6 Things You Should NOT Discuss on a First Date (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
33Opinion
True these are very sensitive topics. Most people fight over
Yes, wait for the second date to tell them you're a Satanist, pedophile, or jihadist.
Shall I have added a subsection of just general horribleness? These are six common things that people have strong opinions or beliefs (and feelings) about and people tend to make the mistake of talking about them on first dates.
But as a word of warning to someone who puts themselves on the market who is into horrible activity, yes, those are things that should be addressed prior to the date in fairness to the other person. If they agree to still go out with you - great. Don't let them go.
i disagree if someone is atheist they have to tell me right away... i will not waste time with someone who doesn't believe in what i believe in
I'm always straight forward about myself even if it fucks things up... and expect the same... if even after being clear with eachother we decide to continue then we will if not then we won't waste eachothers time
its best to be honest from beginning
than go on thousands of dates and then catch feeling to then realize y'all don't complement eachother... that's why so many relationships fail... cause no one is honest / straighfoward from beginning
If you feel that strongly about it and it's a dealbreaker, can you not get to this conclusion before the guy takes you out? That's my point. Having your first date is about putting the feelers out on what you're getting in to, but if you absolutely need a religious connection, why not do this before even one date is to be had?
I personally don't believe in talking about sex on the first date.
You forgot discussing politics and mentioning your ex. Both are a huge turn off.
I totally bring up religion and politics on the first date. There's no way I'm dating anyone other than a far-right Catholic.
Religion might be something youd want to share but politics? youd never date someone with different politics?
@Tanisha69 different, sure. She can be less right-wing than me, but I certainly couldn't date some leftist or centrist, even center-right.
I am center right whats wrong with me?
@Tanisha69 nothing is wrong with you. We simply just wouldn't get along down the road politically, so you're just not for me.
I find this interesting!! pls let me know what you wouldn't be able to get along with me because I am center right and catholic just like you!
@Tanisha69 however, it depends what you mean by center right. If we agree on big things, likes abortion being murder, homosexuality being wrong, Islam being evil, multiculturalism being overrated, etc. then we'd probably get along swimmingly. It's just that those things are far-right these days.
I do think abortion is a big sin. not sure if murder but very very bad. homosexuality seems to be something God doesn't like (in Bible). Many people in Islam are evil, but not everyone who is islmaic in my opinion. there are some good people there. multiculturalism I am sort of lukewarm on. It has good points and bad points. Those are my opinions. by the way your opinons wouldn't affect my wanting to date you if your personality was good and you had a sense of humor. and if you didn't look like one of the walking dead or something. :)
@Tanisha69 then I'd date you 😊
ok then glad that is setlled haha :)
@Tanisha69 haha great, when we getting married? 😂
come on now you are moving way too fast!
@Tanisha69 lol fine, lets just date, then
really I think my boyfriend would have something to say :)
@Tanisha69 shhh he doesn't have to know lol
I would not date a religious woman. Never. So that's actually something I want to be informed about pretty soon in a relationship.
Why not? you sound closed minded.
@Tanisha69 I've known too many religious women is why not for me.
@Walrus_au So just because I believe in Jesus and go to church I am off your potential dating list? seems a bit harsh. why do you feel that way, what did religious people do to you?
@Tanisha69 agreed with you that sounds so stupid just to take that person off their dating list
@xButterflyKisses87x @Tanisha69
Far too many times, I have dealt with religious people who's ultimate goal is conversion, and will never settle for anything less. Even if it means insidious pretense only to ambush later.
Anyone who leads with that, I steer clear of.
Let me be clear, I am not saying they are bad people, or even that they are operating from anything but what they feel is the best intentions. And I have no problems with having working, friendship or any other relationship with them. But intimate relationships where someone leads in with how everyone is a sinner and I am going to hell, that is doomed to a messy and recriminating failure. Everyone, them included, is far better off spared the pain that will enevitably result.
@Walrus_au
Could not have said it better.
Kind of close to home right now. Visiting in-laws, and the newly married in wife of my brother in law, really really sweet woman, one of the nicest people you'll ever meet.
But if I have to listen to one more divorced from reality rant about conspiracy theories that 'they' don't want you to know, I'm gonna need someone to bail me out of jail.
@Walrus_au lol, lots of people believe conspiracy theory not just religious folk
@Tanisha69 You are absolutely correct, and she is not what most people would refer to as 'religious' (cept about her quackish beliefs) but religious beliefs are not that much different, especially when people who believe they are doing good by saving others, attempt to bully their way into people's lives and demand that everyone see things in the strange, reality challenged way they do.
@Walrus_au okay then. So you def don't want to date me? :)
@Tanisha69 why would you want to date an atheist lol
@TheSpartan I'm kind of just messing with you, but in another way I really think I could date an atheist even though I am religious. We could have some epic debates and I don't think it needs to get to the point of hurt feelings. It would be fun to discuss things and maybe come to some common ground.
@Tanisha69 Why my ex and I never ever discussed religion.
@Tanisha69 firstly, as a happily married guy - no.
But if the religion thing is such a big issue for you, then no, I wouldn't want to.
Would be happy to share a coffee shop table from time to time and have interesting discussions though I am sure.
@Walrus_au ok well, glad that is settled. :)
@Tanisha69 so to turn this around, would you want to be in a relationship with someone who was actively not religious, to the point of anti-religious?
@Walrus_au maybe not anti... because he would be hostile if I still wanted to go to church. But I think I could date an atheist as long as he was tolerant of religion.
@Tanisha69 So, having read most of the major religious texts, I know that strictly speaking the idea of an atheist is at the very least considered the ultimate in unforgivable sin. It also often calls for believers to kill them heathens.
How do you love someone you honestly believe is bound to be tortured for all eternity and not try to change that? Or do you not believe the passages that say that?
And I congratulate you on being better - ie more moral - than your religion, keep it up ;)
@Walrus_au I was taught that people who believe in Jesus but reject him and his teachings go to hell. people who have nevr believed are judged different. If you are a good person I believe you can get to heaven.
@Tanisha69 so what if I had been christian and dropped that out of my life as so many have?
@Walrus_au Im not sure. If you were Christian and truly believed then rejected Jesus I think that's a lot worse than an atheist who never believed at all.
@Tanisha69 How so? What difference does that actually make in your estimation?
@Walrus_au I don't know but I would imagine God thinks less of someone who says "oh yeah he exists I just dont care what he wants" instead of someone who says "there's no God" because the first person actually thinks there is a God and just wants nothing to do with him and the second person just doesn't believe there is a god at all so its not as bad. thats my opinion anyway
@Tanisha69
But what if the person has left the religion not because 'they don't care' but because they have become convinced it's not true?
God cannot be rejected since he doesn't exist in the first place.
Not a stable argument - I can reject darth vader, but vader doesn't exist.
@Walrus_au We reject an idea more than we reject some kind of person.
You can really only reject God if you're willfully-ignorant. Almost every atheist on Earth fits that trope of the Flat-Earth Atheist.
I completely agree. But the only thing needed to reject an idea, is an idea, not the existence of the topic of the idea.
I could reject the idea of the jedi and jedi teachings, that doesn't tell us anything about how real jedi's are, or god is by comparison.
My point is, rejecting the assertion that god/jesus is real, is not the same as saying 'I don't care what they say'. And someone can come to the conclusion that they reject the assertion of god being real, whether they started as a believer or not. At the same time they could either care about or not care about what this god said (or is claimed to have said).
If you make the assumption that someone who was a believer and now rejects the idea of god existing just because they don't care what jesus said, then you are very likely to not have a clue on their real position.
@Walrus_au It's about as sensical as rejecting the round-earth hypothesis.
@TheSpartan How ironic that you should claim others to be willfully ignorant,
So then, we can assume that you have sold, iron-clad, irrefutable, peer reviewed, repeatedly successfully tested proof of the existence of said god? Because if you have, where is your nobel prize?
As to most atheists being flat earthers - should I assume you accept the same level of evidence as for your other claims?
@Walrus_au the philosophical proofs have been published in thousands of articles over possibly dozens or hundreds of philosophy journals since the beginning of academic inquiry. St. Thomas Aquinas, the backbone of Western philosophy, wrote a few of them in the 13th century, including the ironclad argument from First Cause. There's a reason the concept of God is alive and well in the philosophy departments of every university across the globe.
@TheSpartan And all of them have been rejected for want of actual evidence. Try again.
@Walrus_au hah, no they have not. Is that your rebuttal? My goodness, you're going to have to try better than that.
You're not actually asking for empirical evidence of an incorporeal being, are you? That would be preposterous.
@TheSpartan I am going to ask for existing evidence for something you claim to exist.
Why should I take your claim seriously when all you can come up with is motivated reasoning by navel gazers?
When Equinus and others start with the assumption that god exists (in fact the assumption they started with was the god of the bible exists) then it is hardly surprising they ended up with the conclusion that god exists.
My challenge goes to that first assumption. If you cannot provide something doesn't initially assume god's existence, you are, by definition, not proving god's existence.
And as to outrageous claims - you expect me to take your word that a non-existant being exists outside of space and time? why would I take anyone's word for that?
@Walrus_au Aquinas doesn't start with that presumption. Point out to me where in the argument for first cause does it state that God must exist.
No, I'm stating that an incorporeal being must exist as a corrolary to the arguments from first cause and the cosmological argument. Can you provide a rebuttal to the two? Or are you just like every other Internet atheist?
@TheSpartan Ohhh goodie, the argument from first cause? That would be the argument that starts on flawed premises - and even if you accept those premises, gets you to a featureless deistic god, then you make some leap to the god of the bible? That's what you're going to base your claim on?
No, you are just stating the claim that this being exists. then claiming that it provides no evidence of it's existence, yet it affects that existence.
If it does not affect existence, what is the difference between it existing and not existing? and without any evidence, why assert it's existence? Just because you fear the answer 'I don't know yet'?
To return to
Ozanne's question, and the discussion I was having with Tanisha69.
This above is an example of why I would not consider a relationship with a believer.
They have a tendency to come in telling us what we believe from a starting point of pure ignorance, then proceed to demand we accept entirely illogical unsupported and pointless assertions.
@Walrus_au explain how the argument from first cause starts on a false premise. Where in this line of argumentation is there a false premise?
A contingent being exists.
This contingent being has a cause of its existence.
The cause of its existence is something other than itself.
What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set that contains at least one noncontingent (necessary) being.
A set that contains only contingent beings cannot cause this contingent being to exist.
Therefore, what causes this contingent being must be a set that contains at least one necessary being.
Therefore, a necessary being exists.
So you're admitting that a deity does exist? Then there's nothing to argue about. I never claimed that only the willfully ignorant aren't Christians; I claimed that only the willfully-ignorant aren't atheists.
@TheSpartan
"explain how the argument from first cause starts on a false premise. Where in this line of argumentation is there a false premise?"
Everything that starts has a cause - only relevant in this presentation of the universe.
The universe began thus must have had a cause.
This is just garbage. the beginning of the 'local' presentation of the universe included the beginning of time.
There cannot be causation if there is not time - without temporality there is no cause and effect, there is no such thing as 'before'
so the question becomes entirely meaningless.
And also - we have an incomplete view of one universe - so that is a sample size of less than one. to assume we know anything about 'beginnings' which may not even be a relevant question - is an exercise in purely ignorant arrogance.
@TheSpartan
Your claim that a deity is required for other things to exist is also just assertion. I reject that assertion too, on the basis that you have no evidence of this.
Your claim comes to little more than 'I can imagine it so it must be possible, and then if it is possible that must be true.' At least navel gazing is more intellectually honest.
@TheSpartan
"So you're admitting that a deity does exist? Then there's nothing to argue about. I never claimed that only the willfully ignorant aren't Christians; I claimed that only the willfully-ignorant aren't atheists. "
And again, you attempt to put words into another's mouth. Your supreme arrogance has you thinking you know better than anyone else. It's quite pathetic that your 'truth' is so fragile that it cannot stand up to having the assumptions tested.
I never at any point agreed that any deity exists, I simply pointed out that even if you granted the premises of the argument (which I do not) it still doesn't get you to anything more than a deistic god that does not show any signs of existing and is indistinguishable from no god.
Again I point out this example of why I would steer clear of people who are into their religion, primarily they utilize motivated reasoning and intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to brow-beat others into agreeing so they don't feel threatened.
@Walrus_au are you claiming that things can just bring themselves into existence? If so, then provide an example of when that has occurred. So far, the natural law of the universe is that of cause and effect. It's also up to you to prove that cause and effect is null in a time before the universe.
@Walrus_au Unless you can provide an actual rebuttal to the argument of first cause, then we inevitably come to the conclusion that an unmoved-mover created the universe.
This is the problem with new atheists; their philosophy skills suck.
@TheSpartan You seem to be struggling with this concept.
The laws of cause and effect apply WITHIN the universe as we know it.
there is no reason to think they apply outside the universe. Especially when time came into existance with the universe - if there is no time, you cannot have a temporal relationship - a before and an after - this is required for cause and effect.
I suggest reading the book 'A Universe from Nothing' by the reknown physicist Lawrence Krauss.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
You'll excuse my willingness to take the word of him over you when it comes to matters of physics.
@TheSpartan There is nothing wrong with my philosophy skills. Its just that I root my arguments in reality and fact.
As to the first cause argument - I keep telling you, it's a meaningless question
How can you have something present BEFORE time. If there is no time there is no before.
I thought you had a grasp of philosophy, this is pretty basic stuff.
@Walrus_au I'm aware of what Kraus wrote. He writes about virtual particles, which pop in and out of existence--not something the scale of the universe. I'm a physics major, so I know what he's talking about.
@Walrus_au lmao you need an unmoved mover to trigger the Big Bang in the early universe still. You haven't escaped the argument presented yet.
@TheSpartan I'm reminded of something Stephen Hawking said.
To paraphrase - if you come across anyone who claims to understand quantum physics, you know they are lying.
So to preface my statement here - I am no physicist, just an interested lay person. But what Krauss was writing about was not VIRTUAL particles - but real. the 'nothing' that exists is not 'nothing' as the average person or even philosopher means it. It's a soup of constantly reacting sub-atomic particles and anti-particles. Hence the universe not coming from nothing as a lay understanding might think, but from a physicists nothing - which is definitely something, just not something most of us would recognise.
@TheSpartan As to your unmoved mover. You have yet to present a coherent question.
There cannot be cause and effect when there is no temporal relationship - and a temporal relationship cannot exist without time. And since time started at the same time as the rest of the fabric of the universe, the idea of asking for a cause is meaningless.
And yet you insist on presenting what amounts to an endless regression. Because if you propose god - what created god? to which the usual claim is god didn't need a creator, to whit I would reply - why suppose god, cut the fat, assume that the cosmos doesn't need a creator and have done with it.
@Walrus_au the unmoved mover wouldn't need a creator by his very tautology. The universe needs an unmoved-mover by the very nature of its existence.
Are you presuming the space-time continuum can be created without cause? What about all the matter in the universe? Even if we are to entertain the idea that space and time wouldn't need an unmoved-mover, the matter and energy of the universe--which we know to have been come into existence at some period in time--need a first cause from an unmoved-mover.
The "who created God" is so weak, dude. The first causer would be someone or something outside of the realm of cause and effect by its very tautology and necessity, because they would incorporeal or outside our universe.
"Virtual particles" is just the name. I'm not talking about cyberspace particles.
@TheSpartan "The universe needs an unmoved-mover by the very nature of its existence. "
Nice assertion, but that's the claim not the proof.
And again - we get back to the time and space fabric of the visible universe being the gensis of time - without time to ascertain cause and effect - there can be no cause.
You know, for a physicist you seem to be having a lot of trouble with this concept. The question you keep trying to answer is meaningless.
@Walrus_au You haven't debunked the first cause argument, so yes, it does.
BRUH I understand the concept; you, however, don't. Even if space and time needed no first cause, the creation of mass in the early universe--when time did exist--would have by the nature of cause and effect. Even this is being generous, because your entire rebuttal rests on the assertion that time and space and arbitrarily pop into existence.
@TheSpartan You haven't given grounds to accept your premise. Just assertions. There is nothing for me to 'debunk'
And apparently you only think you understand the concept - because you are still trying to shoe-horn causality into an argument where there is no time.
@Walrus_au Alright, I'm done here lol. Look up William Lane Craig when you have the time.
@TheSpartan Ohhh I have seen plenty of nonsense from that 'winner'. I'm not surprised you have such a flawed argument if you built it on his case.
You have the burden of proof, you made assertions, then treated them as assumptions, then demanded I answer them. There is nothing to answer, something asserted without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.
@Walrus_au I've offered plenty of arguments that you've only offered poor rebuttals for. You've only strengthened the theistic argument.
@TheSpartan If you do your physics like you argue for theology - then I don't know how you passed your high school projects. What you are doing is epistemologically bankrupt.
You presented lots of arguments - none of them with any grounding in reality, each shifting around to get past the uncomfortable truth that they are built on assumed assertions that are baseless.
If you really think you have the chops to take this line of argument mainstream - then fill your boots here www.atheist-experience.com I'd be intrigued to hear your response to being schooled by these guys.
And this, folks, is why debating with a theist is like playing chess with a pidgeon.
It wanders around, craps on the board, then flies off claiming to have won.
@Walrus_au lol you're projecting hard, my friend.
@TheSpartan Any time you want to present an argument without fanciful assumptions, come chat to me.
But when you assume your conclusion in your premise, you haven't given me anything to dispute, so why should I chase my tail just because you are?
@Walrus_au @TheSpartan whaaaaaaa? OMG this got out of hand with the philosophy and the quantum and the other stuff. :) :)
@Tanisha69 he's full of shit lmao don't bother listening to him.
@TheSpartan in your dreams. I just require something other than wishful thinking to build my world view on.
@Walrus_au your ad hominems demonstrate how pathetically-bad your argumentation is.
Simply-put, your "rebuttal" of the first cause argument requires that natural laws cannot exist before the universe. It requires the possibility within nature for time, space, and matter to simultaneously come into existence. So far, no physicist has found a counter example to the laws of the conservation of mass and energy. Your entire rebuttal rests on the notion that there *must* have been such a counter example at the start of the Big Bang. You have yet to demonstrate that such a defiance of physical laws can occur, and simply stating that it could because of the nonexistence of time is no an empirical demonstration of such. The burden of proof is on you in this case to demonstrate this.
@TheSpartan No ad hominims. just talking about your behaviour. Behaviour is something you can change.
But then again, you find belief in something without proof a virtue, so how is that a bad thing in your world?
@Walrus_au Dude why are you still debating this retard?
You should be asking me that, @Franitz.
@TheSpartan Nope. Your'e the religious one. So by definition your the retarded one. Ostie d'épais.
@Franitz I think debating would be a generous phrasiology.
One cannot have a battle of witts with someone who has renounced their use.
I honestly think it is some combination of masochism and 'someone on the internet is wrong' itus and boredom.
When you see people harmed by the kind of reality denial @TheSpartan espouses, it's hard to walk away.
@Walrus_au lol sure thing, pal. You're projecting hard right now.
I'd love to see that definition you're working with lol
@TheSpartan the definition he refers to, is people who believe things based on unsupportable premises.
Projecting? If you are referring my projecting of my wish for humanity to become a more rational and less bigoted and self destructive species, then sure. I'll be the first to admit that that isn't a well sourced outlook because of groups with outlooks based on out-dated bigotry written in thousand year old books.
A MGTOW wouldn't go on a date to begin with, a red-pilled person however would
This. MGTOW have had enough with women and MGTOW most likely don't even date at all.
I'm fine if the person is religious but not super religious, however the others are a no no for me
dont talk about POLITICS, RELIGION, MONEY, or anything idealistic if you want that 2nd date!
I think you should lay it all out on Day 1 that we the other person can decide if they want to continue instead of wasting their damn time.
I totally agree. I feel like I just read a list of things you should find out to assess your compatibility not to avoid at all costs.
An never talk about you to a point that I have this or that to a date makes you sound vain guys an girls who do that
Oh that's a whole new myTake! LOL! Don't talk about the ex, don't talk all about you, don't just talk about cars, ... I could go on...
Yep that would work
Who talkes about fetishes irl not as a joke one the first date?
I have a wedgie fetish.
@LordIheanacho i didn't need to know that
Start venting about your ex. If he does that, I won't even return his calls.
I actually agree with most of these!
I would like to add politics
Interesting Take :)
Good tips
good points
Hahaha!