evidence).

Belief in the literal Noah's ark story is no different in my view to creationism (belief which contradicts with existing evidence) - something which isn't a good thing to get involved with, but still nowhere near as bad as beliefs in ideas which can be replicated, tested & proved false.

A fairer comparison is say ancient Greek or Norse mythology - something which very few believe in & people would find ridiculous now if they did, but is just as plausible as the more modern religions in it's core elements (but is still unfalsifiable & therefore at least unknown as opposed to clearly false like pseudo-scientific belief's).

zenf · 18 Dec 2013 at 10:46

elmarko said:
<snip>

I'm sure there are elements of scientology concepts and beliefs that aren't falsifiable though.. From the wiki:

The Church of Scientology claims, based on its original study of cases and continuous affirmation from ongoing subjects, that a human is an immortal, spiritual being (termed Thetan from the Greek word 'theta' meaning life force), that is in a physical body.

I can't say I know much about scientology but that seems fairly similar to a soul which isn't really falsifiable. I just don't think there's as much of a distinction between scientology and other religions that some people would suggest.

linktoinsanity · 18 Dec 2013 at 15:44

My Nana was a Catholic, my Grandad is an atheist. They were together for over 50 years...

It can work, but only if you are both willing to accept one another's views. If she can't accept yours, tell her exactly why you don't accept hers and move on.

With children, maybe send them to church until they are old enough to make his/her own choice as it will give them a good moral base to build their personality on.

I'm an atheist by the way.