Atheist / Theist Reconciliation Thread (1 Viewer)

[OlNate]

Let me preface this by saying I am agnostic, and I define that in the traditional manner of saying agnosticism is about not making a statement of belief on the existence of God or Gods or not.

While the term "angry" can be substituted with any number of expressions, any sort of reconciliation means at least admitting to the underline problem.

No matter how we approach the conversation on a long enough timeline every conversation along these lines participated by both those that are atheist and theist eventually both reject timidity in making their points because they are (and have always have been) inherently adversarial. I would go so far as to say they have always been adversarial to one another just as much if not more so than the various branches of theism are towards each other anyway. And basically all for the exact same reason, competition in the space of belief in something so dominant throughout recorded human history. Now, even as an agnostic we also have our tones as eventually we reject timidity as well going after the arguments presented by either side of the atheist / theist coin.

That said perhaps it is time, but not for reconciliation but rather evolution.

By all of human history, damn near without much exception, we have proven there is not much room for reconciliation not just between just those that believe in whatever God or Gods but also adding in atheists and agnostics as well.

To be brutally honest, why would there be room for reconciliation in the space of social influence?

We can pretend with pie in the sky thinking that it is possible for common ground among all these ideological takes on the question of God or Gods, but in the end control of what people believe (or not believe) in whatever regard has been the singular greatest reason to end life with a close second being how we divide humanity in all the other ways apart from belief. We have a plethora of academia who look at history through a variety of means and all we have to show for it for this subject is complete absence of consensus on these questions and conversations on belief.

Just to get to the point of "angry" in a political forum, up to torture or execution for someone for believing in something different, up to blowing yourself up taking others with you or fly a plane into a building in a haze of religious ideological lunacy are all based on a common thread. The assumption of being right about that opinion on God or Gods.

Perhaps we are right to reject that timidity as it forces evolution even if that is simply some other painful path for humanity to take, because what we have done so far suggests there is no such thing as reconciliation with anything involving belief, or the absence of belief, or refusing to have a take on the matter either way. That other brutal truth between these things, skepticism is based on doubt not the arrogant self given certainty that theism *and* atheism tends to bring to these discussions.

May not be the answer we are looking for, but perhaps that honesty is what will force evolution because we do need to admit why these conversations in a forum turn "angry," and outside of a forum end up being real reason to divide humanity by confines handed down from previous generations.

Woosh. Ok, well, that's a rather bleak outlook. But thank you, I feel like I understand where you're coming from.

So, if there is not reconciliation, no chance at finding ground, what are these forums about? Debate is often used as a tool to vett ideas and ideologies for the purposes of scrutiny and better understanding. If there is no common ground to be found, what is the point of the debate? If one acknowledges that no understanding will be reached, if one believes that nothing can be learned by either side, what's left? Surely it can't just be ugliness for the sake of ugliness? That seems a self defeating exercise. And yet, as you've pointed out, it has been debated through the ages, and not simply by people seeking to weaponize it's reality or illegitimacy (as both tactics can be seen throughout history to secure social influence), but people who have nothing to gain whatsoever by participating in the brawl. Why bother?

 

[OlNate]

The only time I'm a "angry atheist" is when someone tries to force their religion onto me, generally by passing a some law, who's basis is only support some religious guideline. I have examples. abortion I have yet to have a discussion about abortion that doesn't end up with the bible or quran being the basis of their opposition to abortion. Same with alcohol, tattoos, etc.

If you don't want an abortion then don't have one, don't want to drink alcohol then don't drink, how you live your life it up to you, but don't try and force it on me.

So, another proponent of the live and let live variety. I agree with you. As a Christian, I believe 100% in the separation of church and state. The Bible clearly demands this, in no uncertain terms. The way that politicians have dragged my faith through the mud, only to secure power, makes me sick.

Would you be there for me, if my ability to practice my religion was threatened?

 

[OlNate]

You limited your OP to theism and atheism. If you purposely exclude agnostics, you might be excluding a number of those "angry" posters you may actually wish to include. Maybe a few deists, too. Pantheism, naturalism. I don't know. Do you want to include agnosticism? Deism, etc.? Maybe some of those angry posters are one or more of those.

Nonetheless, regardless of exclusive definition, I believed my answer would be appropriate however I might ID myself and to your point. Perhaps others might feel it necessary to ID themselves when answering because they are otherwise excluded by definition.

You're right, I took a binary approach, my bad. I always tend to think of agnostics as the chill uncle, enjoying a spliff while the rest of the family fights at Thanksgiving...hehe...

Please, if you would like to give the agnostic point of view, I'd welcome it.

 

[calamity]

So, another proponent of the live and let live variety. I agree with you. As a Christian, I believe 100% in the separation of church and state. The Bible clearly demands this, in no uncertain terms. The way that politicians have dragged my faith through the mud, only to secure power, makes me sick.

Would you be there for me, if my ability to practice my religion was threatened?

That depends.

1. Does the religion condemn gays to death?

2. Does the religion demand women cover their heads?

3. Does the religion try regulating sex between adults?

4. Does the religion ban or otherwise impede access to birth control?

5. Does the religion shoehorn its way into public schools, national holidays, textbooks and/or daily conversation, usually to paint itself holier than thou while whitewashing past discretions?

If not, then yes.

 

[OlNate]

well 1 id like theists with gods to not accept whatever they believe that gods say is universally just and right simply because their gods say it

and 2 that they not personally support the torture or killing or reprogramming of people who don't follow ther faith by any being

and 3 that they do not try to alter laws and the actions of others simply based on what they belve a god wills and instead admit what they want why they want it why others should want it and why ther proposals are the best way of getting desired results

and 4 that they take the greatest care possible not to confuse knowledge with being certain in a desired belief though that last one seems to be a problem for me and other people regardless of theistic classifications

Thanks, Blarg.

So, given that point number 1 is kind of the pillar (to a point, that we could discuss in another thread - briefly, though, I say there's plenty of room to debate interpretations of the Bible) of following a religion, I have to ask for clarification. What, a little more specifically, is the change you'd like to see here...if you don't mind.

As for points 2 - 4, as a Christian I couldn't agree more. Do you think that the fact that there are many Christians that would agree with you indicates that this is a Christian problem, or a people problem? Are there any other groups that you would present those same points to?

 

[OlNate]

It is hard to reach out to people who by the very nature (and teachings) of their faith, lists you as evil, untrustworthy, and on and on. Given that their attitude towards atheists/non believers is rooted in their religions, I think that this thread is actually futile.

Most non believers attack (if they do at all) as a rebuttal of organized hate towards non believers. Its natural to meet with equal force, those who by design of their own religion view and treat non believers as a plague, and something to be eradicated.

Sure theists will claim to not treat non believers badly, and certain there will always be an exception to the rule, but it has to be the majority that treat non believers badly since it is ingrained into their religions.

Given that we are called on to love ALL people as Christians, I would suggest that your first point is a bit tricky. Not that the attitude you're talking about doesn't exist in some Christian denominations, but it's not a Christian tact to take. Given the Christian call to evangelize, it would be a rather self defeating position to take, if nothing else. We humans do enjoy shooting ourselves in the foot, though. Back to humanity vs. religion.

I could be wrong here, but I'm also unsure that "the majority" "treat non believers as a plague, and something to be eradicated". Can you please provide a bit more context? Some examples that would show majority status?

 

[OlNate]

It's very simple: I'm not going to be a dick to you, and in return, you won't be a dick to me. We are each free to think of the other's beliefs wheat we will, but we keep our opinions to ourselves and only voice civility.

As an athiest I admit thet there is a lot fo wosdom in the book of Proverbs. As a believer, I would apreciate your admitance that cincere questioning of god's actions is not th same as accusing god of a crime.

Starting with the bolded first: ABSOLUTELY.

I have all KINDS of questions that I'd like to ask God, if I get to meet him. We can't help but question, it's how we were made (or how we evolved, pick your poison...hehe). It's a fundamental aspect of our humanity. I would seriously worry about a church that says we cannot contemplate the meaning behind the actions of God.

Regarding your first statement, I agree completely. It seems a lot of folks are advocating for live and let live. Why do you think we have such a hard time in the execution?

 

[OlNate]

I wouldn't say that I'm "angry" at theists generally, but any negative feelings I have toward any of them could easily be eliminated if they would just mind their own business and stop trying to shoehorn their beliefs into every crevice of public life, as many of them tend to do.

I hear that. Welcome to the live and let live club... (Sorry if that sounded flippant, I took a couple days off and have come back to a bunch of responses to reply to...most of them saying similar things, which I think is great. But I don't want it to look like I'm copying and pasting responses...lol)

So, when you think of the Christian activists, who are trying to shoehorn their beliefs into every crevice of public life, do you recognize that there are many Christians who take the Biblical position of separating church and state? Also, do you see them as being different or the same as any other activists trying to shoehorn their beliefs into every crevice of public life?

 

[OlNate]

Yes they are.
And you know what some people say when the changing and shifting happens?

"It's a WAR ON RELIGION!!!!"


The apple pie analogy often times speaks volumes.

Some people act as if giving more people more rights means there's less pie to go around.
The reality is more people having more rights just means more people get to eat apple pie.

The gay marriage thing is a perfect example.

Some very religious people screamed bloody murder that allowing gays to get married was going to ruin or diminish what marriage meant.
They said it was a "war on religion".

Now we all know that two gay people getting married has ZERO effect on the marriages of straight people, but that didn't stop the various religious conservative groups from claiming all kinds of idiotic things.

Thankfully that ship has finally sailed for most people. However, that ship really isn't that far away from port just yet.

Yep, I agree, that was all rather embarrassing.

But the main question I asked was, is that religion, or is that people?

Perhaps it is better to ask, do other groups of people try to influence society with whatever power they have to come around to their point of view? Or, perhaps a little more on the nefarious side, to achieve their goals? Follow up: have other noble ideas been weaponized to the same end?

I realize this might seem off topic, but I think understanding this could lead to an escape route from this endless division. If you can't demonstrate that theists are the only ones guilty of this, then we can dispense with the division, and work on the real problem, aka the lowest common denominator, aka the root cause, which to me appears to be people, not any particular religion, or even religion in general. But I'm open to being wrong.

 

[OlNate]

I think the compromise of religion being kept out of the public sphere is a good one. People can worship however they please privately and/or in groups of their fellow believers. It should be a private affair. If there is a social policy position effecting everyone that theists want to argue, it should be argued on its own merits. Tacking on a "God says" to their latest opinions and interpretations of scripture should not be a good enough reason. You can tack that phrase on to anything, and all it does is close eyes and brains, and shut down any further conversation- all things anathema to an open democracy.

Couldn't agree more. What's the best way for me to identify as a Christian that supports the separation of church and state, so that atheists won't automatically distrust me?

 

[OlNate]

That depends.

1. Does the religion condemn gays to death?

2. Does the religion demand women cover their heads?

3. Does the religion try regulating sex between adults?

4. Does the religion ban or otherwise impede access to birth control?

5. Does the religion shoehorn its way into public schools, national holidays, textbooks and/or daily conversation, usually to paint itself holier than thou while whitewashing past discretions?

If not, then yes.

Ok, interesting. So, how does that look from an execution standpoint? Let me propose an example.

Recently I was involved in a FB discussion, where someone posted an article about the Knights of Columbus erected grave stones in cemeteries across Canada for "the victims of abortion". And rightfully so, it's a highly confrontational and political action.

Somewhere down the line, someone posted the following:

"Another reminder of why the 'bible' must be banned and religulous indoctrination of the youth outlawed."

Now, I'm Lutheran. There are millions of us. We do not protest abortion. We do not cast out members for having an abortion. We love them, as we are commanded. Not only that, but we don't do any of the things in your list either.

What would your response be to the guy that wants the Bible banned?

(I'll tell you what mine was, if you tell me what yours would be... )

 

[CLAX1911]

Heya, Clax. I agree with all of this. I really like this post.

So, do you think it's worth the effort? Is depolarizing the relationship between theists and atheists worth the discipline involved with hearing the other side out? Of delaying one's judgements and assumptions?

Absolutely worth it. We can learn a lot from one another.

I'll interject my opinion here...I think so. After all, atheists and theists live side by side in the communities, face many of the same challenges, want the same things, outside of the context of religion. What do you think?

Agreed and good points

 

[OlNate]

Absolutely worth it. We can learn a lot from one another.
Agreed and good points

My man! Just remember this for when I start this thread up for lefties vs. righties... :lol:

 

[Noodlegawd]

So, when you think of the Christian activists, who are trying to shoehorn their beliefs into every crevice of public life, do you recognize that there are many Christians who take the Biblical position of separating church and state?

I'm not sure if I agree with your biblical premise, but yes, I recognize that there are such Christians, just like I recognize that there are people who like BBQ sauce on pizza. I can't even begin to understand or agree with either, but what they believe/like is little to none of my business if they don't try to impose that on me.

Also, do you see them as being different or the same as any other activists trying to shoehorn their beliefs into every crevice of public life?

Yes. The goals of one type of activist are specifically addressed in our Constitution, and the goals of the others are not. And the goals of the latter are often at least arguably backed up by facts, unlike the former.

 

[soylentgreen]

Atheism in its simplest form is the lack of theism. Just like to be amoral is to lack morals. If theism is based upon faith, then atheism is the absence of faith.

In its simplest definition, yes. But to get to that stage requires reasoning.

Actually, you can. Religion has to be taught. Atheism is the natural mental state of every human because it requires no instruction, nothing is taught. If someone wasn't specifically told that one or more divine beings existed, what would give them cause to believe that there was?

No, i would take it a step back from that. Ignosticism is the most natural state. No one is born with a knowledge of a god. Atheism is a state where we have discovered theism and through reason reject it.

That is the very definition of an agnostic, not an atheist.

Yes, agreed, that is what i have been trying to tell clax.

Furthermore, I'm unaware of any atheist who chose to be atheist. Either they have faith, or they never did. It isn't as if someone can choose whether or not they believe something. They either do and always did, or they don't and never have.

Not sure whether this is a typo or not.

Atheism is a choice arrived at by thinking about theism. The two are directly related. Atheism is nothing else but the rejection of theism. And like knowledge of a god, no one is born with faith, it is a learned experience.

 

[CLAX1911]

My man! Just remember this for when I start this thread up for lefties vs. righties... :lol:

Yeah I agree there too.

 

[OlNate]

I'm not sure if I agree with your biblical premise, but yes, I recognize that there are such Christians, just like I recognize that there are people who like BBQ sauce on pizza. I can't even begin to understand or agree with either, but what they believe/like is little to none of my business if they don't try to impose that on me.



Yes. The goals of one type of activist are specifically addressed in our Constitution, and the goals of the others are not. And the goals of the latter are often at least arguably backed up by facts, unlike the former.

Interesting distinction...care if we go into it a bit deeper? You have a large number of non-Christian activists that would seek to challenge the 1st and 2nd amendments. What parts of Christian activism do you see as being addressed in the constitution, that makes it different for them?

(Disclaimer: I am NOT for Christian political activism of any type, outside of lobbying for their own rights to be protected, but not to where the protection of those rights would infringe upon the rights of anyone else)

As for the Biblical separation of Church and state, I'd direct you to two key references:

Matthew 22:21

Romans 13:1-2 (albeit it does give credit to the ruler's position of authority to the will of God)

 

[Glitch]

I didn't think that the people who run non-profits also got tax free parsonages. I know in Canada they don't, but perhaps in the USA they do?

They do in the US. If the IRS gives them tax exempt status, regardless whether they are a church or a secular non-profit organization, they do not have to pay property taxes in any of the 50 States. They do, however, have to pay the taxes on the wages of any employee that they hire.

I understand that. What I don't understand is why believing in certain magical creatures entitles one to a tax break in the first place.

Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. The Supreme Court held in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) that "[t]he First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion" and further held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[Glitch]

Really? But not Republicans?

When was the last time Republicans used public education to indoctrinate children into socialist beliefs and then parade those brainwashed children around to demonstrate that Marxist indoctrination? That is entirely the realm of the leftist freaks, going all the way back to the Hitlerjugend. Democrats love parading their indoctrinated children around to push their Marxist agenda.

 

[calamity]

Ok, interesting. So, how does that look from an execution standpoint? Let me propose an example.

Recently I was involved in a FB discussion, where someone posted an article about the Knights of Columbus erected grave stones in cemeteries across Canada for "the victims of abortion". And rightfully so, it's a highly confrontational and political action.

Somewhere down the line, someone posted the following:

"Another reminder of why the 'bible' must be banned and religulous indoctrination of the youth outlawed."

Now, I'm Lutheran. There are millions of us. We do not protest abortion. We do not cast out members for having an abortion. We love them, as we are commanded. Not only that, but we don't do any of the things in your list either.

What would your response be to the guy that wants the Bible banned?

(I'll tell you what mine was, if you tell me what yours would be... )

I doubt banning the bible is much of a solution to anything. So, I would oppose that.

 

[OlNate]

The same thing can be said about Democrats.

Hi, Glitch. So far this hasn't turned into a partisan **** show. Can you help me out, and do your best not to go there? Trying to keep politics out of this one...

I may do a similar thread on partisan reconciliation. Or you can do one. I think there's a lot in here that would tie nicely into that.

 

[soylentgreen]

Lack of belief does not really require reasons.
.

Really! Then how did you arrive at it? Did you just decide without thought on the spur of the moment?

I'm sorry there is no dictatorial entity that prescribes usage. So you can't say that common usage is wrong because common usage determines definition.

I would point out as i have with another. Look up the word altruistic. It gives the common usage but that is the wrong definition that was rejected even by comte who coined the word in the first place.

I'm not considering a god at all. I'm saying atheism is a lack of belief in a god.

So what you are saying is that their might be a god but you choose to lack any belief in that?

you can't arrive in a lack of belief in God without thinking about it? You'll have to explain that.

So when asked why you lack a belief the best you can do is shrug your shoulders and say,"I dunno."

that's false agnostics do not to believe in God. That is a position. Just because you don't respect it doesn't mean it's not a position.

No, you fail to make the distinction. (a)gnosticism is about knowledge of god and not a lack of or a belief in a god. Remember the example of santa? You have knowledge of santa but are either a child who still believes in santa, gnostic or an adult who does not agnostic.

yes you do because there are no set meanings to words and if there are present whatever holy document you have dictating the meanings of words.

If i understand that correctly then yes, we take meaning of words through context and not just common usage.

I'm sorry again there is no official document that defines words. So we have to go with common parlance. There is nothing else.


okay show me your documents that show correct usage

A dictionary is the official definition by common usage. We use words as such which does not mean that we do not also use words with meanings specific to context of the statement.

. again with a lack of prescribed word meanings all we have is common usage. Your definition of atheist turns up nowhere except for in your own mind.

My way of describing atheism is not knew and i have not been the only one to use it. Nor is your point have any real validity. If someone comes up with a an idea you have never heard of before do you then just reject it because you have never heard it.

Soyou are appealing to an authority that doesn't even exist.

What authority can i be using if your claim that the idea has never existed or been used is true?

Right and common usage is how a language is spoken. What you were doing is trying to redefine a word and your reasons are really kind of stupid. And I'm here to tell you that's not happening

Hate to tell you this but iut happens all the time.
how many words enter the english language each year | Bookshelf

The GLM estimates that in the modern world a new word is created every 98 minutes. Each year, an estimated 800 to 1,000 new words are added to English language dictionaries (in the 20th century alone, more than 90,000 words have been added). Editors of the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), to be completed by 2037, estimate that the rate of inclusion of new words into the OED are about 4,000 per year. In 2014, the OED added more than 2,500 new words.

 

[OlNate]

I doubt banning the bible is much of a solution to anything. So, I would oppose that.

Cool cool, thank you very much.

Now maybe you can help me with something that I've been to embarrassed to ask in the two years I've been here... How does one post a gif in their post? lol... It matters, in order to fulfill my promise of sharing my response... :lol:

 

[OlNate]

Really! Then how did you arrive at it? Did you just decide without thought on the spur of the moment?


I would point out as i have with another. Look up the word altruistic. It gives the common usage but that is the wrong definition that was rejected even by comte who coined the word in the first place.


So what you are saying is that their might be a god but you choose to lack any belief in that?



So when asked why you lack a belief the best you can do is shrug your shoulders and say,"I dunno."



No, you fail to make the distinction. (a)gnosticism is about knowledge of god and not a lack of or a belief in a god. Remember the example of santa? You have knowledge of god but are either a child who still believes in santa,gnostic or an adult who does not agnostic.


If i understand that correctly then yes, we take meaning of words through context and not just common usage.




A dictionary is the official definition by common usage. We use words as such which does not mean that we do not also use words with meanings specific to context of the statement.


My way of describing atheism is not knew and i have not been the only one to use it. Nor is your point have any real validity. If someone comes up with a an idea you have never heard of before do you then just reject it because you have never heard it.


What authority can i be using if your claim that the idea has never existed or been used is true?



Hate to tell you this but iut happens all the time.
how many words enter the english language each year | Bookshelf

Hi, Soylent.

Per the OP, this is not a thread about the existence of God. There are lots of those. Are you able to please not derail the thread?

 

[calamity]

Cool cool, thank you very much.

Now maybe you can help me with something that I've been to embarrassed to ask in the two years I've been here... How does one post a gif in their post? lol... It matters, in order to fulfill my promise of sharing my response... :lol:

Find a gif and post it like you would any other image. See below.