The 'Mr entitled atheist extremist' dates

[Umberellatheweatha]

I've been noticing that often the guys I go on a date with seem to take an issue with me not being an atheist and decide its their duty to 'educate' me otherwise.

I should say that I consider myself agnostic. Well, christian really but more in just a spiritual sense. Haven't been to a church in years. So it's not like I'm little miss religious or anything (nor do I feel the need to harp on about my beliefs or convert anyone lol).

But we will be chatting and I love horror movies and ghost stuff so at some point into dating the talk may loosely go towards what our beliefs are. And I'd say basically what I've said in the paragraph above. And with some of them its like you can just see something click in them where they decide its their job to educate you otherwise.

Not that they are all necessarily trying straight of the bat to tell me I'm mental for believing something they don't (though I've met one or two). Its usually a bit more subtle.

Sometimes its just really obvious and arrogant. But sometimes it creeps up over a few dates or even once you are in a relationship as if it's become their personal mission to dissuade you from belief.

I guess its male entitlement? But it makes me think about how ive never had a guy try to convince me to believe in their faith ect but a fair few men try to convince me to give up my beliefs.

Anyway, I've just panned one after a first date there because he was giving me that uneasy feeling he was going that way.

I guess it's a good test to spot entitled wankers early on. But it's still super annoying.

Anyone else had similar experience from dating? (Or partners?) Like they take offense at you believing something they dont...

@Dervel

I can recognise the argument that science and belief can run in parallel for some people. I personally just find it odd. Similar to grown adults collecting dolls or spending all their spare time attending trekky fan events or reenacting medieval battles. Like they couldn't quite let go of the comfort blanket of childhood. Overall less harmful than organised religion but just as weird - to me.

When I've had discussions along these lines with 'believers' (usually those Christening their kids having not entered a church for years) they usually concede they don't think God is real 'but you don't know so best to hedge your bets' or God isn't real but the trappings of organised religion are nice, so they play along.

So is faith simply saying 'I believe'? Does that go for anything? (Eg: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) or does it only count if people have done it for thousands of years (eg: Paganism, or worship of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses) or only if the are an organised religion? Is a belief in fairies equal to a belief in God the Father,Son and Holy Spirit? If not why not?

Yeah but pp people trying to con their way into a christening are not exactly always representative of people with faith lol. Actually I believe in god but dont have a church these days so I'd probably just have to christen my own kid.

I've always seen it as agnostic is about believing in the POSSIBILITY of something greater than yourself. Where as atheism is about point blank not believing in anything.

Of course people can have a wide range of beliefs. Beliefs and faith may even interlink. Depends on the person.

Anyway this post has gone really off topic the last few pages. And toxic af. So I'll not be back. Have fun arguing everyone xD

@TooBigForMyBoots

You said I think that an understanding of science is completely incompatible with religion, superstition and spirituality; it requires massive cognitive dissonance. Plenty of scientists have excellent understanding of science alongside their faith, so they are compatible, some would even say they are complimentary. You think they are incompatible, therefore you believe it to be true despite evidence to the contrary. That is not critical or scientific thinking. That's your cognitive dissonance.

But you still aren't giving me any evidence for the compatibility of science and religion other than saying that there are scientists who have faith which I have already accepted.

The existence of scientists who have faith isn't a magic wand that wipes away the differences between the two modes of thought. I still don't understand how people can see the need for reason, logic and evidence in some aspects of their life while willing to accept something for which there is no evidence (but for which there are cultural, sociological and neurobiological explanations) in another aspect of their life.

I'd love a logical explanation of how people simultaneously hold two opposing world views but your argument seems to be simply that people do simply hold those views so it is possible and therefore there cannot be any incompatibility between them.

They aren't opposing world views.

@Brahumbug

"Atheism is a belief. I'd rather believe there is no god, so I call myself an atheist." Atheism is absolutely not a belief of any type, it is the very opposite of a belief. Agnostics are atheists. I would defend the right of people to hold any view they wish, I only have a problem when religious groups claim privileges for those beliefs, such as banning criticism of them or the right to be homophobic. Faith is not a good way to assess the world. It is belief in something for which there is no good evidence and as for a so called god, which god are they talking about? Yahweh Zeus, Ra?

I explained why it's a belief, but please do go into your counterargument further if my logic was wrong.

[quote herethereandeverywhere]@TomPinch

"I have never heard my atheist father come out with such hogwash.*"
*
Sorry, I don't understand your point. I'm not your father - and unlike organised religions I have not signed up to follow a particular code of what is snd is not the correct way to express my thought (or belief).
So I think you can conclude your father is different to me? Wow. Groundbreaking conclusion.[/quote]
Jeepers. For a rationalist, you really are struggling.

You signed up to have your words interpreted in a reasonable way by expressing them. The way to avoid that is to keep silence.

I went on quite a few online dates and not once has anyone asked me about my beliefs. Maybe there’s something in your profile that’s attracting men who want to argue with you about religion.

”Atheism is a belief. I'd rather believe there is no god, so I call myself an atheist."

Not really. The clue is in the “A” prefix. This just means a lack of so atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Perhaps you are talking about anti-theism which actively believes religion to be harmful as well as incorrect.

Just like the difference between asocial and anti-social. Whilst an anti-social person is someone who acts in a violent, disruptive way to others, an asocial person is just one who is “meh” when it comes to socialising.

I am an atheist who would very much like to believe in a benevolent God but just can’t bring myself to believe in something that has no evidence, whereas evolution is much more convincing. I don’t believe in evolution. It’s just a fact that I accept because it makes sense.

@Lessthanaballpark

”Atheism is a belief. I'd rather believe there is no god, so I call myself an atheist."

Not really. The clue is in the “A” prefix. This just means a lack of so atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Perhaps you are talking about anti-theism which actively believes religion to be harmful as well as incorrect.

Just like the difference between asocial and anti-social. Whilst an anti-social person is someone who acts in a violent, disruptive way to others, an asocial person is just one who is “meh” when it comes to socialising.

I am an atheist who would very much like to believe in a benevolent God but just can’t bring myself to believe in something that has no evidence, whereas evolution is much more convincing. I don’t believe in evolution. It’s just a fact that I accept because it makes sense.

Etymology only tells us where words come from; not what they mean today; otherwise you could argue that pencils are brushes. So I'll take the OED definition "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God."

I choose to call myself an atheist because it suits me better than "agnostic" :) so as I say that's my personal and very much dodgy take on it.

But I still think proper atheism is a belief - I mean, what is the practical difference between "not believing in god" and "believing there is no god"?

Atheists might be very strongly convinced they are right, but they still can't prove it. I'm not sure humans can prove that negative.

I agree that there's plenty of evidence that there were dinosaurs etc. - that is not a belief. But if the bible is wrong doesn't mean there's no god; it could also mean the people who wrote the bible got the details wrong.

@TomPinch

I still don't understand the reference to your father?

If you weren't implying all atheists would or should think as your father does, what did you mean?

I never stated all atheists think like me, just offered my views on people who honestly believe in a 'God'.

Chucking around 'jeepers' 'hogwash' and attempting to criticise my ability to apply rational thought really isn't furthering whatever point you were trying to make.

Your posts appear straight from the Bojo book of bluster

[quote herethereandeverywhere]@TomPinch

I still don't understand the reference to your father?

If you weren't implying all atheists would or should think as your father does, what did you mean?

I never stated all atheists think like me, just offered my views on people who honestly believe in a 'God'.

Chucking around 'jeepers' 'hogwash' and attempting to criticise my ability to apply rational thought really isn't furthering whatever point you were trying to make.

Your posts appear straight from the Bojo book of bluster [/quote]
My point is that you're rude. Is that clearer?

Oh it was an opinion, not a fact. Got it