Religious Boyfriend

Red Nissan

rozeboosje wrote: »

I don't need science

Why did you ask me then?

rozeboosje

Red Nissan wrote: »

Why did you ask me then?

Because I don't need science to know how little *I* know. I *do* like to see science, or a validly logic line of reasoning, to see you justify YOUR assertion.

Nice try.

Red Nissan

rozeboosje wrote: »

Nice try.

Great, fantastic, I'll accept this and a nice one right back at ya!

rozeboosje

Here's your ball.

Brian Shanahan

rozeboosje wrote: »

I shall allow that kneejerk statement to speak for itself.

What kneejerk statement? By allowing your child to be brought up catholic you are allowing their mind to be filled with dogmatism, but if you had insisted on them not being brought up religiously, allowing them to choose when they became old enough then you would have brought them up non-dogmatically.

Instead of being non-dogmatic, by allowing your child a religious upbringing you have essentially capitulated to the dogmatism of your spouse.

Brian Shanahan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Have you, anywhere in this thread, seen the OP suggest otherwise??

There are people who think that even the act of not believing in the risen lord Jebus is oppressing those who do and forcing them to give up the same belief. It is a function of the insecurity they have in their belief, in that they know that the evidence and reason for such belief is lacking, but don't have the mental fortitude to give it up. Thus they lash out at others, partly in envy at their lack of belief, and partly in anger that they show belief is not necessary.

Czarcasm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There are people who think that even the act of not believing in the risen lord Jebus is oppressing those who do and forcing them to give up the same belief. It is a function of the insecurity they have in their belief, in that they know that the evidence and reason for such belief is lacking, but don't have the mental fortitude to give it up. Thus they lash out at others, partly in envy at their lack of belief, and partly in anger that they show belief is not necessary.

So... what's your excuse then for lashing out at people who don't share your lack of belief, if it isn't insecurity or anger towards religious people on your part?

Please don't claim you are oppressed if you claim religious people who lack the happiness and enlightenment you experience, are envious of you.

nozzferrahhtoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

it's up to her at that point how she moves forward instead of leaping to conclusions, making herself paranoid about a self-manufactured problem rooted in her own pre-conceptions and personally held stereotypes.

You really are fond of your little leaps of assumption arent you? Just like the nonsense about lack of tolerance which you failed to substantiate, you are again attributing emotions and positions to the OP which they never expressed.

In fact she has expressed the exact opposite of some of the nonsense you are ascribing to her including respect for his beliefs which is more than I personally would afford them in her position. I respect people, not ideas or beliefs.

She also said "I am not judging him" in a later post and "I have no problem accepting his beliefs".

And as I KEEP pointing out to you she also said "I just want people's opinions/experiences".

So all this "intolerance" and now these "pre-conceptions" and "personally held stereotypes" and "paranoia" and "self-manufactured problems" exist solely in your head. Not the OPs. Not even a little bit in the OPs it seems.

She is merely entering into a new unfamiliar situation and has requested to hear other peoples experiences. Nothing more. It is you that seemingly has the paranoia and preconceptions about what she is asking, likely due from YOU having stereotypes about atheists.

In other words: You are projecting your own issues onto someone else who is devoid of them.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, I think so too, but she has built up this idea in her head that he is secretly judging her.

Yeah because the words "I do not know if...." actually mean "I am certain that...."

Is it really this difficult to just reply to what the OP has been saying rather than take her little bit of string and run off around the may pole with it?

Czarcasm wrote: »

So... what's your excuse then for lashing out at people who don't share your lack of belief, if it isn't insecurity or anger towards religious people on your part?

Perhaps it is insecurity on THEIR part because I have lost count of my experiences personally of saying to someone "I see no reason at this time to believe what you are telling me" and being instantly accused of being "angry" and "militant" and "lashing out" and "attacking" and of course the old favorite of "intolerant" and much much more.

It is quite amazing to me how expressing even the smallest doubt about something you are told is seen as quite literally a personal attack and affront against another person or peoples. Why is it religious people, and others who similarly have no substantiation for their ideas, feel the need to become offended vicariously on behalf of an idea?

rozeboosje

I love the phrase "to lack belief". Let's use that word, "lack", in a few English sentences, shall we:

1. The villagers lack a source of clean drinking water.
2. The region lacks adequate education facilities.
3. We would like to improve our infrastructure but we lack the funds.

I think the phrase "I lack belief" is the most delicious Freudian slip the Atheist community has come up with yet. It always makes me giggle when I see it. Everybody who uses it is effectively saying "I consider myself deficient".

MrPudding

rozeboosje wrote: »

To me it's a bit like meeting someone who speaks a different language. Ok, the analogy isn't perfect, but it works to some extent, so bear with me...

In such a relationship you could put strain on either partner, demanding that they speak the other partner's language all the time. I think that would be unhealthy.

Or each partner could learn to understand the other partner's language, and you may find out that even though you're speaking different languages you are, by and large, saying the same things. Then it can work. That's, roughly, how it works out in my relationship with my religious wife.

But this is not what you have done, from what you have said. You have said that your children are being raised religiously, following your wife beliefs. You have also said that had you pushed for the children to be raised following your beliefs then there would have be trouble. So whilst you talk a good talk, about each person being tolerant of the other, what you actually have is you acceding to your wife's wishes, with respect, at least, to he raising of your child. There is no indication from your posts that, with respect to your child, that you wife is, to continue with your analogy, 'learning to understand your language.' You have put forward an ideal way of maintaining such a relationship, but this ideal does not seem to have any connection with the relationship you actually have.

So I would suggest, respectfully, that your idea of how a relationship between a religious person and a non-religious person, this understanding what each other is saying is no more than a theory or concept which sounds good on paper, but what you actually seem to have in practice is merely one partner allowing their position to be completely ignored, at least in respect of the raising of the child.

Whilst you say your relationship is awesome (and if it works for you that is fantastic, and for you personally that is the only thing that matters), for someone else that feels more strongly about their own belief it is pretty useless. So if we take this to the OP, the ideal you have mentioned might work. How you run your relationship would only work if the OP was willing to allow her boyfriends view to take priority over hers. So, in reality, your input hasn't really been of any help at all, though I am genuinely glad it works for you, at least.

MrP

pwurple

There's a halfway point for children though. Catholic-Athiest, or the more general christian-athiest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

You follow the traditions (easter eggs, christmas, lent), general teachings (be good to others, don't steal etc), use some of the services (funerals, weddings) but don't believe in god, or jesus as the son of god.... more of a prophet/teacher with useful parables.

Sort of a middle-ground.

rozeboosje

MrPudding wrote: »

from what you have said. You have said [...]

... very little. I have only told you where *I* had to compromise, as this relates to the OP. My wife, of course, had to compromise as well, but this is outside the remit of this conversation.

Suffice to say that my position is not actually being ignored in this relationship, nor is it in any way hidden or disguised from our child. As Czarcasm has quite rightly pointed out: I trust that my child will grow up as the sort of sensible adult who can make up her own mind when she reaches the appropriate level of maturity. And my wife accepts that the decisions my child will make later in life with regard to "faith" may be disappointing to her.

Buona Fortuna

Czarcasm wrote: »

OP my wife is Atheist and I'm Roman Catholic. 17, nearly 18 years later, we've had to deal with bigger issues than just religion!

Honestly, you're not marrying the guy and you're only going out a while. Enjoy the positives in your relationship and they will by far exceed any perceived negatives.

Same here. My wife is wishy washy RC, I'm wishy washy atheist. We married in Catholic church, and attended pre-marriage b0llox classes - 28 years ago.

Of all the arguments that we have and have had - never about religion.

MrPudding

rozeboosje wrote: »

... very little. I have only told you where *I* had to compromise, as this relates to the OP. My wife, of course, had to compromise as well, but this is outside the remit of this conversation.

Yes, and I am sure you wife's compromises where eon a similar scale to how you child would be raised.

The point is, simply saying that one just needs to compromise isn't actually that helpful to the OP. Neither she, nor her boyfriend, may be willing to compromise. They may both feel strongly about how any children they may have are brought up. That you were willing to accede to your wife's wishes on how you child was raised is obviously good for your relationship, but can't really be used as a method for everyone. If the problem is 'my wife and I fundamentally disagree with how our child should be raised' then the answer isn't really 'well, one of you should simply forget about your beliefs and allow the child to be raised how the other one wants.' That only really work when, as Buono, says above, the beliefs are 'wishy washy'. Even then, it can still be a problem for the non-religious person. The religious person might be a bit wish-washy in their beliefs, you know, like the majority of catholics in Ireland, but might still insist that children are raised catholic.

My point is 'accede to your partners wishes' isn't really a solution to the OP.

MrP

Brown Bomber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There are people who think that even the act of not believing in the risen lord Jebus is oppressing those who do and forcing them to give up the same belief. It is a function of the insecurity they have in their belief, in that they know that the evidence and reason for such belief is lacking, but don't have the mental fortitude to give it up. Thus they lash out at others, partly in envy at their lack of belief, and partly in anger that they show belief is not necessary.

It's a little rude to proffer ham-fisted psycho-analysitions in the third person, I think. Especially as you couldn't be more wrong. The reason Lisa is being intolerant is that she is forming conclusions on a person based on not what they actually have done or said but what she assumes they have done based on her prejudices against the "other".

intolerant
[in-tol-er-uh nt]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

adjective
1.
not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

prejudice
[prej-uh-dis]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

JuliusCaesar

rozeboosje wrote: »

I love the phrase "to lack belief". Let's use that word, "lack", in a few English sentences, shall we:

1. The villagers lack a source of clean drinking water.
2. The region lacks adequate education facilities.
3. We would like to improve our infrastructure but we lack the funds.

I think the phrase "I lack belief" is the most delicious Freudian slip the Atheist community has come up with yet. It always makes me giggle when I see it. Everybody who uses it is effectively saying "I consider myself deficient".

I am deficient in believing in God.

Strangely, I don't regard this as a deficit, but others might. Other people also consider my attitude to aromatherapy or homeopathy deficient too.


.

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

My point is 'accede to your partners wishes' isn't really a solution to the OP.

It isn't a solution to the OP because the OP's partner hasn't expressed any wishes to which the OP could accede.

Even if it were a solution to the OP, it isn't a solution which rozeboosje has at any point advocated, that I can see.

nozzferrahhtoo

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I am deficient in believing in God.

Strangely, I don't regard this as a deficit, but others might. Other people also consider my attitude to aromatherapy or homeopathy deficient too.

Yeah "lack" also means an absence of. I think Roze is just focusing on one possible definition of the word, and acting like this means we have made some kind of slip whenever we use it.

Tounge in cheek though lack can also mean something desired is missing. Which is not a "slip" because it is missing from us, and many theists desire there it be there in us :-)

As Hitchens used to say "This belief does not make many of them happy. They seemingly can not be happy until I believe it TOO".

rozeboosje

MrPudding wrote: »

Neither she, nor her boyfriend, may be willing to compromise.

[...]

My point is 'accede to your partners wishes' isn't really a solution to the OP.

Good point. If either partner is not willing to give an inch, the venture is doomed. It doesn't even matter if the other partner is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the other's intransigence; you can only deny yourself for so long before resentment builds and the whole thing goes horribly toxic. So I agree, in that circumstance there is no point in going on. But don't assume from the start that that's how it's going to be. Talk about it, and find out. Then decide.

Lingua Franca

I've personally never dated someone who practiced a religion, as it's something I would find unattractive. But if it's not directly affecting you and you're not too bothered by it, you should be able to live with it

Sarz91 wrote: »

I've plenty of friends who are deeply (and I mean deeply, as in going on retreats and going to church* for an entire Sunday) religious but they don't judge me and I don't judge them.

Not relevant to the OP but there's one of my group of friends who is deeply religious in the manner described, and the novenas and trips to Lourdes, Medjugorje etc, and she admitted to us recently that she does judge us. Harshly. She thinks that's ok because she's just being a kind Christian and she prays for us and our mental health issues. :rolleyes: I'm done with her.

rozeboosje

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I am deficient in believing in God.

Strangely, I don't regard this as a deficit, but others might. Other people also consider my attitude to aromatherapy or homeopathy deficient too.

.

That's the point I'm making, though admittedly I'm doing it in a way that I know will wind up those who like to get hot around the collar about such things. I would never use the word "lack" to explain to someone that I don't share their beliefs. It sounds too much like one is "missing" something important in one's life. I don't believe in "god" things, whatever they are. But I'm lacking nothing.

Tasden

rozeboosje wrote: »

I love the phrase "to lack belief". Let's use that word, "lack", in a few English sentences, shall we:

1. The villagers lack a source of clean drinking water.
2. The region lacks adequate education facilities.
3. We would like to improve our infrastructure but we lack the funds.

I think the phrase "I lack belief" is the most delicious Freudian slip the Atheist community has come up with yet. It always makes me giggle when I see it. Everybody who uses it is effectively saying "I consider myself deficient".

I lack the ability to fly
Yup- deficient. Along with everybody else in the world

rozeboosje

You lack the ability to fly. I just can't fly. Subtle difference there :-)

Tasden

rozeboosje wrote: »

You lack the ability to fly. I just can't fly. Subtle difference there :-)

No difference apart from you saying it a different way to try suit whatever your argument is.
Why cant you fly? Do you have the ability to do so? No. Therefore you lack the ability to. Whether you choose to say the word "lack" doesn't really matter, same thing in the end. But by all means feel free to relish the term being used! I personally "lack" the same enthusiasm :pac:

rozeboosje

Tasden wrote: »

I personally "lack" the same enthusiasm :pac:

You express a feeling of inadequacy about many things. I stopped beating myself up over my physical and mental limitations a long time ago.

Dades

rozeboosje wrote: »

I love the phrase "to lack belief". Let's use that word, "lack", in a few English sentences, shall we:

1. The villagers lack a source of clean drinking water.
2. The region lacks adequate education facilities.
3. We would like to improve our infrastructure but we lack the funds.

I think the phrase "I lack belief" is the most delicious Freudian slip the Atheist community has come up with yet. It always makes me giggle when I see it. Everybody who uses it is effectively saying "I consider myself deficient".

There is no response this post is worthy of, except this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9JDPm_QHk4

Those familiar with the context of that conversation will appreciate it more.

Beano

pwurple wrote: »

There's a halfway point for children though. Catholic-Athiest, or the more general christian-athiest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

You follow the traditions (easter eggs, christmas, lent), general teachings (be good to others, don't steal etc), use some of the services (funerals, weddings) but don't believe in god, or jesus as the son of god.... more of a prophet/teacher with useful parables.

Sort of a middle-ground.

isnt that more of a hypocrite than anything else?

rozeboosje

We are amused.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The reason Lisa is being intolerant is that she is forming conclusions on a person based on not what they actually have done or said but what she assumes they have done based on her prejudices against the "other".

Can you quote for us the conclusions she has come to?

I can only find these ones:

xLisaBx wrote: »

I really like him

xLisaBx wrote: »

He's pretty religious.

xLisaBx wrote: »

I have no problem accepting his beliefs as I like him as a whole person

I urge you not to continue with this line unless you have something to back it up.

rozeboosje

Very appropriate snippet, there, Dades.

[smiles benevolently]