@caroline: Kodie gave you a nice answer. I do think you're intelligent. If you really want to teach yourself basic critical thinking, try this thought exercise. The next time you have a great idea or thought or discovery, stop. Assume you are wrong. Try to prove the opposite. In reasearch terms it's known as disproving the null hypothesis. You think redheads are feistier than blondes or brunettes? Work to prove that there is no difference between hair color and temperament. If you can get in the habit of trying to prove the opposite, instead of embracing every sparkly-sounding idea, you'll be heading in the right direction.

@kodie: you are right. I've gotten so used to adults who stubbornly hold to delusions and magical thinking that I've given up on trying to change their minds. Certainly faced with one who actually wants to change seems strange. Of course she should be encouraged to give it a go, even if the beginning results are frustrating.

Thnx Kodie!
Perhaps a bad habit could be the problem...

Well, you don't want to have a believing brain, but you readily believe nonsense. I don't think there's an intelligence test to skepticism. A small child is inquisitive, doesn't know anything. What you have developed is a bad habit. Bad habits can be difficult to remove. You already seem to have curiosity on your side, but you don't bring the tools to sort through it. If the matrix idea helps you navigate through life, that is one thing, and that bouba/kiki thing could have been interesting if there was more information. Like Agathos said, you are able to concur so easily that you don't bother to question whether something is true, or only seems true, or has only been true in your experience, is it really true for everyone.

I haven't been a Christian, but based on what I've seen from some of the Christians who post here, they experience a real Jesus performing miracles in their life. I would subject that to the test - is it really Jesus, or is it that you got a few minor results and decided to attribute that to Jesus? Are you just lonely and can't bear the thought of going it alone? There seem to be many endorsements for Jesus, people have convinced themselves and not interested in changing their point of view. What if there is no Jesus? Some of our atheists were Christians and saw the house of cards fall. It's not something to decide to choose atheism or skepticism and just be - either you already are, or you have to be willing to see the house of cards fall. Test your notions, stop blindly believing, and question what you think you know. What if there is no dipolar transrationalism? That is only the frame you choose to describe your world. There is nothing there. Some things "fit" but it is really just a story. It's not scientific. For someone who seems deeply curious and seems to have the capacity to understand science, I don't know why you think you're not intelligent enough to be skeptical. You are too stubborn to be skeptical. You don't bear to let go of your notions, whatever gobbledy-gook seems interesting to you, and concurs with your experience. I don't know the bouba/kiki thing, for example. My first impression is it's a start - I would like to understand what studies have been done or if it's really a phenomenon, but not much information followed. My next impression is, without more information, it bears resemblance to an optical illusion, an auditory illusion or such. Curiously, the blob looks like a "bouba" and the star looks like a "kiki". That's curious, but it's not "whoa, damn!" It's not proof-like. If you are skeptical, you might dismiss it as a scientific study, like Ursa explained. I find it to seem interesting enough to want to know more - not more bouba/kiki examples or airy-fairy chit-chat, but a thorough scientific exploration of an interesting anthropological topic. You seem to be fairly satisfied to ponder bouba/kiki itself as a phenomenon since you can go "whoa, damn! I see it, I see it!" It's the equivalent of posting new threads every time you get a Magic Eye picture. Can you see the donkey in space?

1. Yes.
2. So what?
2b. What does that have to do with anything?
3. What kind of conversations are you trying to start? Real discussions, or just trivial?
4. Do you yet understand the difference between skepticism and gullibility?

Well, I´ll answer all of you at once (if that´s possible somehow)
I think you´re superior than me (I´m not underestimating myself) but I think that being a skeptic you don´t waste your time in stupid or at least unnecesary things.

And that´s a good achievement for a human being.

Agathos, I use the term "believing brain" and perhaps I try to say that i´m not intelligent enough as you are. You may take it like that.

Not all people is equally intelligent, or not intelligent enough to achieve certain status of knowledge, or certain status of realism.

But against that fact... nothing is possible to do...

(that´s why I didn´t feel offended with Agathos insult, because maybe that´s the main reason why I fail)

It´s not an obligation to be intelligent. But, being stupid it has its consequences...

That´s not a happy thing to discover that one is not very smart, but the best way to know that is by having an experience like I have had here in UF.

So that´s quite enlightening to perceive the limits of a mind and to make full contact with the reality.

That´s the good part of this story :)

And my main question in this topic has been to know how to behave just in case some day I have a skeptic partner. To know how will he react against me... Well, it wouldn´t be easy, I guess.
But shutting up my mouth and listening is a good choice.

Well, how can one stop believing stupid silly things? If someone asks for help doing this, they are asking how to approach what they perceive as a problem. I see a lot of problems with Caroline continuing to believe what she believes, especially if she is going to bounce every last one of her inane questions at the group. It's just wrong-headed to assume since she has artistic inclinations that her lack of intellect can only make her stronger in that pursuit, and so, why bother? Would Ty be a better author if his grasp of reality was still tied to fundamental Christianity? Depends what he would be writing about. What romantic ideal does one have about artistic leanings that it's best not to disturb the brain with reality, and instead allow it to indulge in fantasy? It would be another thing if she only believed what she wanted and contained her belief to discussions, but she pretends to wonder about the world, asking a lot of questions to decipher the things she reads or thinks, and then ignores the answers. We've had a lot of religious people who try to challenge us, but few who want to change their beliefs.

If someone wants to be more skeptical, they have to understand what they believe may not be real, and ask themselves why they believe it. If one doesn't really want to be more skeptical, it argues with sense, and talks a lot of nonsense - like John C. The person in question might even suspect there is a biological difference between her brain (believing brain) and a skeptical person's brain, yes, it is the earnest aversion to seeing things more clearly as they are explained to her, oh yes, we are so smart, she says, she makes videos and calls some people "gurus", but still believes. Maybe she will always believe. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that. But, like John C, I feel there is no common ground. When you try to keep up a conversation and one person isn't participating in it, but talking over it, there's nowhere in the middle to meet.

Sure, you might ask why she needs to change to a skeptical mind, but she has asked this before, and a bunch of pretty ignorant and offensive tenets aside, I don't necessarily agree she should change either (because I agree with her that she can't), but at least dial down the enthusiasm for inane topics and starting them every time a thought flits across her "believing brain".

Then you put it in the words you like.

Throughout the course of my day, in 15 minute increments, I have to see, understand, and fix the problems of every type of person under the sun. Many have thought processes and personalities so different from mine that I can never hope to have full understanding between us. Sometimes that's due to mental illness or drugs, sometimes not. It is a futile exercise to expect everyone to agree to my reality. And it isn't necessary. I can work with the information I have and the common ground I can find to start on a plan of action.

But Caroline's just asking impossible questions. I don't think she can think like me, and I don't think I can think like her. The personalities and thought constructs are too far off. I am willing to find common ground. Hence the question as to why.

Bending the rules of physics and reality is not for amateurs. Lower the value of the weak nuclear force too much, and you will have a very large explosion on your hands.

Artists are not supposed to bend the rules of physics and reality. Using one's imagination is not the same thing as believing it's real.

Please.

Caroline, I could give you a long answer, but I'd rather throw the question back at you. Why does it matter? You are the way you are and you're comfortable and happy with it and you're not hurting anyone, so why bother? Personality is largely genetic and it's set fairly early in life. I take it from your previous comments and YouTube-ing that you're an artist? Artists are supposed to bend the rules of physics and reality. You do that well. Why change?

"After a time here in UF and CEA, I may risk to say that there is something different in the skeptic people´s brain than it is in believers."

Sigh... I'll try one last time.

You keep using the term "Believer's Brain", to quote, "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." However, if you are going to use the term might I suggest a book that will give you actual information to understand the term properly? It is by a scientist (so you know: knowledge, experience, understanding *actual* science, etc...) by the name of Michael Shermer and the title of the book is (drumroll), "The Believing Brain".

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct/dp/0805091254

"In this work synthesizing thirty years of research, psychologist, historian of science, and the world's best-known skeptic Michael Shermer upends the traditional thinking about how humans form beliefs about the world. Simply put, beliefs come first and explanations for beliefs follow. The brain, Shermer argues, is a belief engine. From sensory data flowing in through the senses, the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning. Our brains connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen, and these patterns become beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive-feedback loop of belief confirmation. Shermer outlines the numerous cognitive tools our brains engage to reinforce our beliefs as truths.

Interlaced with his theory of belief, Shermer provides countless real-world examples of how this process operates, from politics, economics, and religion to conspiracy theories, the supernatural, and the paranormal. Ultimately, he demonstrates why science is the best tool ever devised to determine whether or not a belief matches reality."

I use to operate within the categories of "A Believing Brain" this was part biological and part sociological. I had been handed a lens by my society for interpreting natural and social phenomena, and because my brain did see patternicity and agenticity it made 'sense' to me.

However, the skeptic brain doesn't just go through some magical or biological change and become a skeptic brain. I think rather we start to get better categories for understanding phenomena. Taking myself as an example, this encourages further skeptical thinking about unchallenged beliefs especially when you realize how mistaken you were concerning something you 'knew for certain'. Of course, the better categories come from the best tool mankind has ever devised for testing truth claims, and for best understanding the world and universe that surrounds us.

It's not that skeptics are not susceptible to 'believing' and seeing patternicity and agenticity where they do not exist, it's that we have been trained to be uncertain of our biological brain and how it interprets data, and have learned a better way to evaluate that data. I think--I don't know for certain, this is an opinion--many skeptics are practical realists, and are quite comfortable saying they don't know something (as opposed to the arrogance that *knows* everything--the whole universe!) and are comfortable being wrong when the evidence and testing leads elsewhere.

“The physicist Richard Feynman once said that the easiest person to fool is yourself, and as a result he argued that as a scientist one has to be especially careful to try and find out not only what is right about one's theories, but what might also be wrong with them. If we all followed this maxim of skepticism in everyday life, the world would probably be a better place. But we don't. In this book Michael Shermer lucidly describes why and how we are hard wired to 'want to believe'. With a narrative that gently flows from the personal to the profound, Shermer shares what he has learned after spending a lifetime pondering the relationship between beliefs and reality, and how to be prepared to tell the difference between the two.”—Lawrence M. Krauss, Foundation Professor and Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University and author of The Physics of Star Trek, Quantum Man and A Universe from Nothing

After some of our conversations, and what you currently see as valid criteria by which to understand reality, I can think of no more important book for you Caroline than one that discusses "the relationship between beliefs and reality" and how "to be prepared to tell the difference between the two."

However, the pessimist (not the skeptic) in me thinks you'll probably jump head first into confirmation bias and your grand illusion regarding the Matrix of the universe...

I was raised in a secular home which is different from a skeptical home. My maternal grandfather was atheist and because he was supporting us financially (as I was raised to understand), we were not allowed to be taught religious beliefs or go to church... although we did go to attend formal functions, like my cousins' baptisms or 1st Holy Communion. These were only cousins outside of that branch of the family. I don't know what family life was like for the cousins related to my grandfather, as they did not seem as much beholden to him financially, but as far as I know, there were no church rituals for those cousins.

I think there is at once too much religious belief out in the world or not as much skepticism and critical thinking. I think it's particularly normal if you are not raised in a religion or to think against religious belief to absorb religious thoughts from the environment. I went through a stage of alternate belief, not fully understanding of atheism but fully aware of the concept of external supernatural control. You just have to apply critical thinking. It's not a success or failure to participate in one or two forums and not shed your supernatural beliefs. If you want to shed them, you have to apply critical thinking. Perhaps our forum does not give you enough of that and just mostly friendly chit-chat or occasional abuse of your concepts. If you don't want to believe, I understand that it's scary to take that step, but you came to those beliefs as an adult. I think my sister is very... she's not exactly Catholic, as she converted to marry, but as far as I can tell, still tries to find meaning and hope from superstitions such as astrology and new age crap - I say, like you do, - she hasn't really applied critical thinking. She just wants help from the universe or direction.

I look at a tree, and I see a tree. I think of my grandfather as now, I think of a corpse decaying, or perhaps a memory, but not a person I am going to meet again. I think when I get a great parking space that I stay in the car and savor it awhile; I don't think god made someone leave right before - most of the time in this situation, god has forsaken me. I think of a lot of things make sense metaphorically, but not realistically. Even your transrational fuckit talk makes a little sense metaphorically. Even the bible does, even anything does. It is difficult for me to understand how people take philosophical ideas literally instead of metaphorically, and then proceed to guide their whole life from it. Every new problem has the capacity to hang on a hook of our friendliest philosophical opinions, but unless you think critically over every problem, you are subject to categorizing the problem wrong-headedly by projecting your ill-conceived thoughts to solve it instead of your own brain. If your philosophy, for example, says that homosexuality is wrong, you are liable to place your priorities with your philosophy instead of critically thinking what is best for, say, your child.

Sure, I am bringing up an older thread, but if your matrix says dipolar then you will behave according to your matrix and not critically thinking in reality. Although your reality has a distinct bias against homosexuality, you don't seem to critically analyze that is because no parent dare allow for the 10% or higher probability. You would rather shame a child and damage him than dare against what you culture tolerates, in order to "protect" your child, rather than to protect him by teaching him that it's ok and that, no matter what, you will always love him. It's disturbing. Especially since you'd rather make movies about Agathos and get us to like you by kissing up to us more than actually displaying a sense of critical thinking, which I'd personally prefer.

That's just me talking.

After a time here in UF and CEA, I may risk to say that there is something different in the skeptic people´s brain than it is in believers.

There is a quite different way of thinking.

Take in account that I´ve been raised as purely skeptic until I was 19 years old. My father is a pure skeptic, and my stepmother appeared in my life much later. She´s that kind of warm believers (don´t assit mass and such).
Then I left my parent´s house at 19, and started to live a happy life, in another city, with so many new friends,(skeptics most of them) but suddenly I started to believe in metaphysical things.
I never knew where did those thoughts came from.

Since my 19 so far I have been under that beliefs.
And I came here to UF expecting to forget that "achievements" and to recover my skeptical status, but suddenly I´m not able!!
I think that became somehow embedded in my brain (or it was asleep in my first 19 years)... I really don´t know what to think...

I think I´m leaving now from UF as I failed.
May be some day I´ll recover that original status of skepticism.

I think the beliefs are not supposed to be exactly comfortable. There is a lot of strictness - you fear breaking because you have faith that something is calculating you. It is not exactly comfortable everywhere to be faithful. Particularly in an environment which your faith is not as socially prominent. There are many Christians who are unabashed to be Christian in modern, heathen places, and it is not comfortable, but along their beliefs, they have to not mind the social discomfort. Similarly, in places where nearly everyone is Christian, it is uncomfortable to appear as someone who has an alternate belief or atheism. If you are abiding what you know to be the correct way (I say "correct" as in the mind that's made up), you will try not to be influenced by your environment to believe differently.

What I think you're saying is you alter your behavior on belief, rather than behave as yourself, which the latter would technically be more comfortable, but the former has the eternal-thinking comfort that the present doesn't matter as much as the afterlife (or something else). If I were to believe suddenly in Jesus, for example, I would have to believe it in a concept that I pretty much already believe, that is not to say, tomboyish rationalization, but to transform my whole self to be a feminine and attractive and procreative mate to serve a man. I think the bible is clear, so if I believed it, I would believe certain parts of it that in rational reality, I would not give so much credence. This role would not be particularly comforting in the right now, but knowing I was saved would be comforting, and knowing I participate in my given role by Jesus would be comforting, and knowing that I would eventually be given my salvation in heaven would be comforting, so discomforting myself right now would not seem so discomforting, but it wouldn't be how I would behave without all that shit.

I Have no way of scape...

The weird thing is that for me, my beliefs are absolutely the opposite as "comforting" it means permanent sacrifice from my part, to discard my selfish impulses all the time, and behave in a transcendental way instead of joining earthly pleasures.
For me, it would be much easier to be a skeptic.

besides that I really don´t believe at all in a personified god that is looking at me and comforting me and expecting my prayers, and such...
That god doesn´t exist in my beliefs. No god exist in my beliefs.

So I really cannot say I´m a believer because that´s comfortable.

Oy. Yes, the believer does try to keep their beliefs while facing reality. It's weird to me how much reality they can accept while still maintaining belief whenever it is convenient or comforting. It is obvious that people think god is on their side when things go their way, god is intervening in their life, and god has abandoned them when things are going poorly, or god is doing this to teach you something. To pray, to try, to take care of yourself, to understand the power, etc. It's all just statistical.

The other day, there was a car accident on the news featuring four teenaged girls in a car collided with a school bus - on the date of their junior prom! That sort of coincidence seems to point people to a god, rather than to the likelihood of being in a car on the same date as your junior prom and getting in an accident. A few weeks ago, a local woman was killed in what is being called a "freak accident" in Florida (I think) where she went into a cabana structure which was then run into by an out-of-control automobile. I put in quotes "freak accident" because my local news runs stories DAILY about a vehicle running into a structure (cars or trucks running into residences or businesses); if they can't find one locally, they will scan the national news and report it. "Luckily, no one inside was hurt" is what they say, so is it a "freak accident" that one time it happened, someone was inside and was killed? It is more freakish that most of the time they report such an incident, the car misses.

Becoming a skeptic instead of a B, you have to acknowledge statistical things as probable, even a very low probability is not essence of supernatural, it is earthly possible. You have to become more aware of terminology used to sway you. Even the weather reporter will tell you what is a good or bad day. Decide for yourself what weather you like! I am not bummed out that our 80F degree weather in March has gone away for some seasonable weather, which I prefer. Don't try to make it like it's the end of the world that it's sort of cool outside, instead of unseasonably disgustingly hot. I'm the one who isn't looking forward to June and July. I don't appreciate skewed opinions of the seasonable weather.

I guess I haven't answered your question: I prefer someone who is at the very most religious like my dad - he believes in god but not organized religion. I've never gotten in an argument with him, but he seems surprised if I say I'm an atheist. He's aware that his father-in-law was an atheist and had most of the financial control in our family for a long time, but I didn't become an atheist from that. It was mostly a secular home. I can't take anyone more religious than my dad for a mate. I'm not particularly interested in a mate. My last serious boyfriend was bipolar and sometimes was understanding and I guess himself sort of agnostic, and other times accused me of satanism. It was really unpleasant, since it was hard to tell what his real thoughts were; I liked to think "agnostic," but the satan-averse person was still always there.

Part of me desires a person less intelligent, and part of me can't stand someone who believes in god; altogether couldn't tolerate anyone who would require my children to go to a church or require my conversion. My sister converted, my ex-best-friend converted. What the fuck people, don't you even know what you believe, you are so willing to convert on custom alone?

I´m trying to pass from B to skeptic... not easy task...

Sometimes I think that if were person "A", the reason might displace the beliefs some day.
But being a person "B", the reason is interrelated to beliefs in a single pack, and it´s harder to unweave the tissue.
I mean if I were a simple "A" believer, I could kill my beliefs with a simple reality check, such as "God didn´t help me, while I prayed so much. Then, god doesn´t exist"
But being a persoon "B" the brain has a lot of triks to troubleshoot those inconsistences by enhancing the complexity of the "cosmovision".

Well, I think that person B is more bearable. At some point you would hope that person A could become person B, and then person B could take the next step as well. I'd categorize my SO as about halfway to person B.

I understand you much better, Julie :)

To your extended question:

I think I can tolerate person B a little bit more.

One of my sisters is closer to person A and she believes in a personal God. She's the one I talk about in the "What has porn done to your humanity?" thread, so yeah, I tend to really get annoyed by her.

Another of my sisters is a bit more like person B. She's not sure how she would categorize her beliefs, but she does vaguely believe in God. I just find her much easier to deal with because her vague beliefs make her a more tolerant person. She thinks a lot about what she believes, but since she still has trouble pinpointing her beliefs, she can understand why other people come to different conclusions.

I can't have any sort of philosophical conversation with sister A without her going back to the bible and very strictly Christian beliefs, and I'm somehow supposed to accept that as fact with her, even though she does not see the bible as inerrant, so technically she doesn't even believe it as fact. I'm just supposed to agree with her on it.
When I talk with sister B, we still disagree a lot and I know she gets frustrated that I rely so much on science and evidence. But she will still respect my beliefs and will never insist that I must believe the same as she does. She's a much cooler person.

My first relationship was when I was a fundamentalist protestant and I was dating an overly-devout catholic.
We'd have minor debates here and there about what our denominations disagreed on. He believed in evolution and I didn't. He believed birth control was a sin and I had no problem with it.
I didn't mind his beliefs so much, but it got way more awkward with his family. They tended to just assume that Catholic was default Christianity and that all their traditions should make complete sense to me and I had no reason not to believe it. I always got the sense that they just assumed that I would convert to Catholicism if I married him.

I became an atheist around the time I broke up with him and I had been gradually moving away from religion for a while. His beliefs were bothering me more and more because he had no real reason for believing in what he believed. He was all about authority and to him right and wrong was as simple as believing everything the pope or his parents said without any critical thinking, and it was really hard to respect him for that.

I didn't purposely look for an atheist/agnostic boyfriend, but our relationship just happened without me having to look for him. I don't think I even knew that he was agnostic at first, but I was attracted to his more logical personality which tends to be a common theme among many atheists. We are actually very similar people, and I like that. We have enough differences to keep things interesting, but I like not having to talk about anything spiritual with him.

I'm constantly reminded how much we are perfect for each other because of how my conversations with other people go. With others, I feel like I have to constantly defend my rationality. It seems so rare for a person to just analyze a situation and keep their emotions out of it as much as possible. My siblings seem shocked when I have different views on something and I find myself defending what I think even though it is based on very logical, rational reasoning. But then I feel so refreshed when I'm just talking with my boyfriend and regardless of his own opinion, he can accept that I have good reasons for what I believe.

I really don't think I could ever go back to being with someone religious just because I wouldn't want to get in arguments over such pointless things and it's hard for me to respect someone who either a) hasn't thought much about what they believe or b) thought about their beliefs and somehow came to that conclusion.

Drax answer made me extend the main question.

What do you think it´s more bearable for your skepticism?

A- A person with a naive belief in God that says "God did heal me because of my prayers. And suddenly... I don´t know what did I do so wrong to make god take away the healing he bestowed on me"

B- A person who says. God is beyond my prayers, I have to face my karma. I did it to me so I have the power to change it.

So, the question is:
What do you think is more bearable for you? A naive belief in a "Personified God" (unreasonable) or a cosmovision (rationally structured belief)?

@LMNOP - Firstly, I'm claiming Wiccan Friction ®© as a band name.

As for the believing partner, both long term relationships I've been in have been with believers. In the first relationship I started out as a believer too. As I grew out of it there was some conflict, but not much. In the second (and current), she is a believer and it causes some difficulty, but she at least is starting to question and think. She went to the Reason Rally with me and had a good time. Although she said she didn't understand much of what the speakers were saying (their message). Her biggest problem with religion is the suffering of children. Also, she had childhood epilepsy, which she thinks was cured by being prayed over in church. Essentially a faith healing. She was relatively healthy after that, but has had a lot of health issues in the last 15 years. Among those problems include a return of neurological symptoms somewhat like epilepsy. She wonders what she has done to make god take away the healing he bestowed on her. She feels betrayed by god.

I acutally get more grief from the rest of her family about being a non-believer.

Thanks guys :) Very enlightening words!

I used to be the Christian in the relationship. My husband's a pastor's kid and he gave up believing in God sometime during his first year in college, and we weren't dating until 3 years after that. I wouldn't say I wasn't a skeptical person though. I was trained in a nice strong scientific method. I did chemistry research in college. I've been a defiant smart-ass my entire life. But I'd never bothered to use the same scrutiny toward religion. God wasn't a part of my intellectual make-up. Religion was my family tradition, prayer was a habit, hope in heaven was a pleasant fantasy. I was also never raised as a fundamentalist. Adapting a flexible faith as new information presented itself came pretty easy. Many of my early childhood beliefs were modified or discarded if disproved. But I never actively went looking for a reason to throw out everything. Then I stumbled upon a blog a few years ago where people did care and they did argue the specifics and I bothered to use my already skeptical nature toward my old tradition and habits and fantasies. It fell apart and I walked away.

Many religious people are skeptics. Not all of them have discarded God.

My ex considered herself a christian and was from a very large christian family. The only time there was conflict between us, in regards to religion, was during conversations on the subject. She had no defense for my arguments about the absurdity of it and usually ended with her sulking for a while.

Oh, and the fact that she was giving away my hard earned money to the church she attended (alone) did not please me. Especially since the bills were piling up.

Something else that ticked her off was how I pointed out just how sinful a christian she actually was.

I have a lot of Wiccan and generic neo-pagan friends- probably as many as I have skeptical friends. Since they do not evangelize, we get along nicely as a rule, although sometimes we engage in disputes over stuff like the strength of the evidence for the efficaciousness of acupuncture, chiropractic, and "natural medicine".

My first long-term relationship was with a Wiccan. Surprisingly, this did not cause much friction.

From the outside, I find that religious beliefs, if they are not evangelically oriented and/or otherwise externally forceful, are very similar to cultural idiosyncrasies, and can be worked with on that basis. A good friend of mine, for example, was just recently weighing the ups and downs of taking an exciting job offer. He also happens to be a Christian of the not-lukewarm variety, and so when he related his experiences of trying to choose, he phrased the process in terms of "praying on it". And I'm sure he thinks he's talking to some external source of wisdom, but for my part it's just as easy to translate this as talking to oneself in a self-aware way (isomorphic with "meditating on it" or simply "thinking seriously about it"). If he needs to externally project his doubts in a coherent form in order to sort them out, and it works for him to do so, then more power to him, I think.

Religious/philosophical beliefs aren't really an issue for me as long as they aren't too imposing. Other than that I don't really care. My girlfriend, whom I've been dating for three and a half years, is a Muslim, but it rarely becomes an issue unless her mother tries to interfere - which is sporadic. In general we agree on most other issues, so it isn't too bad. Although like I said, agreeing with someone on a philosophical point has never been a deal breaker in a relationship for me. I look past those things.

If the topic of religion does come up, I do try to stay away from spurious words. Although she does know my thoughts on her faith.

Since I settled on the atheist position as my working hypothesis, based on the evidence for God (or lack thereof), I have not had a partner who was not at least a self-proclaimed agnostic. But this was not due to any conscious intention on my part to seek out agnostic or atheist partners.

I think I'd have trouble with a non-skeptical partner. Maybe I could come to some sort of working détente with such a person, but I value clear, logical thinking and I'm unlikely to be seriously attracted to someone who doesn't.