From what is emphasized in female profiles the ideal man appears to be: taller than her; religious; a fan of television, movies and sports; enamored of children and animals; understanding of her weight control issues; ready to take her traveling or vacationing; with no bad habits; (and looks don't count -- but must have a photo for reply)

Excellent point -- that destroys the "defective offspring" argument completely.

The somewhat similar argument against homosexuality "cannot produce offspring" is equally invalid unless heterosexuality that cannot produce offspring is also condemned. (Which might anger the entire "senior citizen" contingent).

Many who worship "gods" convince themselves that everyone must worship something -- and conclude that non-worshipers must worship non-worship.

That seems consistent with many other religious beliefs and opinions

There is no need to "prove" that Mom kissed you yesterday UNLESS you try to convince others. Some may accept your word, others may question your veracity. If a person was with your mother half a continent away they may well doubt the factual truth of your claim.



Is this a universal truth that applies to all creators? If so, how can that be known?



Other opinions, equally valid for others, are different. f

Notice carefully that I expressed NO opinion concerning the existence or non-existence of "souls" or "afterlife" – but stated that they cannot be SHOWN to be true (or anything more than human imagination).

Testimonials about claimed "Near Death Experiences" may indicate that an individual "believes" they or someone had a personal / psychological / emotional experience. However, that is OPINION and belief rather than verification. Claimed "visions" of supernatural entities are similar – unverifiable testimonials.

NDEs can be induced by electrical stimulation of the brain in a laboratory setting with healthy subjects. "Visions" can be produced by hallucination (including drug-induced). Does either prove anything beyond the level of speculation?

Objections to incest focus upon child abuse, coercion and/or reproduction. If a situation involved adults with no coercion and no reproduction, what objections remain?

There IS a dividing line between faith and science -- VERIFICATION.

Both express theories that may be correct, partially correct or completely wrong; however:

"Faith" accepts / believes without effort to determine truth and accuracy of claims.

"Science" examines and tests theories and claims with intent to learn truth and accuracy. Those which fail are discarded. Those which are accepted are always open to modification as new information becomes available.

Claiming that someone said or someone saw or someone heard (hearsay testimonial) or "some book says so" is NOT regarded as verification in scientific study.

Proposing that humans possess a "soul" that "transcends death" into an "afterlife" decided by "gods" is an example of a series of proposals NONE of which can be shown to be true (or to be anything more than human imagination and wishful thinking).

Science expects its theories to be subjected to testing by others and discarded if found inaccurate or modified if found incomplete. Learning is an ongoing process with new information incorporated.

Faith expects its theories to be accepted as "from god" and believed without need for testing, verification, modification, etc. New information that contradicts accepted theory or dogma is rejected.

For the many Ladies whose profile includes "someone to make me laugh", be careful what you wish for or where you place emphasis:


"LONDON (Reuters) - Having an unusual personality structure could be the secret to making other people laugh, scientists said on Thursday after research showed that comedians have high levels of psychotic personality traits.

"In a study in the British Journal of Psychiatry, researchers analyzed comedians from Australia, Britain and the United States and found they scored significantly higher on four types of psychotic characteristics compared to a control group of people who had non-creative jobs.

"The traits included a tendency towards impulsive or anti-social behavior, and a tendency to avoid intimacy.

"'The creative elements needed to produce humor are strikingly similar to those characterizing the cognitive style of people with psychosis - both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder,; said Gordon Claridge of the University of Oxford's department of experimental psychology, who led the study."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/comedians-psychotic-personality-traits-study-finds-001158247--finance.html

In my view, the Founding Fathers were very wise to NOT make any of the "gods" or their supposed pronouncements a part of the foundation documents of the nation -- or give any religion state-favored status.

Is this an example of a great con or extreme stupidity -- or both?

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/15/san-jose-woman-duped-out-of-500k-in-nigerian-online-dating-scam/

I find it amusing that many (most?) people are convinced that they know about such things as the origin of the universe or beginning of life or about an "afterlife" based upon reading or hearing opinions of others (or having personal emotional / psychological "experiences") that cannot be shown to truthful, meaningful or accurate.

Does it make ANY difference in your life that you do not know how the universe originated (and you don't but may think you do after reading religious or scientific or harebrained theories and conjectures or theorizing for yourself)?

What is difficult about saying "I don't know" when that is precisely the case?

Behind the couch cushions is as likely a place as any other to look for an invisible, undetectable "soul" that cannot be shown to be anything more than the product of human imagination and wishful thinking.

If some supernatural realm does exist and if some aspect of a human enters that realm, it is well beyond present human comprehension and NO ONE possesses any valid, verifiable information. Opinions, testimonials, conjectures, tales, folklore, fiction, etc allude to an "afterlife" and many claim special knowledge. However, none of the above can be shown (with verifiable information) to be truthful and accurate.

That which cannot be verified by interested parties is conjecture. Claims of special knowledge are "blowing smoke" unless they can be demonstrated to be true.

When I first explored the on-line dating sites a couple years ago I thought of finding a partner or at least someone nearby with whom to spend pleasant time occasionally or frequently.

However, as reality imposed itself I came to realize that finding a compatible partner is not very likely (or extremely unlikely) and even finding someone interesting with whom to associate is difficult. Being a lifetime fitness enthusiast in an overweight / out of shape / sedentary world doesn't improve the odds.

With the passage of time I have also come to realize that I thoroughly enjoy living without a partner in residence and without "a relationship" ongoing (for the first extended period in adulthood). I have a best friend nearby and other friends not far.

Now I post in a few threads, send an occasional introductory note, expect nothing, and am never disappointed or disillusioned.

Rich and poor are relative terms and are opinions derived from current social norms. One's income and possessions can be well below average (or below mandated poverty level) and they can live well – perhaps more satisfyingly than many who are relatively wealthy.

My statement in that regard is "I am wealthy in terms other than wealth, possessions, and status." That means to me that I control my life and my time, I do not answer to anyone, no one sets my schedule, I have all I need to be happy and fulfilled, I do not lust for more of anything.

Many who aspire to wealth and possessions enslave themselves to their continued acquisition and safeguarding.

Prohibiting worship of "graven images" and "taking the lord's name in vain" seem contrary to the freedom of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Prohibiting "Coveting" (defined as: to strongly want something that someone else has) anyone's mate or possessions is a violation of individual freedom to want something (provided that no criminal act ensues). It is also irrational and unrealistic – providing that it is a thought, not an action.

As long as those are self-imposed sanctions, there is no objection. However, if they are imposed upon others without their consent, there IS objection.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/14/most-of-the-10-commandments-violate-u-s-constitution-atheists-say-in-oklahoma-suit/

There is no assurance that any of us will be "going" anywhere after we die. Some form of "afterlife" is the mainstay of many or most religions -- and is a threat or promise that need not be fulfilled (no way to check for truth and no returning dissatisfied customers).

Hard Atheism and Religious Fundamentalism appear to be opposite ends of the continuum. However, those are typically the most vocal and visible positions stated in public. Perhaps eventually they will cancel out each other and more "centerist" views will become more publicized.

There is some justification for the Hard Atheist to "study the opposition" in order to counter Fundamentalist Religion claims, stories, statements, threats and promises.

Perhaps such "study to counter" is a bit similar to the effort put into battles regarding same sex marriage, gay rights, and abortion (apparently religion associated). If those opposed to homophobia and limitation of women's rights do not study the proponents position they are ineffective.

Few of the Hard Atheists in my acquaintance pay attention to an individual's personal and private beliefs -- but do challenge public religious propaganda and pronouncements.

There are moral, ethical and societal reasons for speaking out in opposition to what one considers false, misguided, destructive / damaging / dangerous, or fraudulent.

If opposition views are not presented the prevailing propaganda is often taken to be truthful and accurate. Consider the recent whistle-blowers against government spying and coverups as an example.

Statements claiming special knowledge of mysticism and supernaturalism are, in my opinion, one or more of the above. "I read it in ancient texts and listened to lectures so I KNOW it is true -- and anyone who doesn't agree will be punished after they die" masquerades as a valid statement.

Some of us present opposing viewpoints (and are often demeaned or condemned by those who prefer to worship "gods").

Non-Theist is a general term which simply means "not a theist" (with theist defined as: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world").

One who is not a believer in god(s) MAY be (my interpretation):

1.Hard Atheist: Denies existence of gods
2.Soft Atheist: Doesn't believe but doesn't deny
3.Agnostic: Doesn't have an opinion and/or doesn't favor belief or non-belief
4.Religious Agnostic: Identifies as religious but doubts existence of a god
5.Ignostic: Maintains that the topic of god(s) cannot be intelligently discussed or decided until the subject (god) is identified and defined. (Google the term if unfamiliar)

I, personally, do not care to accept any of the subdivision positions or labels, but prefer instead the general Non-Theist term. I sometimes add "tending toward Ignostic (not Agnostic)"; however, that confuses most people (or leads to platitudes like "God is love", "God is the creator", "God is my savior", etc – without any information about what "god" IS).