An ERE dating site

[Alphaville]

I think that whether or not God exists is probably the most relevant thing to my life in terms of influence. If I actually believed that God and Heaven/Hell existed (or some variant of this), it would change how I live my life completely. I don't think I would get along with someone who is simply disinterested in the topic.

yes, that's precisely what im saying--you're a religious person. it just so happens that your religion is atheism. hence, it makes sense for you to marry within the faith.

[Crusader]

Fair enough. I wouldn't really use the word "faith", but I agree.

[jacob]

@chenda/alphaville - Most Danes (and I presume this goes for the rest of Scandinavia) can be classified as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christians in which religion provide the historical foundations for the morals and traditions but none of the metaphysical belief-system which can best be described as "non-practicing pie in the sky". Many people still go to church for traditional ceremonies like death, marriage, baptizing... but very few go regularly for sermons. This means church service is only offered on a regular basis in bigger cities.

Whereas in the US, you would still stand out for declaring yourself an atheist, telling other [Danes] that you'll pray on/for something would correspondingly cause some serious side-eye. Perhaps "christian in name only" (CINO?) would be an apt US moniker for the Scandinavian situation. The usual useful term in the US is "none [of the above" and it's a growing population, especially amongst the young. A Dane declaring him or herself an atheist would be seen as someone with a chip on their shoulder. As would someone declaring themselves a Christian. Most are just "nones" or consider it a very private matter (no church required) in the protestant tradition.

Having a state religion means that the church is in charge of some of the bureaucracy like keeping records of births and deaths and maintaining old churches. It also means you pay taxes to it unless you rescind your membership.

On a world-wide country basis, religiosity statistically correlates with poverty. This even holds internally for the US if you go state by state (the poorest US states are also the most religious). The reason the US is a global outlier is due to plotting for average incomes (which is one of the highest in the world) rather than median income (which is no longer so impressive compared to other developed countries).

In countries, where the function of the state is limited, like the US, the church often steps providing welfare services and community life which in turn makes people religious. Whereas in countries where these functions are fulfilled by the government and/or club life, people have less/no need for religion and thus tend to believe less... or default to vague concepts like pie in the sky type faith. Along those lines, just as some Americans might talk about "under nation under God", some Danes might talk of the welfare state with the same reverence.

[white belt]

My "brilliant" scheme for getting free bed space from the affluence waste stream of old divorced/single men (Calorie KIngs) has CLEARLY failed for the same reason that buying your pants at thrift stores will fail if you don't check to make sure the zipper is at least working. It's true that you can sometimes get lucky digging in the dumpster, but often some other human did use good judgment when making the pitch. I only hope that the youngsters reading along will learn something of value from my demonstrated failure.

I must confess, I always thought a weakness in your strategy was the reliance on others for housing. I grok the environmental and financial benefits of co-housing, however I think a major downside is that you lose quite a bit of autonomy. Maybe there are gender differences at play, but I feel like most men are going to have a "my house, my rules" attitude in a shared housing situation unless it is a LTR or you are the one paying the rent/mortgage. I also had trouble relating to the habit of to making things domestic quite quickly, but perhaps that's because in my (millenial) generation it is quite rare for people to cohabit with a significant other unless they have been seriously dating for years.

I think it would be "inexpensive", to the extent this concept applies to the dating world. IOW, the sum of whatever I bring to the table would have to be greater if I wish to afford "pretty" and "well-behaved." I may soon be shopping for a literal dog and the same trilemma applies.

Good observation on the dynamics at play. I've noticed similar things in my dating life and that if I want pretty and well-behaved (drama free?) then I'm going to have to pay extra whether that's in terms of finances, effort/time, etc. Of course everything is relative so if I'm in a favorable mating market then I can get usually get pretty and drama-free with much fewer resources compared to an unfavorable mating market. Similarly, I've noticed that not having my own housing that I can bring a lady back to severely limits my dating pool (e.g. when I'm back home with family during the holidays).

[chenda]

@crusader - I would add that atheism/materialism is not an unreasonable position to hold, and I actually agree with a fair amount of what the new atheists say. I wouldn't believe in anything which conflicted with well established scientific knowledge. The God I believe in is probably not the God you don't believe in. I lean towards the non dualistic traditions like Advaita Vedanta, which fwiw even Sam Harris has acknowledged may be on to something. Actually you can argue Advaita is in its final analysis non-theistic (but not atheistic)

I mention this because I think a lot of atheists go after a bit of a straw man i.e. 'how can anyone believe there's an old man floating in the clouds ?' Admittedly, the fundementalists make that job easy. But most atheists are not addressing the more philosophically reasoned and intellectually rigorious approaches which you can find, especially in the more mystical religious traditions of the world.

I'm saying this not to argue you are wrong, just I think there is a lack of serious intellectual discussion about God in western culture at the moment, which is a shame.

@jacob - Right, not sure if you watched the video I linked to but what you say does appear to be supported by a lot of research.

[Crusader]

The God I believe in is probably not the God you don't believe in.

Well, this is possible. I looked up Advaita Vedanta, and to me it just looks like life philosophy influenced by some ancient texts. Nor do I have a problem with Sam Harris' version of spirituality. And I am willing to acknowledge that there is probably a lot of wisdom in these texts, and maybe in the old days, it made sense for the people to look at it through the lens of some divine energy, but today (or, for myself) I don't find the need for such a thing. However, I am still not sure that I would get along in a close relationship with someone who is spiritual, in this "approved" way.

The best summary of what I believe in can be summarized by the "level 10" entry on this scale:
http://humanthermodynamics.wikifoundry. ... kins+scale

" Consider the entire discussion to be something akin to a flat earth theory debate; albeit a topic that imitatively seems to rear its head, recurrently, in modern scientific discussions concerning human activity. A human being is molecule, whose synthesis, movements, and future are governed by scientific laws. God is a defunct theory of olden days, used to reconcile questions that were then unanswerable; whose current following or belief, for 72 percent of the world’s populous (religions), is nothing but reformulated Egyptian mythology, centered around the 5,000 BC story of the birth of the sun god Ra out of the land mound Nun. "

Also, I never got the impression that you were trying to convince me otherwise or tell me that I am wrong, all good.

[jacob]

@chenda - I didn't (getting me to watch vids is a big ask ). I just wanted to provide some background/context to avoid potential cultural misunderstandings from applying the American framework across the pond or vice versa.

Perhaps the best analogy is that America has two major political parties (plus a few irrelevant/hardcore ones like the Greens and the Libertarians) with the majority not really thinking that deeply about choosing one deliberately as much as going along with what their friends&family do along with dozens of different religious denominations that very much describe one's identity, values, and community belonging that people shop around for ... whereas in a given European country, there are one or two major religions that most don't think about or choose deliberately along with dozens of different political parties, unions, or soccer fan clubs that easily describe much of the person's values, identity and associations and which people are subject to change and think about.

IOW, the official Danish state religion denomination is "evangelical Lutheran" ... but that has nothing to do with evangelicals the way it's understood in the US. Likewise, when Americans talk about "socialism" or "welfare", it has little to do with how those terms are understood or used across the pond.

[chenda]

@jacob haha fair enough on the video, and very true there is a lot of room for misunderstanding.

[Alphaville]

@chenda, same on the video, ha ha, sorry....

usa religion is highly unregulated though, by comparison: there is no official religion, there are no religious taxes, religion is actually exempt from taxes which is a huge incentive to start one as a business, and there are practically no restrictions on religion.

even parody religions like pastafarianism manage to get recognition thanks to the first amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (ok some have been allowed to wear a colander as religious headgear in other coutries too)

meanwhile, see e.g. germany's defensive response to the advance of scientology: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Krasel/germany/stat.html

[Riggerjack]

@ crusader

When I was younger, I could have written all of the same points you raise. I was atheistic, and certain that ALL religion was a parasitic mind virus that others had, and I did not.

I privileged "intellect" as recognized in western society over all other forms of thinking. (That this also highlights my own strengths, and shades my weaknesses is entirely coincidental, surely )

If one thinks of thinking as a sport, the intellectual path could be a metaphor for cliff climbing. It's distinctive, and very different from other forms of moving to the top of a cliff face.

But after one has climbed a few bluffs, it gets to be clear that others have been here before. As I became more interested in the other ways of getting to the same place, I found that often, the conclusions that I had reached, were accessible by other means. The fact that I had chosen the most difficult and stylistic method, was more an expression of my strengths and interests than a statement of the "right" or "efficient" path.

The certainty you show in the field of religion thus seems to me the certainty one who has NOT explored other possibilities. This is very common among atheists. Having engaged white belts and being unimpressed, atheists tend to then dismiss everyone following that path as more white belts.

Douglas Adams (my favorite atheistic author) makes this mistake often. And thoroughly, read The Salmon of Doubt.

...

For reference, I would today identify as an agnostic atheist. I still don't buy into any religion or spirituality, but I do respect the people who have traveled a different path. In the end we are all trying to get somewhere, and the evidence that my path is the "one true path" is... scant. And the counter evidence is not.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

[Crusader]

The certainty you show in the field of religion thus seems to me the certainty one who has NOT explored other possibilities.

But I have no reason or desire to explore other possibilities. I am quite happy with my beliefs. Once upon a time, I couldn't understand how others don't agree with me, and I have since explored other people's views in that sense, so I now I do understand them. I still judge them. It's like someone being gay, and they've known they were gay all their life, and you telling them that they should be open minded and that they should be giving the other team a chance. It just doesn't make sense, it is delusional, I am sorry but there is no way to sugarcoat it.

Edit: I know that the gay thing is not a perfect analogy. Me being judgemental is not going to change, and me being an atheist is not going to change. Or, extremely unlikely, as likely as I think the existence of God is. And, I didn't go on some grand philosophical exploration to discover "the truth" that I expect everyone to take and go on the same path as me, I was an atheist for as long as I knew that it was a possibility. Also, I wasn't abused by extremely religious parents or church or anything like that, either. At the same time, my parents are not atheist, so I wasn't "raised atheist". My atheism has nothing to do with my dislike for religion, organized religion, traditional values, disinterest in spirituality or morality. It has only to do with the fact that I don't believe/see no reason to believe/am not convinced in any supernatural God. If organized religion was the best thing ever for humanity, I'd still be an atheist. And I am more than happy to admit that organized religion has many good things going for it.

[chenda]

@alphaville - Interesting, actually I do recall some controversy over Jehovah's Witnesseses been restricted in Greece where the Greek Orthodox Church objected to them trampling on their turf, as they saw it. I think it went to Brussels.

Here (UK) you can have a charity dedicated to the promotion of religion, but there is a 'public benefit test' to keep tax free status. As you can imagine, it generates some controversy and plenty of complex case law in defining what 'public benefit' is and how much you need. A critical perspective here: https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2 ... arity-law/

So if I set up a Church of Chenda in the US and persuaded people to give lots of money to me tax free, I could pay myself any salary essentially like a profit making business ?

[Riggerjack]

Once upon a time, I couldn't understand how others don't agree with me, and I have since explored other people's views in that sense, so I now I do understand them. I still judge them. It's like someone being gay, and they've known they were gay all their life, and you telling them that they should be open minded and that they should be giving the other team a chance.

Um... No.

Rather than asking you to give the other team a chance, I am saying that the other team isn't Wrong, it is Different. This difference comes with different strengths and weaknesses, and will come to different conclusions from the same evidence.

If one privileges one's preferred methodology, different and wrong can be conflated. This can be very self satisfactory. But also limits one's opportunities to learn.

You seem to be in a very self satisfactory place on the subject of religion. You haven't seen any reason to learn more here. The lessons you observe have little value.

This isn't because there is nothing to learn, but rather a value choice you have made. And the certainty you show in your decision tells me you haven't engaged religious/spiritual philosophy at any depth.

Tell me, if you were given a chance to talk to a Catholic monk, how much do you think he could change your mind? My guess is not much. This could be that he has nothing to teach you. Or it could be that you have nothing to learn.

But I think it far more likely that the gap in lexicon is wide enough to be too difficult to cross without more effort than either are likely to bring to the table. In particular, in that each has already convinced themselves of their own path and place being where each wants to be.

Such a situation is more a statement of each expressing their own position and path than a legitimate attempt to reach the other's place or path. This is more a failure to learn than failure to teach.

One always has difficulty learning without respecting. Regardless of subject.

I'm not asking you to be religious, or spiritual, or even to consider that for all we know, the True Name of God in English is Dark Matter.

I'm pointing out that you have chosen to not respect the path most people travel, and that this choice limits you in more ways than you may be aware of. Ways that you may not have chosen, if you were aware of the downstream consequences. Unless you take the time and energy to consider this, you will remain limited in this way.

But that could be just fine for you. It was for me for many years. But I do wish I were less certain, sooner. I think I would have learned more.

[Crusader]

I'm pointing out that you have chosen to not respect the path most people travel, and that this choice limits you in more ways than you may be aware of.

If I had a dollar every time I heard this... I'd be FIRE by now!

Yes, you nailed it. I don't think that people who are non-atheists are just different, I think they are wrong, and I think they are intellectually inferior. I think that everyone in their right might should be an atheist. It's not like I like to eat pizza and you like to eat spaghetti and I have a strong preference but I don't think one is fundamentally better or right.

And it's not that I haven't explored other avenues. I have, because I wanted to understand these people who are so different to me. I have friends from all walks of life and from all religious convictions. I was a member of a philosophy club for some time, the leader of which was an atheist who turned theist, and we talked about these things at length. I came away even stronger in my convictions (that their position is inferior, my atheism was never brought to question) than before. Believe me, I tried.

[Alphaville]

So if I set up a Church of Chenda in the US and persuaded people to give lots of money to me tax free, I could pay myself any salary essentially like a profit making business ?

yes!

i know it sounds mad (because it is mad), but it's true.

eg see here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/start-yo ... ddcb43bd60

[7Wannabe5]

I must confess, I always thought a weakness in your strategy was the reliance on others for housing.

Well, the real weakness in my strategy was thinking I could get away with living in a camper on a vacant lot in the city. Shacking up with one of my polyamours was supposed to be fallback Option 4 in my systems design. Like if (1) World wheat crop fails (2) Your potato crop fails (3) Community oat crop fails (4) Now you are getting majority of kilocalories from acorns processed with filtered storm drain water.

OTOH, it is the case that ever since I adopted the old school best practice of only dating men who date me, it has generally been the case that net financial flow in my relationships has been in my direction. Main reason being that most members of my dating cohort find it easier to spend money than come up with creative frugal dating ideas, although there have definitely been exceptions to this rule. Second reason being that I am too frugal to spend hardly any money on dating.

This brings up another reason why FI on FI dating is unlikely to be successful. For instance, if both of you don’t own cars, you are limited to biking distance dating pool. Same applies to “provision of private space for coupling” as you mentioned. Harder to get it on if you are both living in No Visitors Allowed Tube Hotels.

Anyways, (fingers crossed) I think my bid was accepted on an extremely decrepit very small house on a very large city lot, so will be moot issue very soon.

[chenda]

Televangelist Creflo Dollar was recently criticized for asking his followers to donate $300 apiece so he could buy a $65 million jet to help him "safely and swiftly share the Good News of the Gospel worldwide

Unbelievable! These guys are effectively being subsidised by the taxpayer. Though I think the Church of Chenda would struggle to compete with Mr Dollar...like seriously this guy actually changed his name to Dollar

[Alphaville]

if it's available in your country and you have about 20 minutes check out the john oliver video and you'll laugh even more

[Riggerjack]

Believe me, I tried.

I would like to, but I don't. If you had tried, in the frame I am trying to communicate, you may still hold exactly the same positions and opinions. But you would be far less certain.

It is your certainty that gives you away. I had it once, and recognize it. Sometimes I still have it, in other areas of thought. Areas I haven't examined in quite a while.

I have come to recognize this certainty as a sign that I haven't given any real thought to a subject since I came to my conclusions, many years ago. Do you see what I mean about certainty and deep thought? They rarely accompany each other.

The more I understand, the better I see the edges of the unknown. And I don't know how one looks at the unknown for long, and still has certainty. This applies in all fields, not merely metaphysics.

[jacob]

Also see https://www.amazon.com/Evolving-Self-Pr ... 674272315/