What is the best approach for buying books as a science major?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LogicalAtheist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hello
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of finding a romantic partner, particularly from the perspective of a science major who identifies as a logical atheist. Participants explore personal requirements for relationships, the role of religion in partner selection, and the emotional versus logical aspects of dating.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a personal rule of not buying books on a scientific subject until completing introductory requirements, indicating a structured approach to learning.
  • Several participants discuss the difficulty of finding a girlfriend, with one noting specific requirements that limit their options, particularly regarding religious beliefs.
  • Another participant argues that having a high requirement, such as not dating religious individuals, may be impractical given the percentage of the population that identifies with a religion.
  • A participant questions the logic behind excluding potential partners based on their religious beliefs, suggesting that emotional decisions are inherent in human behavior.
  • There is a humorous exchange about self-awareness and the challenges of dating, with one participant reflecting on their own emotional barriers.
  • Some participants challenge the notion that logical reasoning should override emotional considerations in relationships, suggesting that emotions play a significant role in human decision-making.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of religion in relationships, with some agreeing that it is a significant barrier while others argue that it may not be as limiting as perceived. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the balance between emotional and logical reasoning in dating.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on personal experiences and anecdotal evidence regarding dating and relationships, which may not represent broader societal trends. The discussion includes varying definitions of intelligence and emotionality, which are not universally agreed upon.

  • #31
Should I use shorter words so you can understand them?

Motive 1. To tell you that people are not stupid just because they make some emotional decisions.

Motive 2. All people make some emotional decisions.

I used hyperbole in my previous post to show you the error in your logic. All you've managed to do by trivializing it is to draw attention to the post. Thank you.

Here is something you should find useful: PF is the wrong place to call people stupid.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ha! Just let's end this please.

Admin can you lock my intro?

Art - I never made the statements you're saying are ill. You read them that way. It's like trying to see through a filter. Your filter is emotion itself. Re-read and learn!
 
  • #33
I really mean welcome to PF and I really mean no offense.

We can all learn from each other. That's why we're all here.

Argueing is what we live for. :smile:
Peace.

PS you don't have to lock your thread (I'm really not that dangerous.):smile:
 
  • #34
If 90% of the population were known to commonly kill their relationship partners, would you still think I was being to picky


That's a big if because 90% of them DONT
 
  • #35
How could I allow myself to enter a relationship, something that is considered to be built on, among other things, trust and honesty, when this person can not even set aside emotionality in order to asses a situation logically? Furthermore, many religious people admit they are such built on "belief without evidence" and therefore they would in fact be acting dishonest to their own self. How then would one predict they'd act towards others?

So your saying religous people can't think straight because it clouds their minds? I'm going to use a phrase that came out of one of my friends's "British Slang Dictionary" You've got your knickers in a bunch.


What kind of religous people are you talking to? And I'm sure you wouldn't get the same results if you weren't going by so dumb poll you found online or by what someone told you. And I have plenty of evidence for my religion and beliefs thank you. AND I assure you I am not dishonest to myself.

And if you are talking about getting married and you were reallly in love with a religous person you should let them raise your kids that way. It doesn't make sense to deprive your wife and kids because you don't have a religion and she does.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by Nicool003
What kind of religous people are you talking to? And I'm sure you wouldn't get the same results if you weren't going by so dumb poll you found online or by what someone told you. And I have plenty of evidence for my religion and beliefs thank you. AND I assure you I am not dishonest to myself.

Nicool. Sadly, every atheist here agrees. You don't have evidence kid, you got emotionality. There's not a drop of evidence that proves a false claim, and this is a false claim.

I am saddening that you will live your life this way. But alas it is YOUR choice. No one is forcing you to think for yourself, you're letting your emotions stop you from thinking intelligently.

Sad but true. "What kind of religious people are you talking to"? Well, I'm talking to you aren't I? You've just proven my case.

No need to respond, I won't be reading it!

PS: Us atheists laugh at you saying you have evidence, hahah!
 
  • #37
Nicool. Sadly, every atheist here agrees. You don't have evidence kid, you got emotionality. There's not a drop of evidence that proves a false claim, and this is a false claim.

Give me evidence that this ISNT and I assure you I can proove it all wrong.

I am saddening that you will live your life this way. But alas it is YOUR choice. No one is forcing you to think for yourself, you're letting your emotions stop you from thinking intelligently.

I am very intelligent and my religion does not hold me back in any way. And I am sad that you don't have one because several SCIENTIFIC studies show that suicide rates are higher in atheists than people with religion because people with a religion have more to look for and to look up to and believe in. But like you said to me it is YOUR choice.

No need to respond, I won't be reading it!

I have reason to believe that you know I will proove you wrong for, after those comments that were an attempt at being nasty, now you are just going to ignore this topic altogether. Because you don't want to be wrong.


PS: Us atheists laugh at you saying you have evidence, hahah!

PS: Us RELIGOUS people the MAJORITY laugh at you saying we're wrong! hahaha!
 
  • #38
Ok I am now lost, I would not call myself an atheist but I am not the sort of person who goes to church regually,


Shouldn`t this be in the Philosiphy section?
 
  • #39
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Nicool. Sadly, every atheist here agrees. You don't have evidence kid, you got emotionality. There's not a drop of evidence that proves a false claim, and this is a false claim.

I am saddening that you will live your life this way. But alas it is YOUR choice. No one is forcing you to think for yourself, you're letting your emotions stop you from thinking intelligently.

Sad but true. "What kind of religious people are you talking to"? Well, I'm talking to you aren't I? You've just proven my case.

No need to respond, I won't be reading it!

PS: Us atheists laugh at you saying you have evidence, hahah!

I'd just like to point out that the evidence behind your belief also is widely controversial. Evolution has yet to be proven, and most likely will not be. Evolutionists still have a hard time explaining the origins of life, the irreductible complexity of life, and the cambrian explosion.

Why are you saddened by people accepting religion? I think it benefits individuals more than atheism does. Religion fills many voids that atheism cannot. I don't see why it matters to an atheist which religion you are because in the end, everyone will suffer the same fate: oblivion.
 
  • #40
I'd just like to point out that the evidence behind your belief also is widely controversial. Evolution has yet to be proven, and most likely will not be. Evolutionists still have a hard time explaining the origins of life, the irreductible complexity of life, and the cambrian explosion.
And creationism will?
Cambrian explosion is explainable by puntuated equilibriums.
What irreductible complexity?

I don't see why it matters to an atheist which religion you are because in the end, everyone will suffer the same fate: oblivion.
Yep. Religion offers eternal torment for the majority of the world's population as an interesting variation. I'm sure that makes people so happy...
 
  • #41
Psyber Freek said: "I'd just like to point out that the evidence behind your belief also is widely controversial. Evolution has yet to be proven, and most likely will not be."

Haha! Evolution has LONG since been proven. WTF world are you living in? All agents of evolution have ALL been documented in every species discovered on the planet. Are you living in a damn commune?

I suppose you would also say the Earth has not yet been proven round, since that's about as ourageous a claim? Man, this is gettin' pathetic around here! How does Greg allow this kind of sickness?

FZ+ - You said it bud, you said it. It's sick we have to live in the same time as such humans, is it not? We're trully before our time. Ugh, now I need to get Psyber off with a hot shower.
 
  • #42
Actually, Nicool is right... studies of long-term happiness generally show that under normal conditions, the only two things which really correlate with increased happiness are 1) deep religious faith, and 2) long-term marriage. But that's neither here nor there.

If I were to guess, it seems you probably have a limited experience with religious folks... probably mainly fundamentalist Protestants. Am I right? I grew up in the middle of the Bible Belt, and yeah, those guys are pretty dumb. Don't judge all religion based on that, though; there are a lot more intelligent religious traditions around.

Also, the fact is we all have beliefs that are not based on evidence: for example, I believe you guys really exist, and I am not just a brain in a vat (or 'in the Matrix' as the kids say :wink:). I believe that the universe functions according to reasonable laws of science, and those aren't going to change from place to place or time to time. But there is zero evidence for these; they are pure faith. And we all have beliefs that are not justifiable by reason alone... moral beliefs come to mind for one.

In any case religious belief seems like a poor litmus test for relationships... I mean really why is such a big deal? I can see not wanting to date some evangelist Christian, but many people are religious just because they haven't bothered to think it through that much, or they have a nuanced reasonable position on it. And anyways, why is it so important?
 
  • #43
Originally posted by damgo
If I were to guess, it seems you probably have a limited experience with religious folks... probably mainly fundamentalist Protestants. Am I right? I grew up in the middle of the Bible Belt, and yeah, those guys are pretty dumb. Don't judge all religion based on that, though; there are a lot more intelligent religious traditions around.

Wrong. I am familiar with people of all religions. It DOES NOT matter who is in a religion. The regilion speaks for itself. I suppose one could argue a given rapist doesn't give you a good idea of who all rapists are. Does it matter?

There can, by the very definition, be no one who is relious and intelligent.

I cannot date a relious person because of the foundations of a relationship. Honesty, and trust. Religious people break both of those with themselves, and therefore could only be expected to break them with others.
 
  • #44
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
I see a surprising number of emotional statements coming from someone named "Logical Atheist". :wink:
 
  • #46
No your not. You're just not understanding what I'm saying. I didn't say I'd not make emotional statements, I suggest you research my posts before you comment. Otherwise it looks like you're a middle schooler.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by damgo
Also, the fact is we all have beliefs that are not based on evidence: for example, I believe you guys really exist, and I am not just a brain in a vat (or 'in the Matrix' as the kids say :wink:). I believe that the universe functions according to reasonable laws of science, and those aren't going to change from place to place or time to time. But there is zero evidence for these; they are pure faith. And we all have beliefs that are not justifiable by reason alone... moral beliefs come to mind for one.

Not true. I'm not going to argue with you that it's been proven that we all exist, but to say that there's no evidence is ludicrous. Evidence does not necessarily equate to proof. And believing that the universe functions according to "reasonable" laws is not faith, but based in reason. Do not equate either of the aforementioned to faith.
---------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Wrong. I am familiar with people of all religions. It DOES NOT matter who is in a religion. The regilion speaks for itself. I suppose one could argue a given rapist doesn't give you a good idea of who all rapists are. Does it matter?

There can, by the very definition, be no one who is relious and intelligent.

That is not true. It is empirically disproven. I once thought that there was a general correlation between being atheism/theism and intelligence, but, in my experiences, the evidence just isn't there. Einstein did believe in god--he didn't have a dogmatic religion, but he did believe in the existence of god (I think that he was a deist). Many doctors and scientists are christians, muslims, etc.


I cannot date a relious person because of the foundations of a relationship. Honesty, and trust. Religious people break both of those with themselves, and therefore could only be expected to break them with others.

I don't see how you can say that. With some religious people, the fear of god keeps them honest and trustworthy. Believing in fairy tales doesn't make you a liar of a backstabber. And you're only limiting your options. I can understand if you're looking for a long-term relationship that you would want an atheist, but for fun-for-now fling, I suggest that you not worry about it.
 
  • #48
DAN - as to your first comment of the three. YES, you freakin' tell em.

As to the other two, you have mistaken a few things, but alas they're percetable so it's ok.

My definition of intelligence rules out relious people. Thus they can't be intelligent, in the way i define it. Surely mensa members are religous. I'm not talking that way.

Secondly, on your last comment you missed my underlying point. you said something like "fear of god keeps some people honest". The underlying point is a belief in God is dishonesty to oneself, denying one the easy ability to research a proper answer.

If it was research, the most proper answer can only be such a God exists only as a character if a respective mythology.

You missed that point, and instead applied it to reality.

To you it looked like I was saying relious people are liars. What I meant was, because of the above point, one who isn't truthfull with themselves (who takes first an emotionally driven result over a truthfull result even if it doesn't satisfy them emotionally) would thus be a danger if one was looking for someone who would be honest and truthfull with them in a relationship
 
  • #49
entropy -- LMFAO! but watch me do it anyways...
to say that there's no evidence is ludicrous. Evidence does not necessarily equate to proof. And believing that the universe functions according to "reasonable" laws is not faith, but based in reason. Do not equate either of the aforementioned to faith.
What evidence would that be, that would distinguish it from my brain-in-a-vat hypothesis? What evidence do we have that the rules of the universe are not going to change tomorrow, ie that induction works? cf Hume.

LA, so you think nonreligious girls are less likely to lie/cheat on you than religious ones? And you equate religion==stupidity? Ah well...

Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
 
  • #50
Dam - you're making unintelligent jerry springer like assumptions about what I said. I suggest you shut it until you have something worth saying, and quit making JS assumptions please. Ya look bad man, take a shower!
 
  • #51
No your not [seeing emotional statements]. You're just not understanding what I'm saying.

How, then, would you classify phrases like:

"you're making unintelligent jerry springer like assumptions about what I said. I suggest you shut it until you have something worth saying, and quit making JS assumptions please. Ya look bad man, take a shower!"

?
 
  • #52
Enthropy,

ROTFLMAO! That Special Olympics thing, although not very PC, is so funny I had to get up and go outside to laugh (I'm at work)! I'm still laughing at it.


Originally posted by Damgo...
entropy -- LMFAO! but watch me do it anyways...

Me too.


It always amazes me that atheists, who you would expect to have an open mind, could have such a closed mind to even the remote possibility that they could be wrong about the existence of God.

Faith issues cannot be settled by scientific methods. It is not a science. Science is the study of things physical or material. Emotion must come into the decision. How you feel about the existence of God is an emotional question. How can you expect others to approach an emotional issue using only logic? Would that truly be smart?

Many people have felt the presence of God. Whether they have imagined this presence or not is immaterial, to them it is real. It is like the body preparing itself physically for the induction of sugar into the system when a person just starts thinking about eating ice cream (insulin production rises, etc.). The mind doesn't make the distinction between the real and imagined ice cream.

It seems to me that a closed mind is a closed mind. It doesn't matter if that mind is in a Bible thumping hyper conservative fundamentalist bent on converting the world, or in an atheist thumping the Bible bent on converting the world.

Also, if you are going to call religious people unintelligent,
My definition of intelligence rules out relious people. Thus they can't be intelligent, in the way i define it.
I suggest you correct your word usage before you post. I have spotted glaring errors in several of them (not even talking about typos).

Hey, I know I'm not perfect (afterall, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God), but then I'm not calling people unintelligent.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Artman

It always amazes me that atheists, who you would expect to have an open mind, could have such a closed mind to even the remote possibility that they could be wrong about the existence of God.

Hi

Please do not lump all atheists into one category. "LogicalAtheist" (or whatever he purports to be) is but one person, just as Jerry Falwell is one person. Let's avoid generalizations. Thanks.

As for the rest of this thread... [zz)]
 
  • #54
kids, this isn't the Religion board...keep if fluff in here OR ELSE!
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Zero
kids, this isn't the Religion board...keep if fluff in here OR ELSE!

Yeah, Zero is a good name for you.

eNtRopY
 
  • #56
Carefull, he can bust your poll count right back to zero (not funny even if you do have a freakishly high average ) Or ban you all together
 
  • #57
Originally posted by Galatea...
Please do not lump all atheists into one category. "LogicalAtheist" (or whatever he purports to be) is but one person, just as Jerry Falwell is one person. Let's avoid generalizations. Thanks.

Good point. I will keep that in mind.
 
  • #58
Likewise. Don't assume all atheists are as logically and scientifically minded as I. There are a vast population of atheists who reach that conclusion by illogic and other idiocy.

You can reach the right answer, the wrong way.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Galatea
Let's avoid generalizations.

Yeah, all generalizations are bad.
 
  • #60
Not all generalisations are bad
 

Similar threads

What Are the Best Science Periodicals for New Discoveries and Ideas?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Intro Physics What is the best conceptual high school physics book?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
High School Occam's razor in science: all-time practice or modern fashion?
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
Studying Need Help with Study Approach
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
What's the best major between Physics & Chemistry for entering MS in Nuclear Engineering?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Other Is having bad resources from university normal?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
How Can a Math Major Start Learning Computer Science?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Studying How to self-study physics past High School Level?
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
8K
Admissions What are my chances of being admitted into good graduate schools?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad What grade is expected of physics students?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K