# Would you date a non-religious person/atheist?



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

Boys and girls, that declare themselves religious. Would you date/marry a non-religious person/atheist?


----------



## NoEgo (Jul 5, 2016)

As an Atheist myself, I'd be open to dating a religious girl. I have nothing against it, and if she has nothing against my Atheism, then that's all that really matters. I know a few of my childhood friends' parents have Atheist/Catholic marriages, and they always seemed to be very happy with each other. It's just part of making compromises.

But to answer your original question, f*kin'-A right I would.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

I'm not religious so yeah.


----------



## JohnDoe26 (Jun 6, 2012)

Sure, if they respected my religion and beliefs. 

For those of you who aren't religious, consider you'll probably have to wait for sex until marriage (or at least a bit longer).


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

NoEgo said:


> As an Atheist myself, I'd be open to dating a religious girl. I have nothing against it, and if she has nothing against my Atheism, then that's all that really matters. I know a few of my childhood friends' parents have Atheist/Catholic marriages, and they always seemed to be very happy with each other. It's just part of making compromises.


I am an atheist/"It really doesn't matter anyway guy" and my only criteria is that they don't drag me to church every Sunday <.<

It could be very different the other way around though. I don't pay religion much attention, so it really wouldn't hurt me to have someone religious close to me, unless they forced me to do something which I had no interest in. If someone pays a lot of attention to something, maybe the absence of it in their partner would feel like a hole in the ground to them, which they'd like to have filled.

I got curious because I just now read some posts on this website about much God/Jesus means to the Christians here on this website. I am wondering if these, the same people, can tolerate that their partner doesn't think that God/Jesus necessarily exists?


----------



## PrincessV (Aug 17, 2015)

Yeah I would date you Demon Soul. You didn't have to be so shy about it. 

Just be careful, because I might convert you into a believer.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

I'd be very interested to know, but going a little further. Rather than simply dating, would a religious person _marry_ a non-religious person?

I do plan to get married because marriage has nothing to do with religion anymore. I'd rather not get married in a church but I would do it for my religious partner.

_I_ would date someone who is religious. I think I'd even go to freakin' church ffs, for them. Only if I can skip sometimes though. Not sure if religious people would date me, though. I'm already currently dealing with that dilemma right now. It's one thing to just be good enough to be "used" and another thing to be good enough to date or marry. Anyway.

If I had children, I would not be opposed to teaching them a religion. As long as they have options. We can raise them with that particular religion, as long as they know that mommy doesn't believe at all, and that you can go that route too. I'm not pretending to be a religion, none of that sh*t. I want them to decide for themselves. Children won't really decide for themselves at a young age anyway, but I want them raised as such so they could decide when they're older.

Personally my parents are both non-religious, so it worked out for them. I never went to church. I was baptized, idfk why to be honest. They are technically "Catholic" but I think they just say that to appease family and society. We are not religious at all.


----------



## Merkurial (Oct 12, 2016)

Yes, religion isn't smth so important for me in such cases 0 More important is the character features of the certain person...


----------



## Excaliber (May 16, 2015)

I think it would depend on the person for me, I'd be willing to try. 

For Christians it mentions something about being unequally yoked to a non believer which can cause strife due to differences, but there is nothing stating that It can't happen, its just not recommended.


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

I'd prefer nonreligious, but religion isn't a dealbreaker by any means. It really just depends on how they acted and such, I don't want someone constantly trying to convert me


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

I dont see why not.


----------



## Blue Dino (Aug 17, 2013)

Its interesting because a lot of religious people mainly only mingle with their fellow church mates and would usually seek their relationships there. Just about all of the religious people I know met their significant others in church. I could only think of one who didn't.


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

no. that'd result in too many problems. it'd feel more lonely, too.

it'd be annoying having to put up w/ them mocking God as well.

there is also the fact that i feel like a person that's not religious wouldn't take the relationship as seriously. i feel they would be more likely to get rid of me than someone that is religious. i wouldn't feel as secure.


----------



## Trooper (Apr 29, 2011)

Red October said:


> I'd prefer nonreligious, but religion isn't a dealbreaker by any means. It really just depends on how they acted and such, I don't want someone constantly trying to convert me


This ^^^.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

PrincessV said:


> Yeah I would date you Demon Soul. You didn't have to be so shy about it.
> 
> Just be careful, because I might convert you into a believer.


Okey, you would date me but would you date other atheists? 

But seriously, why? I don't get it.

If Jesus is everything that you says he is to: Your best friend, your savior of mankind, your master, teacher, firstborn of all creation, lord of the church, holy one, judge, Kings of all kings and lords, Light of the world, Prince of Peace, Son of god and man, word of god, Alpha and Omega, Bread of life, high priest, and the deliverer of all good.

And your boyfriend is like:










Okey, maybe you didn't say any of those things but I got a Daenerys Stormborn moment here .. if you have seen GoT 

Obviously I think most non-religious people would be very respectful of their partners religious viewpoint so that wouldn't really be a problem, but I just don't get it from your point of view. Just going a little bit above dating. Would it be okey for you to know that your husband would go to hell? Would it be okey for you to know that your child might grow up with it's fathers viewpoint? And you know there are a lot of small technical details that may be annoying in the long run, like going to church, and your husband not praying before meals or at all, and much more, just even a no "God bless you" you when you are sneezing. I don't say "God bless you" because I am not used to it, but I'd say "Hey, princess are okey? I'll make some hot chocolate tonight that you can drink while were watching a movie".

There is a lot of things I would accept personally though. Like baptism and marriage for example. I could baptize all my child's, for no other reason than it may please my future wife and to me, it doesn't really mean anything more than splashing some water on the child's head, so why not?.

Maybe I am blowing things out of proportion here, and for a lot of you it's not such a big deal. Maybe it only wouldn't work if both believe very intensely in their beliefs? Like if you would think I'd go to hell, and I'd think you were stupid for believing there is a god or something or maybe the things we'd have in common would far outweigh our differences in belief and that would be our saving grace?


----------



## Carolyne (Sep 20, 2016)

I don't understand how anyone could have an inter-faith relationship. I could see people from two different Christian denominations working it out, but I don't understand why someone would date so far out of their faith like an atheist with a theist.


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

Demon Soul said:


> just even a no "God bless you" you when you are sneezing. I don't say "God bless you" because I am not used to it, but I'd say "Hey, princess are okey? I'll make some hot chocolate tonight that you can drink while were watching a movie".


A hot chocolate in place of the "God bless you" is perfect, except... Tell her to make it herself and to get you one, too, while she's at it.


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

Carolyne said:


> I don't understand how anyone could have an inter-faith relationship. I could see people from two different Christian denominations working it out, but I don't understand why someone would date so far out of their faith like an atheist with a theist.


The bottom line is that theism and atheism are just two different philosophical views of reality. Would you say the same thing about differences of positions on free will, ethics, knowledge, etc?

It's only when you start getting into specific religious beliefs where things get tricky, but a general atheism/theism relationship shouldn't be that big of problem imo.

I consider myself a Christian, albiet of a _very_ non-standard variety e.g. deny the existence of a traditional hell, don't believe in going to church, deny biblical inerrancy/church authority - just to name a few. Basically a heretic to Catholics and Protestants alike, heh. My girlfriend is agnostic and doesn't like religion at all. I relate more to her and her (suspension of) beliefs than with most believers to be honest.


----------



## inflames2 (Oct 22, 2016)

I'm secretly an Atheist and my GF is Christian. Her beliefs I laugh at in my head. Like when she has to ask "God" if this is ok, like going to the Casino. I already got her to have sex with me in less than a month and she has agreed to live with me. Although she might have the last laugh if one day "God" says it's not ok to be with me.


----------



## M0rbid (Jan 11, 2011)

^ typical christian girls lol


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

I'm not religious... so yes. if she was a.little bit religious leaders. yes. as long as she wasn't a brainwashed bible basher obsessed with it.


----------



## Excaliber (May 16, 2015)

Demon Soul said:


> Obviously I think most non-religious people would be very respectful of their partners religious viewpoint so that wouldn't really be a problem, but I just don't get it from your point of view. Just going a little bit above dating. Would it be okey for you to know that your husband would go to hell? Would it be okey for you to know that your child might grow up with it's fathers viewpoint? And you know there are a lot of small technical details that may be annoying in the long run, like going to church, and your husband not praying before meals or at all, and much more, just even a no "God bless you" you when you are sneezing. I don't say "God bless you" because I am not used to it, but I'd say "Hey, princess are okey? I'll make some hot chocolate tonight that you can drink while were watching a movie".





Carolyne said:


> I don't understand how anyone could have an inter-faith relationship. I could see people from two different Christian denominations working it out, but I don't understand why someone would date so far out of their faith like an atheist with a theist.


@ Demon Soul: I personally would not rule someone out just because they are atheist, even though our beliefs would not be compatible, that does not make them some sort of horrendous creature. I would be willing to look past it if I loved them and wanted to make it work, I would respect there view points. Now, would it bother me if I knew my partner would be going to hell? Yes probably, I'd wanna be with them after I die. However it honestly has nothing to do with not being able to love them in the present, I wouldn't push the topic it is there choice. Would I be okay if my children took on my wife's view points? Yes probably, there is something called free will, every human being has there own choice. I would In turn expect her to understand too if they took my views. How I see this relationship between Christian/atheist is I would live by example of what I am, rather that forcing anything.

@ Carolyne: I can understand (Have seen) that there would be tension in such a relationship, the Bible itself doesn't recommend it, but it doesn't say that you shouldn't or can't love someone who isn't a Christian. I don't understand why it couldn't work out just because of a different belief? Maybe you just haven't seen it work out, but I have between my sister and her husband. Sure he doesn't go to Church with her, but we all respect where he is coming from, hes entitled to his own opinions and belief. He's still a great guy and my sister loves him a lot, as he does her.


----------



## Carolyne (Sep 20, 2016)

Excaliber said:


> @ Carolyne: I can understand (Have seen) that there would be tension in such a relationship, the Bible itself doesn't recommend it, but it doesn't say that you shouldn't or can't love someone who isn't a Christian. I don't understand why it couldn't work out just because of a different belief? Maybe you just haven't seen it work out, but I have between my sister and her husband. Sure he doesn't go to Church with her, but we all respect where he is coming from, hes entitled to his own opinions and belief. He's still a great guy and *my sister loves him a lot,* as he does her.


As someone else pointed out in this thread, I'll ask, does she believe in hell?


----------



## Excaliber (May 16, 2015)

Carolyne said:


> As someone else pointed out in this thread, I'll ask, does she believe in hell?


I obviously can't speak on behalf of her, but I do know she believes in hell. I imagine she and him have talked about it at one point?

I can see where you are coming from, if she really loves him why would she just ignore it? There comes a point where you don't press the subject though, you cannot force someone to believe in something that they don't want to.


----------



## Tabris (Jul 14, 2013)

I don't think I'd date someone who was religious.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

I've seen some people using the familiar line of "respecting their beliefs", why would you respect a belief/opinion you disagree with?

Respect means admiration not acceptance, so are people just saying this because it's the thing to say?

I respect people's right to hold an opinion I disagree with but I definitely don't respect the opinion itself. At best I would be neutral towards it, but if it's something I feel strongly about I'm more than likely going to disrespect it (even if I keep that disrespect to myself).

Not trying to start anything, genuinely interested.:wink2:


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

My mom came from a very religious background and my dad was the complete opposite (he's actually very evil, too...or was more in the past anyway). I saw the influence he had on her and her beliefs/lifestyle. This is turn influenced how she parented us. It was not good. She flip-flopped a lot between doing things the "religious" way and the "worldly" way. It was extremely confusing and I hated how inconsistent she was. I had to be firm and choose which way of life to follow more closely (though, I guess I was still pretty worldly up until recent years)...I just would've gone more mad had I not. It was the only way to give myself some sense of stability.

We never went to church, but I kept a lot of the principles she taught us and prayed. I think if I hadn't done that, I would've been so much more worse off. One of my brother's is an unbeliever and his life has been way more chaotic than mine. I think it still is and, as far as I know, he still talks about having suicidal thoughts. I'd be a lot more worried for him if he didn't have certain things to occupy himself.

So, anyway...if kids are involved, it can spell disaster. It can spell disaster even when kids aren't involved as well. Who you hang out w/ has a direct influence on your behavior and lifestyle choices. I think unbelievers usually have a stronger influence (I could be wrong). 

I think people, esp. believers, really need to think wisely about getting involved w/ those who have opposing beliefs.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

nopersonoperating said:


> My mom came from a very religious background and my dad was the complete opposite (he's actually very evil, too...or was more in the past anyway). I saw the influence he had on her and her beliefs/lifestyle. This is turn influenced how she parented us. It was not good. She flip-flopped a lot between doing things the "religious" way and the "worldly" way. It was extremely confusing and I hated how inconsistent she was. I had to be firm and choose which way of life to follow more closely (though, I guess I was still pretty worldly up until recent years)...I just would've gone more mad had I not. It was the only way to give myself some sense of stability.
> 
> We never went to church, but I kept a lot of the principles she taught us and prayed. I think if I hadn't done that, I would've been so much more worse off. One of my brother's is an unbeliever and his life has been way more chaotic than mine. I think it still is and, as far as I know, he still talks about having suicidal thoughts. I'd be a lot more worried for him if he didn't have certain things to occupy himself.
> 
> ...


Are you under the impression that only believers have morals/principles? Could it not be possible that your father doesn't represent all non-believers? You can choose whoever you want for whatever reason you want, but if you're assuming that just because someone is a theist that they will share (and more importantly display) your morals/principles you may be in for a shock.


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

Yes


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

It's incredibly unlikely that I would date an Abrahamic religious person. Watching what Christianity does in North America and Islam does in my own local community disgusts me. I vehemently disagree with a lot of their beliefs. 

Now I know there are decent Christian and Islamic people around, but I'm going to be insulting others in their religions, their religion itself, and people with similar beliefs fairly often I'd say, so it wouldn't work. I also would only theoretically be able to date someone whose beliefs are so lose that it doesn't really have a huge impact on their beliefs/morality. Like maybe they think a God might exist in some form and they believe killing is wrong. In which case their beliefs are so far removed from Islam/Christianity generally that I fail to understand why they'd even need to still call themselves that since their morality would be inline with most people's anyway in that situation. 

Someone who follows those religions strictly wouldn't want to date me either because of my dislike of their beliefs and because I'm going to hell in their eyes. With Christians I seem to come across three groups - those that call themselves that but believe basically nothing about Christianity, those that do follow many of the beliefs but choose not to condemn others while still believing they're ultimately going to hell unless they change, and those that do choose to condemn others and believe they're going to hell. Only the first group would have any chance of working. 

I would consider dating other religious people on a case by case basis. Particularly if they followed their own individual personal spirituality and weren't part of a larger organised dogmatic institution. I'd probably be more likely to date someone who loosely considers themselves to be Pagan or Buddhist then other religions, and anyone who has a more naturalistic philosophy, possibly animistic beliefs as well. Irreligious people would probably be best though.


----------



## The Library of Emma (Mar 3, 2016)

I might date them in a casual sense, but as to anything more serious i would have to say no...those beliefs are important to me, and i couldn't see myself marrying someone who didn't share them.


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

LonelyLurker said:


> Are you under the impression that only believers have morals/principles? Could it not be possible that your father doesn't represent all non-believers? You can choose whoever you want for whatever reason you want, but if you're assuming that just because someone is a theist that they will share (and more importantly display) your morals/principles you may be in for a shock.


Yes, I'm aware my dad doesn't represent all non-believers. I haven't been _that_ isolated. I realize my parent's example is extreme, too. My mom probably wouldn't have been swayed to enter a "relationship" w/ my dad if her beliefs were more strong/she didn't have faith issues and if she wasn't so "vulnerable"/naive at the time they met, too.

*"You can choose whoever you want for whatever reason you want, but if you're assuming that just because someone is a theist that they will share (and more importantly display) your morals/principles you may be in for a shock."
*

I definitely don't believe most "theists" share my beliefs and live a lifestyle like I _try_ to live. I've been pretty aware of this for most of my life. In fact, it's a lot of why I avoid most people and keep them at a distance. I have to see/observe enough evidence to conclude a person has a similar way of thinking and lifestyle in order to want to get more personally involved (even as friends, a lot of the time). I really actually don't feel like I fit in w/ religious people or "worldly" people. A lot of the principles I was taught are different from what a lot of other religions teach and practice. The percentage of people that believe what I believe (on a larger scale) is pretty small. I can't relate to a lot of what the world likes, either.

There may be unbelievers that I feel are similar to me, but I have to limit how personally involved I get w/ them. I know I will always feel alone when it comes to spiritual matters (and other things) and feel loneliness, to some degree. I feel like there's not much point in getting more personally involved w/ a person if I will never be able to relate to them when it comes certain aspects (and not have their support for what I believe in).

I like to share and discuss things.....if I have to worry about being unsupported or discouraged for what I believe in then I will want to keep my distance, or, honestly, I'll start feeling tempted to look elsewhere and/or end things. I know myself and the outcome of these kinds of relationships. I want a strong connection w/ someone and if I can't get that then I feel like it's probably better to be alone.

I can only allow myself to be friends or acquaintances w/ "unbelievers." I don't feel like a "romantic" (hate that word, lol) relationship w/ one would be satisfying enough and don't want them influencing me in a "negative" way.


----------



## Darktower776 (Aug 16, 2013)

Yes I would. I'm not a religious person at all, didn't grow up going to church of any kind, so it wouldn't bother me in the least if she was atheist or just non-religious.


----------



## Rodrigo R (Aug 19, 2015)

I'm not religious but yeah, I would date both religious and atheists.


----------



## RestlessNative (Jun 17, 2014)

I don't consider myself religious but I am very open to a lot of things. I believe in a God.

I wouldn't care if my partner was 'religious' or not, but I don't know if I could get along with somebody who was very closed-minded in a sense. An agnostic maybe, I'm not sure about an atheist though. I need somebody who'll listen to me if I want to talk about things like God, without rejecting everything I was saying. 

I might add, somebody who is religious in the traditional sense would clash with many of my beliefs, and that simply couldn't work. End of story.

Obviously I don't really know yet. When you meet the right one you just know. I hope I can meet somebody nice.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

nopersonoperating said:


> Yes, I'm aware my dad doesn't represent all non-believers. I haven't been _that_ isolated. I realize my parent's example is extreme, too. My mom probably wouldn't have been swayed to enter a "relationship" w/ my dad if her beliefs were more strong/she didn't have faith issues and if she wasn't so "vulnerable"/naive at the time they met, too.
> 
> *"You can choose whoever you want for whatever reason you want, but if you're assuming that just because someone is a theist that they will share (and more importantly display) your morals/principles you may be in for a shock."
> *
> ...


I can understand that, I pretty much feel the same way but I'm on the other side.

I could easily see myself being the best of friends with someone who's even very religious, but a full blown relationship? I just don't see that working out, a Jewish woman might be an exception though, there seem to be quite a few Jewish people who are basically atheists but just partake in some of the traditions.

That said, there's a wild card in play here. I've never been in love and it's possible that if I was, all of my "concerns" would go flying out of the window, that I'd realise that it's not a much of a problem that I thought it was. Maybe that's true for you too.:smile2:


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

RestlessNative said:


> I don't consider myself religious but I am very open to a lot of things. I believe in a God.
> 
> I wouldn't care if my partner was 'religious' or not, but I don't know if I could get along with somebody who was very closed-minded in a sense. An agnostic maybe, I'm not sure about an atheist though. I need somebody who'll listen to me if I want to talk about things like God, without rejecting everything I was saying.
> 
> ...


Don't listen to what some people say, being an Atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't open to the possibility, most Atheists are also Agnostic they aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## RestlessNative (Jun 17, 2014)

LonelyLurker said:


> Don't listen to what some people say, being an Atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't open to the possibility, most Atheists are also Agnostic they aren't mutually exclusive.


Well, I tend to think of Atheists in a stereotypical way, which I realise is incredibly unfair. I know this is not the case most of the time.

But why call yourself an Atheist if you really are Agnostic? I feel that there definitely is a difference there.

Overall though, like I said, you know when somebody's right for you.

I mean, I don't necessarily label my beliefs as anything, I just believe what I believe. I'd probably get along best with others who do the same. But that's not set in stone obviously.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

RestlessNative said:


> Well, I tend to think of Atheists in a stereotypical way, which I realise is incredibly unfair. I know this is not the case most of the time.
> 
> But why call yourself an Atheist if you really are Agnostic? I feel that there definitely is a difference there.
> 
> ...


If you believe in God then you're a Theist, anything else (including "I don't know") is an Atheist.

If you believe that you know whether God exists or not you are a Gnostic, otherwise you're Agnostic.

Theist/Atheist addresses what you believe.
Gnostic/Agnostic addresses what you know (or at least think you know).

I don't believe in God, but I don't know that God doesn't exist for certain, so I'm an Agnostic Atheist.

Hopefully that clears it up.:smile2:


----------



## RestlessNative (Jun 17, 2014)

LonelyLurker said:


> If you believe in God then you're a Theist, anything else (including "I don't know") is an Atheist.
> 
> If you believe that you know whether God exists or not you are a Gnostic, otherwise you're Agnostic.
> 
> ...


Actually yeah it does a bit. Thanks


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> If you believe in God then you're a Theist, anything else (including "I don't know") is an Atheist.
> 
> If you believe that you know whether God exists of not you are a Gnostic, otherwise you're Agnostic.
> 
> ...


You beat me to it 



> *Agnosticism* is the view that the truth values of certain claims - especially metaphysical and religious claims, such as whether God, the divine, or the supernatural exist - are unknown and perhaps unknowable.


_I belive in god, but only through my faith_: *Agnostic Theist*
_I don't believe in god, but it isn't provable either way_: *Agnostic Atheist*
_I belive in god, and I know he exists_: *Gnostic Theist*
_I don't believe in god, and know for sure that there isn't one_: *Gnostic Atheist*


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

RestlessNative said:


> Actually yeah it does a bit. Thanks


You're welcome.

See, we can be nice.:smile2:


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Red October said:


> You beat me to it
> 
> _I belive in god, but only through my faith_: *Agnostic Theist*
> _I don't believe in god, but it isn't provable either way_: *Agnostic Atheist*
> ...


You've got to be quick on the draw to beat the "Ol' touch typin' LonelyLurker".:smile2:

My only objection would be that the Agnostic Atheist doesn't necessarily believe that it's unprovable.


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

I personally find those terms unnecessary and silly. There are logically three options: Belief, suspension of judgement and disbelief. Whether you claim knowledge or not is irrelevant to the positions themselves.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Mc Borg said:


> I personally find those terms unnecessary and silly. There are logically three options: Belief, suspension of judgement and disbelief. Whether you claim knowledge or not is irrelevant to the positions themselves.


If you don't have any interest in having more than a surface level understanding of someone's beliefs then sure.


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

LonelyLurker said:


> If you don't have any interest in having more than a surface level understanding of someone's beliefs then sure.


The claim of knowledge already _includes_ attitudes like belief, suspension of judgement and disbelief. No doubt that the positions/justifications should be fleshed out further in discussion, but these terms really aren't doing much in that direction.

Either you believe or you don't. If you don't it's either because of active disbelief or because you take no position either way (or you've never been exposed to the concept, can't conceive it, etc). It's simple really. How confident you are in that belief should be separated for clarity.

Another thing that bothers me about making it about knowledge is that what counts as knowledge isn't agreed upon. They're just messy terms in my opinion.


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

Mc Borg said:


> The claim of knowledge already _includes_ attitudes like belief, suspension of judgement and disbelief. No doubt that the positions/justifications should be fleshed out further in discussion, but these terms really aren't doing much in that direction.
> 
> Either you believe or you don't. If you don't it's either because of active disbelief or because you take no position either way (or you've never been exposed to the concept, can't conceive it, etc). It's simple really. How confident you are in that belief should be separated for clarity.


it's really just that 'atheism' is 'a' - (without) 'theism' - (belief in the divine/god); so the term can apply to both active disbelievers, and those who suspend judgement. It just means you have no active belief in the existence of gods.

in practice I think 'agnostic' has just come to be used as a softer way of saying 'atheist', due to not wanting to be associated with the more aggressive 'dawkins' style of atheist rhetoric. But I don't think I've ever met an atheist who wasn't also agnostic


----------



## JustThisGuy (Mar 24, 2012)

I wouldn't date an atheist. They're heathens. They don't know the difference between right and wrong. And if they don't respect gawd almighty, then they sure as the devil's anus don't respect no people. I'm a kind, god-fearing Christian that only does good in this world, but goodness would I laugh and love them burning in a fiery hell for all eternity. I hope Heaven has lots of popcorn, 'cause that's the channel I'ma watch all the time while I'm up der.


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

Red October said:


> it's really just that 'atheism' is 'a' - (without) 'theism' - (belief in the divine/god); so the term can apply to both active disbelievers, and those who suspend judgement. It just means you have no active belief in the existence of gods.
> 
> in practice I think 'agnostic' has just come to be used as a softer way of saying 'atheist', due to not wanting to be associated with the more aggressive 'dawkins' style of atheist rhetoric. But I don't think I've ever met an atheist who wasn't also agnostic


In common language an "atheist" is a person who actively disbelieves, etymological roots aside. Someone who doesn't take a position either way might not want to be lumped into that category. To see the difference more clearly, let's drop the whole theism/atheism thing. You're accused of a crime. Someone can either believe that you're guilty, not guilty or hold no position either way. There is a big difference between believing you're innocent and suspending judgement.

I just don't understand why people want to unnecessarily complicate things. lol 
From those descriptions: 
Gnostic theism: I believe in god, and I know he exists 
_Knowing_ that something exists presupposes belief, so there's no reason to have that "believe" at the beginning. In the end they're just knowledge claims. Something that we peculiarly don't get with other philosophical views. There aren't gnostic utilitarians, or gnostic modal realists. Like I said, justification for belief comes later through reasoning/argument; it shouldn't be tacked onto the positions themselves. It just makes things messy.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Mc Borg said:


> In common language an "atheist" is a person who actively disbelieves, etymological roots aside. Someone who doesn't take a position either way might not want to be lumped into that category.


If someone misunderstands the meaning of a word, the misunderstanding doesn't magically become accurate. There are 2 options, "believe" & "not believe", suspension of disbelief is "not believe" whether they like it or not. I understand what they're doing, but they're still wrong.



Mc Borg said:


> To see the difference more clearly, let's drop the whole theism/atheism thing. You're accused of a crime. Someone can either believe that you're guilty, not guilty or hold no position either way. There is a big difference between believing you're innocent and suspending judgement.


That's just wrong, it's an oversimplification of the situation, it's like people who think that everything is either good or evil with no shades of grey.

There would be a spectrum from guilty to innocent with many positions along the way. Suspending judgement would fall under "not guilty", not guilty isn't necessarily the same as innocent even though innocent falls under "not guilty". Anything on that spectrum that isn't "guilty" is by definition "not guilty".



Mc Borg said:


> I just don't understand why people want to unnecessarily complicate things. lol
> From those descriptions:
> Gnostic theism: I believe in god, and I know he exists
> _Knowing_ that something exists presupposes belief, so there's no reason to have that "believe" at the beginning. In the end they're just knowledge claims. Something that we peculiarly don't get with other philosophical views. There aren't gnostic utilitarians, or gnostic modal realists. Like I said, justification for belief comes later through reasoning/argument; it shouldn't be tacked onto the positions themselves. It just makes things messy.


I think your position is logically flawed and I can prove it with the following question.

Person A tells you they are Gnostic (given that gnostic is the part that addresses knowledge), what do they believe? You know they claim knowledge, so you must now know what they believe, right?:smile2:

Without the theism/atheism label you won't know what it is they are claiming knowledge about, and without the gnostic/agnostic label you won't know whether they claim knowledge at all. You need both, otherwise your just making assumptions, much like the people who assert that all atheists are claiming knowledge that there is no God and as such we are "just another religion".

It's like saying that if someone says they're religious, it's silly to ask which religion they are as this unnecessarily complicates things.

The main reason there aren't gnostic utilitarians or gnostic modal realists (well there are, they just don't feel the need to say it) is because those things tell you what you *do* believe which isn't the case with Atheism. If upon further examination many utilitarians and modal realists backed away from a position of knowledge and started to invoke faith, identifying whether they were gnostic from the beginning would save time as it would prevent them from moving the goal posts.

Of course, whether they consider themselves gnostic or not would be revealed with further reasoning/argument, but that isn't particularly efficient. I don't have much interest in debating this subject with someone only to learn after an hour that "you just have to have faith".:smile2:

Come at me Borg.:laugh:


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

I really think that nowadays the success rate of relationships between atheists and theists is very low.

Edit: although I also think that they almost never go beyond the dating level. I mean wouldn't it be easy for them get turned off after concluding they have blatant ideological differences?


----------



## PrincessV (Aug 17, 2015)

Demon Soul said:


> Okey, you would date me but would you date other atheists?
> 
> But seriously, why? I don't get it.
> 
> ...


I think you have the wrong idea of me. While I believe, I don't do most of these things that are considered to be religious practices. It all ties into my beliefs. A lot of Christians are like this too. The gospel of Jesus Christ isn't that we have to _do do do_. He actually despised religion. Well basically, I'm not religious, even though I believe. I don't go to church every sunday, I don't say "God bless you." I'm just a normal imperfect person who believes in God. I do believe that if I was more serious in my beliefs, I'd probably be doing more things for God (and should be). The thing that a lot of Christians find important is their relationship with God, it's not about rules, or anything of that sort - we believe that we've been set free and forgiven, loved and accepted because it's a gift from God, and all we simply have to do is _believe_ it... and of course follow Gods word. It gets sort of confusing from here, because so many people have different views on the bible and how we should follow God.

I wouldn't mind dating a non-believer because, in a way, I know that God's in control. If he wants me to help "change" them, then that's what will happen. I think you could be right, where there's got to be some open-mindedness.

You're right that God is something very deeply connected to an individual... he's someone that I depend on... even when I'm imperfect and I'm probably being the worst Christian currently, I'm still holding on to his hope. It's not just a religious practice that I decided to do, it's something that is a big part of my life. Anyway I'm getting emotional, so I better stop. xD


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

@LonelyLurker
I couldn't get it to multi-quote, so I'll just bold your posts.

*If someone misunderstands the meaning of a word, the misunderstanding doesn't magically become accurate. There are 2 options, "believe" & "not believe", suspension of disbelief is "not believe" whether they like it or not. I understand what they're doing, but they're still wrong.*

Well, that depends on whether you're a descriptivist or prescriptivist. 
But either, way I didn't deny that. Those who suspend judgement _do not_ believe. By the way it's suspension of judgement/belief. But since you seem to be a prescriptivist, I'll leave this here:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/suspension-of-disbelief
Stop misunderstanding words, dawg. ;P

*That's just wrong, it's an oversimplification of the situation, it's like people who think that everything is either good or evil with no shades of grey.

There would be a spectrum from guilty to innocent with many positions along the way. Suspending judgement would fall under "not guilty", not guilty isn't necessarily the same as innocent even though innocent falls under "not guilty". Anything on that spectrum that isn't "guilty" is by definition "not guilty".*

And what exactly would that spectrum consist of? Less guilty? Even less guilty? 
Logically either the person is innocent or guilty. But no, the suspension of judgement would most definitely not fall under the belief that said person is "not guilty." For all they know the person is guilty. That's the whole point of suspending judgement in the first place. Maybe the available information wasn't enough to sway their opinion, so they can't/won't decide. They neither believe that they're guilty nor that they're not guilty. They _suspend judgement_, hence the term.

*I think your position is logically flawed and I can prove it with the following question.

Person A tells you they are Gnostic (given that gnostic is the part that addresses knowledge), what do they believe? You know they claim knowledge, so you must now know what they believe, right?

Without the theism/atheism label you won't know what it is they are claiming knowledge about, and without the gnostic/agnostic label you won't know whether they claim knowledge at all. You need both, otherwise your just making assumptions, much like the people who assert that all atheists are claiming knowledge that there is no God and as such we are "just another religion".

It's like saying that if someone says they're religious, it's silly to ask which religion they are as this unnecessarily complicates things.

The main reason there aren't gnostic utilitarians or gnostic modal realists (well there are, they just don't feel the need to say it) is because those things tell you what you do believe which isn't the case with Atheism. If upon further examination many utilitarians and modal realists backed away from a position of knowledge and started to invoke faith, identifying whether they were gnostic from the beginning would save time as it would prevent them from moving the goal posts.

Of course, whether they consider themselves gnostic or not would be revealed with further reasoning/argument, but that isn't particularly efficient. I don't have much interest in debating this subject with someone only to learn after an hour that "you just have to have faith".*

Well since you capitalized the g in "gnostic," I'd assume you were talking about the religion of Gnosticism. ;P

You're misreading me here. Obviously I'm talking about gnostic theism/atheism. All I was saying is that the claim that "I know god doesn't exist" presupposes disbelief. So defining those terms as (dis)believing and knowing is superfluous. More of a pet peeve on my part than a real inconsistency.

I'm also not saying that you shouldn't clarify beliefs (I thought I made that clear). I just think whether you actually know/claim to know ought to be an entire other issue. Again, it just becomes messy. And like I said, different people adhere to different standards of knowledge. Which one, if any is the correct one?


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Mc Borg said:


> @LonelyLurker
> Well, that depends on whether you're a descriptivist or prescriptivist.
> But either, way I didn't deny that. Those who suspend judgement _do not_ believe. By the way it's suspension of judgement/belief. But since you seem to be a prescriptivist, I'll leave this here:
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/suspension-of-disbelief
> Stop misunderstanding words, dawg. ;P


I made a typo OK, stop being difficult.:laugh:

Well having had a quick look at those definitions the problem with descriptivism would be that without mutually shared definitions language is useless. The only difference between words and sounds are that words have shared definitions.



Mc Borg said:


> And what exactly would that spectrum consist of? Less guilty? Even less guilty?
> Logically either the person is innocent or guilty. But no, the suspension of judgement would most definitely not fall under the belief that said person is "not guilty." For all they know the person is guilty. That's the whole point of suspending judgement in the first place. Maybe the available information wasn't enough to sway their opinion, so they can't/won't decide. They neither believe that they're guilty nor that they're not guilty. They _suspend judgement_, hence the term.


You're wrong. The logical argument is that the only 2 valid options are "A" and "not A", absolutely everything that isn't "A" is "not A". Just as "I don't know" falls under "does not believe", suspension of belief in regards to guilt also falls under "not guilty", unless you would like to claim that if falls under "guilty", smart guy.:smile2:



Mc Borg said:


> Well since you capitalized the g in "gnostic," I'd assume you were talking about the religion of Gnosticism. ;P


You're not going to make this easy for me are you?:laugh:



Mc Borg said:


> You're misreading me here. Obviously I'm talking about gnostic theism/atheism. All I was saying is that the claim that "I know god doesn't exist" presupposes disbelief. So defining those terms as (dis)believing and knowing is superfluous. More of a pet peeve on my part than a real inconsistency.


In the sentence you've given they are telling you that are a gnostic atheist, it's just the same as saying "I'm a gnostic atheist" it's just using different words. So my question to you is this. If someone tells you they are an atheist can you assume that they mean "I know god doesn't exist"? If not, then the qualifier of gnostic/agnostic remains useful. Check and Mate. :laugh:



Mc Borg said:


> I'm also not saying that you shouldn't clarify beliefs (I thought I made that clear). I just think whether you actually know/claim to know ought to be an entire other issue. Again, it just becomes messy. And like I said, different people adhere to different standards of knowledge. Which one, if any is the correct one?


You did make it clear. Which knowledge is the right knowledge? That's the million dollar question isn't it? I may be agnostic on this position (pun FULLY intended).

Respect for engaging, most people run away when I press them.:laugh:

Edit 1: No returns.
Edit 2: That was always there.


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

@LonelyLurker
Lol, this is so far off-topic.



> I made a typo OK, stop being difficult.
> 
> Well having had a quick look at those definitions the problem with descriptivism would be that without mutually shared definitions language is useless. The only difference between words and sounds are that words have shared definitions.


:grin2:
I was mostly being cheeky with that. Bottom line is though, if the majority of people use the word a certain way, we need to take that into account.



> You're wrong. The logical argument is that the only 2 valid options are "A" and "not A", absolutely everything that isn't "A" is "not A". Just as "I don't know" falls under "does not believe", suspension of belief in regards to guilt also falls under "not guilty", unless you would like to claim that if falls under "guilty", smart guy.


No! You're wrong! ;P *throws stuff*
Alright, I think the issue is that you're equivocating here. The _belief_ that someone is "not guilty" isn't the same thing as "not believing he's guilty." You can _not believe_ that someone's guilty, while also _not believing_ they're innocent. This is an entirely distinct position from believing that "not guilty/not A." I get what you're trying to say, but they are 3 distinct positions. Yes, like I said with previously. Those who suspend judgement _do not believe_, but they also do not _disbelieve_. To throw it back to theism, non-believers include those who actively disbelieve, suspend judgement, haven't been exposed to the thought, etc. So if you just mean it analogously to that, I think we're in agreement.



> In the sentence you've given they are telling you that are a gnostic atheist, it's just the same as saying "I'm a gnostic atheist" it's just using different words. So my question to you is this. If someone tells you they are an atheist can you assume that they mean "I know god doesn't exist"? If not, then the qualifier of gnostic/agnostic remains useful. Check and Mate.


I never denied any of this. lol 
I just think they should be separated from the actual positions themselves. Like I said, it's more of a pet peeve on my side. It's simpler when someone asks "Do you believe in any kind of god?" to just say "No, I don't think any exist." Than to say "I don't believe any exist and I know this to be to case." Maybe the person making the claim is right, but that's not the question being asked.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Mc Borg said:


> @LonelyLurker
> Lol, this is so far off-topic.


Or is it? Yes, yes it is.



Mc Borg said:


> :grin2:
> I was mostly being cheeky with that. Bottom line is though, if the majority of people use the word a certain way, we need to take that into account.


That's true to an extent, language does evolve, speaking of which, if definitions were to be decided by popularity "evolution" would mean that monkeys literally turn into humans wouldn't it.:laugh:



Mc Borg said:


> No! You're wrong! ;P *throws stuff*
> Alright, I think the issue is that you're equivocating here. The _belief_ that someone is "not guilty" isn't the same thing as "not believing he's guilty." You can _not believe_ that someone's guilty, while also _not believing_ they're innocent. This is an entirely distinct position from believing that "not guilty/not A." I get what you're trying to say, but they are 3 distinct positions. Yes, like I said with previously. Those who suspend judgement _do not believe_, but they also do not _disbelieve_. To throw it back to theism, non-believers include those who actively disbelieve, suspend judgement, haven't been exposed to the thought, etc. So if you just mean it analogously to that, I think we're in agreement.


I clearly declared no returns in my last post so I think you'll find that it is in fact you who is wrong.:smile2:

You just proved my point, you're right "The _belief_ that someone is "not guilty" isn't the same thing as "not believing he's guilty.". In other words "not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent", don't try to Jedi mind trick me, I wasn't born yesterday.:laugh:

I'm glad that we now agree.:smile2:



Mc Borg said:


> I never denied any of this. lol
> I just think they should be separated from the actual positions themselves. Like I said, it's more of a pet peeve on my side. It's simpler when someone asks "Do you believe in any kind of god?" to just say "No, I don't think any exist." Than to say "I don't believe any exist and I know this to be to case." Maybe the person making the claim is right, but that's not the question being asked.


That's fair enough, I have plenty of pet peeves of my own. You're right, it isn't the answer to the question being asked, it's more of a preemptive response to a common mischaracterisation of Atheists.


----------

