Is it possible for atheists and theists to discuss their world views without one ooh t of view or the other feeling anything along a scale from dissatisfied to furious?

[BertrandRussell]

Theists get patronising, then defensive, atheists get exasperated, then angry. Is there another way? Or is it just completely impossible and not even worth trying?

Atheists are way more patronising and often appear much more evangelical about their non-belief than people of faith whatever that may be. E.g. Comparing god/Jesus to Santa the easter bunny etc. V rarely see people of faith making such derogatory comments on here maybe because rightly or wrongly they have a certainty in their belief whereas many posts from atheists seem to reflect an insecurity and they can't post without making some offensive comments

Max- have you read the thread?

Madhairy- I think for me it comes back to the (simplistic, I know) point that if there is an infinitely creative artist behind everything, why is my child warm and fed and educated and happy, and another woman's child not? Why is my child not going to die of cholera and another woman's child is?

I understand about free will. I really do. But it's just a cop out, isn't it? A way to attribute everything good to God's grace and everything bad to human agency.

The idea that there is some old guy behind it all pulling the levers is quite sad. Makes our
universe "seem like a sham? ike a film set, wobbly walls included
The idea of God being some "old guy" makes me smile. God is ageless. But apart from that the idea that "the universe would seem like a sham"..... but as a believer i would have to say......there wouldn't be a universe without God, we know the Universe had a beginning, something can't come from nothing.

Bertrands "story of the universe" is lovely for atheists but the "majestic story" is just that, a story. The true majesty of the Universe is only majestic through the glory of God.It always amazes me that the sheer size and magnificence of the universe, the perfect positioning of the sun and moon to sustain life for us here on earth is so taken for granted and accepted. The odds of all that happening by chance are so high as to be impossible. If i was an atheist, if anything at all would make me reconsider i think it would be that.

Anyway i have to go now, i know we'll only go round and round in circles and i don't want to get into arguments, they're pointless and futile.

One of the things I find least appealing about the monotheistic religions is the idea that humans are in some way special and that God has a worked-out plan for us, but not for the other several million species that exist on earth. It seems unlikely, for a start.

I recently read Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens, and one of the things he points out is that there was a time when several species of humans shared the earth. But the rise of homo sapiens led to the other species being wiped out, and one of the questions he asks is whether we would think of ourselves as quite so special if we still had to share the earth with other humans.

I wonder if it's a point that theists ever consider: do you think God favoured homo sapiens over the other human species, and it was part of God's plan for the other humans to be destroyed? Or would it have been better if they'd survived and we'd all had to find a way of peacefully cohabiting?

goldendaisy: "It always amazes me that the sheer size and magnificence of the universe, the perfect positioning of the sun and moon to sustain life for us here on earth is so taken for granted and accepted. The odds of all that happening by chance are so high as to be impossible."

The odds against are high - which is why there are millions of planets in the universe where life doesn't exist.

You have to ask yourself why God would bother creating an enormous universe full of stars and planets just to create life on a single planet.

we know the Universe had a beginning, something can't come from nothing.

That was one of the arguments that ended my faith, ironically. Because there is a logical disconnect between the idea that something as amazing as the universe cannot 'just be', but there is no problem with the idea that something as amazing as God can just be, and has always existed, etc.

The odds of all that happening by chance are so high as to be impossible

You missed the word 'almost' which you need for your statement to be true. That's part of the wonder and joy. The sheer unlikelihood and luck that beings as important to ourselves as us exist. It's the ultimate iteration of the 'what if my gran hadn't laddered her stockings and missed the bus that day? She wouldn't have met Grandad and I wouldn't exist!' way of thinking.

I'm not looking for an argument - but given how heavily I was taken to task earlier in the thread for being too declarative (about values, not the existence/non-existence of gods) I think where this thread has been at its best is where we have all tried to find middle ground and explain our positions and our viewpoints in a mutually respectful way. I thought this sentence Bertrands "story of the universe" is lovely for atheists but the "majestic story" is just that, a story. The true majesty of the Universe is only majestic through the glory of God. was quite patronising and belittling and I had to stop myself from responding more hotly and declaratively myself.

I'm an atheist but I do sort of get why arguments about suffering don't really bother theists. If you believe that you (and others in your religion) will receive a literally never-ending afterlife of perfect bliss in heaven, then your (and their) time on earth is just a brief, insignificant moment.

something can't come from nothing.

Except, in the theistic model, a deity - an entity of infinite intelligence and knowledge and the power to create a universe? Does that really make any sense?

And anyway, physics does seem to allow for 'something from nothing'.

Gerund: "If you believe that you (and others in your religion) will receive a literally never-ending afterlife of perfect bliss in heaven, then your (and their) time on earth is just a brief, insignificant moment."

In theory, yes, but it does make you wonder why religious people then get so het up by things like the right-to-die. If you really believe that time on earth is a brief and insignificant moment, why would you be so obsessed with prolonging the suffering of people at the end of life?

"In theory, yes, but it does make you wonder why religious people then get so het up by things like the right-to-die."
Because only God has the power of life and deat. Jesus said on the cross "Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I wilt but as thou wilt"

Having a religious belief is perfectly rational. Although irrational people can hold them, so too can irrational people be atheists!

I can understand the OP's frustration with the comment on morality, but ultimately there is no objectively true standard or proof of secular ethics. For those with a religion there is a framework to hold a set of ethics/morals onto.

It is a bit crass to speak as the OPs friend did, as it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and hold to a set of subjective moral/ethical behaviours (and in fact behave better and with more compassion than some religious folk do).

Where people come unstuck and civility goes out the window is usually from a failure to define faith properly. Plenty of those who have a belief try to deconstruct it and reason other people into why they should have it. This isn't really helpful as its not really possible without committing usually pretty fundemental mistakes (like circular reasoning).

When we discuss these things we need to be respectful of why other people do or do not believe as its remarkably easy to dismiss and upset something pretty fundemental to the other person.

BertrandRussell: "Because only God has the power of life and death."

But even religious people don't really believe that, otherwise they wouldn't bother with life-saving measures such as medicines and vaccines.

Yes, absolutely it's possible. The trouble is that with both religion and atheism, there tends to be a proportional relationship between the ignorance of the discussant and the certainty they bring to their side of the topic. When both sides treat a discussion as a conversion opportunity, little that advances the debate beyond the most basic of arguments is likely to result.

"Having a religious belief is perfectly rational"

It isn't, you know. That's not a criticism. It's just that religious belief is, practically by definition, non rational.

but ultimately there is no objectively true standard or proof of secular ethics. For those with a religion there is a framework to hold a set of ethics/morals onto.

There isn't an 'objectively true standard' for religiously-based ethics either, though, is there? Different people within the same religion, based on the same scriptures and traditions can come to widely different conclusions about various aspects of morality and ethics. If you look at the history of the CofE, it seems characterised by adapting (eventually) to align with secular ethics. Other christian denominations adapt more quickly or not at all.

Having a religious belief correlates with better outcomes with mental health issues amongst other things, so it's not in least bit irrational to turn to a belief for the strength and mental fortitude it provides.

If you don't need one more power to you, but the data indiciates people are better off if they do. Note that I'm talking having a faith, and am making no claim that one religion is better than any other.

In addition I am also aware correlation does not prove causation, nevertheless this is enough for people to have a clear, practical and rational cause to seek out and maintain a faith of some kind.

You are absolutely right Errol, but for those who have faith the presence of a higher power like a god, or a metaphysical set of spiritual laws like in Buddhism provides a source for those ethical/moral standards.

Having a religious belief correlates with better outcomes with mental health issues amongst other things, so it's not in least bit irrational to turn to a belief for the strength and mental fortitude it provides.

But that doesn't make the actual belief In x deity rational, does it - rather than the act of belief having a positive impact. Not all of those individual beliefs can be rational as they are sometimes in direct opposition with each other. The act of believing can be rational, but only in the context of 'I have decided to believe in a deity because believing in a deity will have positive outcomes for my health and wellbeing'. Which I think is a bit reductive and does a disservice to the nature of belief for many people of faith?

Well, I can see what side of the fence you're on from your OP, Bertrand.

Perhaps your problem lies partly in your depiction of theists as being first patronising then defensive. Personally (I'm an agnostic - pretty sure there's no god. There doesn't need to be one to explain the universe) I've not met any patronising theists. I've got good pals who are evangelical Christians and they hardly talk about their faith at all unless I ask them about it. I respect their faith. I'm from a large Catholic family and I respect their faith too, though I don't envy them their struggle to reconcile it with the institutional abuse within the Catholic Church.

I'm interested in why people believe the things they do, without needing to tell them that they're wrong. So in answer to your OP, yes it's possible to discuss world views without getting into an argument. You just have to try not to be a dick about it.

Not RTFT, but YABU to expect anything other than opposed views.

YA also BU to asrcribe defensiveness and patronising attitudes to one and exasperated and angry to another. What on earth made you think any one was the natural position of either party?

Hasn't there been some Science into a religiosity gene?

Here's a theory. The ones who inevitably get into very heated arguments are those with two genes for religiosity (very religious tendencies) and those completely lacking (atheist). Folks who have inherited only one gene for religiosity are CofE agnostic or mild of faith and can chat quite happily about it all over tea and biscuits before moving on to the weather.

(Atheist here btw but I wish I did believe that I would see lost loved ones again )

" You just have to try not to be a dick about it."

Might I suggest you read the thread? No problem with joining in, of course-all opinions welcome.You just have to try not to be a dick about it........

but for those who have faith the presence of a higher power like a god, or a metaphysical set of spiritual laws like in Buddhism provides a source for those ethical/moral standards.

That can go horribly wrong though, if - probably mostly through chance of when and where you were born - the religion you believe in has 'morality' which persecutes homosexuals, discriminates against women etc

JassyRadlett I'm not making the claim that belief in x(specific diety) is rational, nor making the case for any one particular religion. I am making a case for the act of having faith itself, and in particular that act is by itself rational.

And it might do a disservice to people of a particularly fundamentalist bent, but I am not particularly ill disposed to challanging such people. Also it is worth getting away from speaking only in terms of deities as plenty of religions get by without them, and that would be being reductive.