Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 121

Thread: Any primal non-christians here? page 7

  1. #61
    olehcat's Avatar
    olehcat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    104
    Primal Fuel
    Plenty of women who are not Christian, and I am one of them. I don't think much of it because most of my friends and family are not religious either.

  2. #62
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    He also address that question ontological proofs in these lectures. Your bias keeps coming out. You are conflating theology with naturalism.
    Of course he addresses that. These questions have been hashed, rehashed, ground up, emulsified, and regurgitated since...probably since cooking was invented actually.

    I am conflating unproven with unproven. If proof is a prerequisite to right action, then all action based on ideas lacking proof lacks rightness. If proof is not a prerequisite then the defense given in that Catholic video of the Catholic Church's actions is specious. Ideas are ideas and carry the same innate weight whether about gods or orbital mechanics.

    If you want a hint about what the Catholic church thinks about all of this, consider that they didn't make the same mistake with Darwin's ideas. Unfortunately a lot of other churches didn't spot the trap.


    Who said it was? Not me. Catholicism is simply my background.
    It was used as evidence contradicting the proposition that religion is incompatible with science. If it is not representative of all religion then it does not contradict the proposition. If it was intended to support an assertion that not all religions are incompatible with science, well, first that's a horrible thing to try to prove logically and it isn't a suitable example anyway since it has been at odds with science and even today demands a double standard.



    Standards relative to whom? You want to hold a human religious institution of 1500s-1600s, whose scientific thought was in it's infancy relative to today or to Darwin's time? It begs a question about what you believe of today's age: In what way do you not see religious institutions (such as credited Universities like Notre Dame) being held to the same scientific standards as any other university science department?
    What a strange misdirection.

    Religions are based on a theory, outlined in their religious texts. Catholicism is based on a theory of god loosely based on their bible, for example. The whole religion is a theory, an idea. If it has not been proved, then it has exactly the same merit as any other unproven theory. If it cannot be proved, it has exactly the same merit as a natural theory which cannot be proved. You should note that I used the word natural vs scientific, because the ability to, at some level, prove (or disprove) is necessary to making a theory scientific. That right there was the insight, which I gained at about 7, that switched me from "don't know/don't care" to "religions are false". I figured out enough to understand that a statement which cannot be evaluated cannot be true.


    OP, Him and I could go back and forth on this all day long. Hell, we might even enjoy it, but one of us might kill the other if we had to live together.


    Which is why people like me (male, straight, atheist) get bummed out by the dating scene at times. Even disregarding existing relationships, about 97% of the population is off limits (70% of nonbelievers are male). Add respect for existing relationships and a desire to stay within about +/- 15 years of the same age and the pool drops to less than 1%. Add the old standbys of attraction, common ground, personality, politics in some cases, geography, and so on, and we're looking for one of a few hundred women in any given metro area. Needle in haystack time.
    Last edited by Him; 11-29-2012 at 08:00 PM.

  3. #63
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    This is exactly why a lot of people with no particular religious beliefs go to a UU church, for the community and social aspect of it.

    UU churches do not just "let" atheists participate as in tolerate them, they are welcomed wholeheartedly.

    ... .
    Well, I must admit that my personal contact with them is zero. My mother speaks positively about them. I've never seen any reason to check one out even when I literally walked past one twice a day...I was living and working in Anaheim, ca, with work close enough to home that I walked. Somewhere during that time a UU congregation took over a building along the way. I had plenty of opportunity and zero interest. Obviously that blog post and the assertion that the book it discusses is by and for UU folks presents a different view but even there the blogger wasn't actually talking about his experience with a UU congregation. I'm glad to hear it is a good/welcoming place in your experience and that I can add your opinion to my mother's on the pro-UU side.

  4. #64
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Which is why people like me (male, straight, atheist) get bummed out by the dating scene at times. Even disregarding existing relationships, about 97% of the population is off limits (70% of nonbelievers are male). Add respect for existing relationships and a desire to stay within about +/- 15 years of the same age and the pool drops to less than 1%. Add the old standbys of attraction, common ground, personality, politics in some cases, geography, and so on, and we're looking for one of a few hundred women in any given metro area. Needle in haystack time.
    Not saying you are wrong but I would be interested to know where you got that number.

    Quote Originally Posted by Him View Post
    Well, I must admit that my personal contact with them is zero. My mother speaks positively about them. I've never seen any reason to check one out even when I literally walked past one twice a day...I was living and working in Anaheim, ca, with work close enough to home that I walked. Somewhere during that time a UU congregation took over a building along the way. I had plenty of opportunity and zero interest. Obviously that blog post and the assertion that the book it discusses is by and for UU folks presents a different view but even there the blogger wasn't actually talking about his experience with a UU congregation. I'm glad to hear it is a good/welcoming place in your experience and that I can add your opinion to my mother's on the pro-UU side.
    Listen to your mother. She knows more than some random blogger.

    If you are in SoCal again, stop by San Diego and I'll take you to a Sunday service.

  5. #65
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Not saying you are wrong but I would be interested to know where you got that number.
    Atheist Demographics (the specific claim is 69% male, 29% female...I split the uncertain middle)

    That roughly matches my personal observation. I don't actually know if there is a gender bias in views held, or in willingness to express disagreement with commonly held views. In other words, it may be that the numbers are equal but more atheist females are closeted. In general older people tend to be more comfortable being themselves/expressing their true views so you could probably answer that question by seeing if the bias diminishes with age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Listen to your mother. She knows more than some random blogger.
    But that goes against the whole spirit of the Internet!

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    If you are in SoCal again, stop by San Diego and I'll take you to a Sunday service.
    A very kind offer. If I can, I will. I usually go back around January every year but it looks like that won't be possible this year.
    Last edited by Him; 11-29-2012 at 07:52 PM.

  6. #66
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Once again, for the record. I sang in the UU choir for years and I am an atheist. The UU in no way, shape, or form "demonizes" atheism. In fact most UUs I know are atheists or secular humanists of some sort. That is one book, and one blog post, not church policy.
    There was a UU minister in lancaster whom I met who was an atheist. Yet he was still the leader of their church. It was interesting.

    Also, there are atheist quakers. it's fairly common in the community. it's why we were so comfortable there for so long.

  7. #67
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Him View Post
    Atheist Demographics (the specific claim is 69% male, 29% female...I split the uncertain middle)

    That roughly matches my personal observation. I don't actually know if there is a gender bias in views held, or in willingness to express disagreement with commonly held views. In other words, it may be that the numbers are equal but more atheist females are closeted. In general older people tend to be more comfortable being themselves/expressing their true views so you could probably answer that question by seeing if the bias diminishes with age.
    Fascinating link. Thank you. It does mention the question of the "nones" as in the people who reject all categories and are basically saying "none of the above" or leave the question blank when asked about religious preferences. Perhaps a larger percentage of non-believing women are in this group.

    So, does this mean that as an atheist single straight female my chances of finding a guy who sees the world as I do are not as bleak as I thought? Cool.

  8. #68
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,090
    I'm more likely to answer "none" over "atheist" because I"m not comfortable with the more staunch atheistic perspectives (which tend to be anti-religion) because of my buddhist leanings (and general "spirituality").

  9. #69
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    How did you go from this

    I am conflating unproven with unproven. If proof is a prerequisite to right action, then all action based on ideas lacking proof lacks rightness. If proof is not a prerequisite then the defense given in that Catholic video of the Catholic Church's actions is specious. Ideas are ideas and carry the same innate weight whether about gods or orbital mechanics.
    to this

    What a strange misdirection.

    Religions are based on a theory, outlined in their religious texts. Catholicism is based on a theory of god loosely based on their bible, for example. The whole religion is a theory, an idea. If it has not been proved, then it has exactly the same merit as any other unproven theory. If it cannot be proved, it has exactly the same merit as a natural theory which cannot be proved. You should note that I used the word natural vs scientific, because the ability to, at some level, prove (or disprove) is necessary to making a theory scientific. That right there was the insight, which I gained at about 7, that switched me from "don't know/don't care" to "religions are false". I figured out enough to understand that a statement which cannot be evaluated cannot be true.
    (I used "proof" because you introduced the term.) In the strict sense theories are never proven. Theorems are provable but not theories since they lend themselves to being falsifiable....skepticism. A proof is not falsifiable. There's no need, I'm sure you'll agree, to postulate a theory of some god to make a scientific observation about orbital mechanics.
    Theology doesn't use scientific inquiry and theory. An ontology uses philosophical discipline in its arguments to arrive at a logical conceptualization, not scientific mechanisms. Similarly, ethics (including humanism) doesn't rely upon scientific mechanisms either.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  10. #70
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    So, does this mean that as an atheist single straight female my chances of finding a guy who sees the world as I do are not as bleak as I thought? Cool.
    I'm trying to come up with a clever quip about how atheism is only part of the picture, but it's obviously too early in the morning.

    Location is more important than I realized when living in SoCal. North Texas is a whole different scene. San Diego seems like it would be a good choice. Plus you have the wild animal park and zoo....

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    How did you go from this ... to this ...
    By understanding that science, religion, etc. are all attempts to understand our situation as humans. They are like a laser cutter and an obsidian knife...superficially very different, and some people may argue they are absolutely different, but at the end of the day they are both cutting tools. They are in the same class even though the results and materials they work with are very different.

    Of course a stone knife works great when cutting through easy materials. Same with religion. Up to a certain level of understanding, religion gets the job done cheaply and easily. It ain't much use when you get to the bones though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    There's no need, I'm sure you'll agree, to postulate a theory of some god to make a scientific observation about orbital mechanics.
    If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If the only tool you have is religion, then it is necessary to use religious concepts to make natural observations. There are still, in 2012, a whole lotta people on this earth whose only tool is religion. For them, it is absolutely necessary to include the ideal of a god (or something similarly exonatural) to make observations about orbital mechanics.
    Last edited by Him; 11-30-2012 at 07:57 AM.

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •