Deal Breakers in relationships

Jagraf

GlasweJen wrote: »

all babies are athiest until their parents raise them otherwise. You don't get many 4 year olds who sit up at dinner one day and say "Mum, I realise this is lamb night but I think I'm Christian so I'm going to have a glass of milk with my dinner".

Actually being athiest is learned behaviour in the same way as religion/faith is, hence my question. Perhaps agnostic is the word that should have been used (although I would argue this is also learned behaviour). Babies are not born athiest as they have no knowledge to base a decision on, just as babies are not born religious.

heuchera

Anyone seen 'that scene' in The Crying Game?

Now that would be a deal-breaker! :eek::rotfl:

System

Female

-bad personal hygiene
-taking hard drugs (heroin etc, weed is the limit i'd be comfortable with)
-being selfish
-cheating/have cheated in the past
-big muscles (can;t stand body builder types)7
-being religious-but only if they were trying to convert me (if they practice it and it doesn't impact the relationship then that's ok)

I did used to count long hair as one i wouldn't like but bf has far longer hair than me and it actually doesn't bother me half as much as i thought it did

BarryBlue

heuchera wrote: »

The fact that 80% of the worlds population are religious would prove the first assertion to be wrong. Religion is a human need. The fact that in our particular society there are currently rather a lot of tub-thumping militant atheists is neither here nor there.

The second analogy is also poor. Atheism is a very concrete set of beliefs, chiefly: the denial of the existence of deities.

Atheists like to think of themselves as special, unique and showing superior intelligence, but they really aren't!

Everything you have said there simply demonstrates what I have asserted. No matter how many people in the world subscribe to some form of belief system, it doesn't mean that any of it is anything more than man-made ideas that have been passed on in some way or another by older members of each society. The default without any of that is no knowledge of such information.


There is, for many, a need to believe that there is something after death. That is perhaps a human weakness and your life is far more fulfilled when you accept there is nothing and live the only life you have. Atheism is not a 'set of beliefs' at all. As I said, it is like saying not playing cards is a hobby. Non-belief is just that, I simply believe in one less god than a non-atheist, but I waste a lot less time worrying about it. People are in one of two camps, atheist or non-atheist. It's as simple as that in reality.


As for your last point, I would say without doubt that many religious folks regard themselves as superior in intellect. They love being on some sort of pedestal and tell others how to live their lives. Sadly they never prove it as they are never able to substantiate a word of it all, so fall at the first hurdle. Atheists have no need to thump tubs as all available evidence is on their side. The objections only begin when religions interfere with the lives of those who don't subscribe to them.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

Actually being athiest is learned behaviour in the same way as religion/faith is, hence my question. Perhaps agnostic is the word that should have been used (although I would argue this is also learned behaviour). Babies are not born athiest as they have no knowledge to base a decision on, just as babies are not born religious.

An atheist is somebody who lacks a belief in a god or gods. Surely babies meet this criteria? Sure, a baby can't hold a definite position on religious belief because they wouldn't understand the concept. I think Barry is simply making the point that a baby isn't born a Christian, and can't become one until they're old enough to know what one is.

BarryBlue

Jagraf wrote: »

I know your perspective on religion from other threads and I respect it, even if I don't agree with you. But your point about atheism being the default of every human being intrigues me. Why and how do you reach that conclusion and where is your proof (considering that proof plays such a massive part in your argument for non-belief).

At last, a serious point on the subject.

The way I look at it is that most societies have a system used for control of the masses. Religion is used because there is no single person that can be argued with over the beliefs they wish to convey to the people. (1984 was a parody of religion, since Big Brother was exactly that.)

Everyone who is brought up in a society is drip-fed the beliefs of that society, including religion. For instance, in an islamic society nobody discovers, say, christianity as a belief system as the information is simply not available to them. Atheism, the logical conclusion, would get them into serious trouble.

Without any belief system present, everybody would come to their own conclusion and it would obviously not be all the same thing. The ancients all had all sorts of ideas but they all came down to keeping people under control. I believe that the more sophisticated and well-educated a society, the less relevance religion has to it, which is why Western religions are destined to die out in due course.

Hope that helps, and thanks for not hurling insults which is the normal par for the course here.;)

Jagraf

onlyroz wrote: »

An atheist is somebody who lacks a belief in a god or gods. Surely babies meet this criteria? Sure, a baby can't hold a definite position on religious belief because they wouldn't understand the concept. I think Barry is simply making the point that a baby isn't born a Christian, and can't become one until they're old enough to know what one is.

An atheist does hold a definitive position on religious belief. As Barry has explained in his posts.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

An atheist does hold a definitive position on religious belief. As Barry has explained in his posts.

You're just trying to argue semantics. If you want to define an atheist as somebody who has made a *conscious* decision to not believe in a god or gods then fine, but that's not the dictionary definition of the word. Which word would you use to describe somebody who has no experience or knowledge of any religions at all, either because they are too young to understand, or perhaps have been living in an isolated wilderness all their lives? I still say that "atheist" is the best word to describe anybody who doesn't actively believe in any gods, regardless of whether it's a conscious decision or not.

(And agnostics are the 50:50 fence sitters, which is definitely a conscious position to take).

Gloomendoom

How many people have been living in an isolated wilderness all their lives?

Tarzan or perhaps Mowgli?

onlyroz

Gloomendoom wrote: »

How many people have been living in an isolated wilderness all their lives?

Probably not very many - but you wouldn't expect such people to be Christians or Muslims would you?