Date with a Turkish guy

[Tiay]

I think all of us act in accordance with punishment / reward (both Religious and non Religious people). Be it feeling better about yourself to a genuine feeling of empathy you get when helping a person in need. I think it would be fair to say that, punishment / reward governs most of our actions. It's just, with Religious people there is another layer. It's not just something to do to feel better, it's a duty. At least, it's suppose to be. There are lots of hypocrites about.

hot damn, I like you, mish You are right- I just think that we evolved to be social creatures and that we thus instinctually feel a sort of intrinsic reward if we do things that help the group.. because individuals who were motivated like this were more likely to be part of a successful group and therefore pass on their good-natured-genes, and it is no wonder that these values were incorporated into religions, too. And while religion may reinforce those values, I don't think that our society would collapse without it.

Well, as long as you are okay with that.

Personally I wouldn't waste my time on a relationship that I knew would lead to a heartache.

hm, yeah, well, I guess in a weird way I find it comforting if I know it will end, as opposed to hoping that it wont but fearing that it will.
I'll just try to take it as an exercise in not getting too attached but just enjoying it.

[Tiay]

Where did I mention pettiness?

Anyway, I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was referring to the fact that a lot of atheists, when they find out a person they're interested in is religious, will immediately dismiss them as "too stupid", and more often "closed-minded". I hear that quite a lot. It's ironic.

Sure, plenty of religious people, whether fanatic or moderate, will not pursue a relationship with a non-religious person but that is based on fundamental incompatibility (in my opinion). I dunno, at least if a religious person dumps you/rejects you based on religion, you are generally pretty clear on the reasons. The idea of being rejected for my religion on the basis that "religious people are too closed-minded/stupid" makes me angry. There are just as many hypocritical atheists as believers.


Ok, I said I was done, and now I really am. Anyway Tiay, I'm not accusing you of being closed-minded. I was just venting at the preconceptions in general.

ah, no, it's cool and I actually don't mind the religious debating when it is so good natured and well articulated...

I figured out what was bothering me about this, and you may be done but I gotta say my bit anyway.
First of all, it's because I am exactly that kind of atheist, or at least, I thought I was. If someone had told me a few weeks ago that I'd date a religious person, I'd have said.. "eww... no way!". I do not literally think that religious people are stupid as a rule, but religiousness is not something that raises my opinion of anyone.

And second, religious thinking is inherently closed minded because it is about taking things on faith no matter what the evidence says. However, given the right evidence, I would believe in God.
This is, by definition, a fundamentally open minded way of thinking. Just because I am closed-minded about dating someone who's thinking process is by closed minded, does not make me a closed-minded person overall. That's just being closed-minded about closed-mindedness.

but now i'm just talking in circles I hope that made sense..

[vashti]

And second, religious thinking is inherently closed minded because it is about taking things on faith no matter what the evidence says.

Now see, THIS is the kind of thinking that bothers me. This is not true of every religious denomination. Atheists tend to lack enough knowledge about the wide variety of beliefs out there to make true statements. The more progressive religions are NOT at odds with science at all. If this were true of ALL religious denominations, I would be able to support your stance, but you are quite simply wrong.

[Tiay]

Now see, THIS is the kind of thinking that bothers me. This is not true of every religious denomination. Atheists tend to lack enough knowledge about the wide variety of beliefs out there to make true statements. The more progressive religions are NOT at odds with science at all. If this were true of ALL religious denominations, I would be able to support your stance, but you are quite simply wrong.

vash, I am getting quite simply bored of you being right all the damn time.

no seriously, I cannot possibly know all religions and I have bunched them all together. You're right; this is only because I personally have never heard of a religion that is not in some way at odds with science or scientific thinking, and so that's kind of sloppy of me (ie to base a point on what is possibly a personal lack of knowledge). However, I'd love to know of such a religion, but I have yet to see one that is not in some way at odds with.. oh wait, i'm going in circles again.

[Indignant]

vash, I am getting quite simply bored of you being right all the damn time.

no seriously, I cannot possibly know all religions and I have bunched them all together. You're right; this is only because I personally have never heard of a religion that is not in some way at odds with science or scientific thinking, and so that's kind of sloppy of me (ie to base a point on what is possibly a personal lack of knowledge). However, I'd love to know of such a religion, but I have yet to see one that is not in some way at odds with.. oh wait, i'm going in circles again.

how about Buddhism?

[Tiay]

how about Buddhism?

which is often not really 'counted' as a religion.


I simply used god because god/gods/etc feature in most religions. Buddhism is more of a way of life, but if I am not mistaken, depending on the type of Buddhism, they still have belief in some supernatural things. But that doens't really matter; my original point was about open-mindedness, not belief in a god. I lived in the same building as a bunch of buddhist monks when I was in new york, and their rules and beliefs seemed like things that they were not open-minded to changing, like things that had been passed down and studied in a quasi religious way since a young age, etc.. sounds like religious indoctrination to me.

this is why I have such high respect for anyone who questions the religion they grew up with- even if in the end they decide to believe in it or in another religion, it takes intelligence (or maybe the added luck of having intelligent friends) to make a person question their beliefs rather than just cling to them.


---

ah, but nevermind the debating, I'm going to go be open-minded at the gym
(no, I dont' know what that means but it sounds cool...)

[Gigabitch]

Oh, Tiay. **** him like the dirty heathen you are and get over this "serious relationship" thing. Serious relationships are for later in life when you're looking for a breeding partner. I'm not saying you should be a whore, but don't deny yourself gratification because you've got this confusion about sex being the same thing as love, or them going hand-in-hand, or whatever.

It's love that will mess you up, not sex.

[vashti]

vash, I am getting quite simply bored of you being right all the damn time.

no seriously, I cannot possibly know all religions and I have bunched them all together. You're right; this is only because I personally have never heard of a religion that is not in some way at odds with science or scientific thinking, and so that's kind of sloppy of me (ie to base a point on what is possibly a personal lack of knowledge). However, I'd love to know of such a religion, but I have yet to see one that is not in some way at odds with.. oh wait, i'm going in circles again.

Which aspect of science are you thinking is rejected by ALL religious people? Evolution? Not even the Catholic Church rejects that.
Most Christian denominations have no central authority and so rely upon their clergy to determine the stance of an individual house of worship. Therefore, you will find that most Presbytarian clergy, for example, are science-minded, while a handful of their off-shoot congregations call themselves "creationist congregations".

According to wikki:

Support for evolution by religious bodies
Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)
Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth

Buddhist   81%
Hindu   80%
Jewish   77%
Unaffiliated   72%
Catholic   58%
Orthodox   54%
Mainline Protestant   51%
Muslim   45%
Hist. Black Protest.   38%
Evang. Protestant   24%
Mormon   22%
Jehovah's Witness   8%
Total U.S. population percentage:48%


Please note that even those that call themselves religiously "unaffiliated" are less believing in evolution that Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.

[Mish]

hm, yeah, well, I guess in a weird way I find it comforting if I know it will end, as opposed to hoping that it wont but fearing that it will.
I'll just try to take it as an exercise in not getting too attached but just enjoying it.

That's the thing I don't understand Tiay. See, if it was me I would find it hard to justify to myself being with someone knowing it's just a short term affair. It sounds more like "something to do out of boredom" than living through and experiencing genuine feelings for a special someone. It kinda beats the purpose of being in a relationship. Kinda like, doing it just for the sake of it?

[Tiay]

Which aspect of science are you thinking is rejected by ALL religious people? Evolution? Not even the Catholic Church rejects that.
Most Christian denominations have no central authority and so rely upon their clergy to determine the stance of an individual house of worship. Therefore, you will find that most Presbytarian clergy, for example, are science-minded, while a handful of their off-shoot congregations call themselves "creationist congregations".

ok, evolution is the perfect example. Yes, most religions have acknowledged evolution. But they do it in a sly, "fine, fine, okay already, evolution exists.. but god made it that way!" kind of way, and even that only once it became clear that evolution could not be ignored.
Yes, of course god chose to make the universe in the one way that does not require him to exist. The religious mind does not seem to notice that. Nor does it notice how evolution so elegantly shows how mind-boggling complexity can come from simplicity, and how the existence of a necessarily complex creator to orchestrate all this simply regresses the problem to where the creator came from.

Plus, other than evolution, regular, non fundamental religious people genuinely believe in stuff like the virgin birth and the resurrection, the power of prayer and heaven and hell, for all of which there is just as little proof, if not outright evidence to the contrary, as there is for invisible pink unicorns, and who's existence would in itself require an insane amount of explaining.

In short, I believe that while mainstream religion tends to pat science on the head and stay out of it's way, a full understanding of biology and scientific thinking in general is fundamentally incompatible with religion at it's very core.

[Tiay]

Total U.S. population percentage:48%

oh woah.. I hadn't seen that before. Less than half the US population believes in evolution.. I genuinely find that scary.

oh, but back to the real topic...

That's the thing I don't understand Tiay. See, if it was me I would find it hard to justify to myself being with someone knowing it's just a short term affair. It sounds more like "something to do out of boredom" than living through and experiencing genuine feelings for a special someone. It kinda beats the purpose of being in a relationship. Kinda like, doing it just for the sake of it?

I see your point, and I think to a certain extend that is what it is, a relationship for the sake of it.. and let's face it, the fun.
But.. I'm not as unfeeling as you make it sound there, I do like him and enjoy spending time with him other than fooling around. I just don't want to be with him forever. is that so terrible?

[vashti]

Again, you are wrong. Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews definitely DON'T believe in virgin birth or resurrection, and I know for certain that mainstream Judaism is absolutely unabiguous about its support of science. I also know that certain progressive Christian churches believe the virgin birth and resurrection are metaphors. Sorry Tiay, but it's very apparent you are fundamentally uneducated about basic religious theology. What you REALLY seem to have a problem with is conservative Christianity, not religion.

EDIT: BTW - lots of religious people have a problem with Conservative Christianity, too.

[Mish]

I see your point, and I think to a certain extend that is what it is, a relationship for the sake of it.. and let's face it, the fun.
But.. I'm not as unfeeling as you make it sound there, I do like him and enjoy spending time with him other than fooling around. I just don't want to be with him forever. is that so terrible?

It's not terrible, just dishonest to yourself I think. You will open yourself up, you will go through a lot of feelings. And then, you will need months to flush them all out again. Relive all the emptiness and apathy.

Is it really worth it? Why not look for something and invest in someone that will last?

[Tiay]

It's not terrible, just dishonest to yourself I think. You will open yourself up, you will go through a lot of feelings. And then, you will need months to flush them all out again. Relive all the emptiness and apathy.

Is it really worth it? Why not look for something and invest in someone that will last?

well, right now it looks like it's worth it, but that might just be a matter of perspective; my future self who's having to flush out the feelings might disagree with my present self, heh.. I mean, my first relationship left me heartbroken, but I wouldn't take any of it back, I had to make those mistakes and experiences myself.

but now that I think about it, the idea of a relationship that has the potential to last actually kind of scares me. Is that messed up? Then again, all this is just speculation. I haven't talked to him about this stuff, so I have yet to find out if he fits the stereotype or not.

[Tiay]

Again, you are wrong. Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews definitely DON'T believe in virgin birth or resurrection, and I know for certain that mainstream Judaism is absolutely unabiguous about its support of science. I also know that certain progressive Christian churches believe the virgin birth and resurrection are metaphors. Sorry Tiay, but it's very apparent you are fundamentally uneducated about basic religious theology. What you REALLY seem to have a problem with is conservative Christianity, not religion.

EDIT: BTW - lots of religious people have a problem with Conservative Christianity, too.

there is no need to dress me down so dramatically, vashti- the whole reason I like debating, especially with people like you who are intelligent, is to learn stuff, not to "win", so you don't need to rub it in my face. If I concede something, I have also learned something, and if I think my argument remains intact, then it has become more grounded. It's a friendly fencing match not a duel.

My point is this; if they had a proper full understanding of biology, scientific reasoning, how the mind works, etc.. then Buddhists would base their way of life on an understanding on modern ethical theory, they would read Peter Singer more than 'the awakened one''s writings. Plus, while there are different types of Buddhism I think, they do believe in reincarnation and karma. And Hindus may not believe in the virgin birth or resurrection stuff, but they have their own set of irrational gods (depends on the type of Hinduism, though) and supernatural beliefs, karma, souls, etc.
My second landlord in new york was hindi, his family invited me to share dinner in their apartment a few times, where we talked for hours about religion, and one time he took me to see a temple in queens.
I know that I do not know that much about religion but give me some credit, here, believing in the virgin birth can easily be replaced by any religious belief in anything supernatural. Such as an omnipotent benevolent God who created and governs the universe and who at some point in the past interacted with a human to give him commandments and and so on. In short, religion always somehow involves something irrational and unscientific. Yes, religions may support science, but truly, they think it is on a different 'level' to their beliefs. Ie, they may acknowledge that brain science is neat, but mostly they do not believe that our consciousness is created purely by physical, evolutionary means.

So yes, I really do mean to say that science and religion are in principle incompatible- and yes, I am talking about mainstream beliefs and not so much Buddhism here, but as I mentioned even non mainstream belief systems don't really think scientifically. And quite possibly you can find an exception, true.

I concede that it is a lot easier to reconcile buddhism with science than to do the same with conservative christian beliefs. Though, by many Buddhism isn't even considered a proper religion.
Also, I just read that some Hindi people don't believe in gods, for instance. However, I think that if I retract my argument to just apply to religions that hold supernatural beliefs, which is what I should've said instead of virgin birth/resurrection, that'd still cover pretty much all religions.

But, now i'm just ranting again.. I think I could've just said that in a lot less words, sorry