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?

I did read the thread, Bertrand.

People who know why they genuinely believe what they believe don't get angry because someone has a different opinion. People who believe things without knowing why tend to get emotional and angry because someone is challenging their belief and they can't reason against them.

Does that extend to other areas of life and dispute though? I mean, I tend to get very irritable and vociferous when I know that what I am saying is right - if I really know something that is factually provable and someone is arguing against it, I will get very insistent. So I don't see that it's true that people only get angry or insulting if they are on shaky ground. Obviously that doesn't apply to religion, as no one really knows they're right, however near certainty they are.

he 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.

Ha ha- the idea of the perfect puddle.

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.

The title of this thread is specifically 'theists' and 'atheists' though. The only non-theistic religion I'm aware of is Buddhism - would be very interested to know about others. IME the tensions which can exist between atheists and theists are much less likely to occur between Buddhists and others. I know sceptical, scientific type atheists who will happily study buddhism and practice meditation, and I think there are some Christians who do likewise. It can be engaged with as something you do and think about, rather than necessitating any particular belief, IYSWIM. Another significant difference (as I understand it) is that the teachings of the Buddha aren't 'scripture' in the same way as the Bible or the Koran.

Going back a bit, Bertrand you asked me if I thought free will was just a cop out. I understand how it can seem like that, almost like saying 'oh, we don't really get suffering, we can't really reconcile it, so.... free will.' Yep. I cringe at it myself (we theists can laugh at ourselves.)

However, there's a lot more to freedom than a convenient explanation for the fact that there is evil and suffering in the world. I believe that God created us for good relationship with God and with one another, but that if we could not make choices for the good then it wouldn't really be good at all. It would just be there. Be it. There would be a world without extremes, without the heights of experience as much as the lows, we would be beings of unthinking obedience with no personal autonomy or choice. To create such beings does not appear to me to be the action of a loving creator.

As for cosmological arguments and Jassy's point, I can see what you mean about the argument that if theists say the world must have a cause then so must God. But one position is to say that the universe must have a causal agent because it has a beginning - because it is expanding, and it cannot expand backwards into infinity (as I understand it anyway, I never was much use at physics though do find it fascinating)

God, however, theists would say, does not have a beginning and therefore does not need a causal agent. God is infinite, outside time, with no beginning and end. So one argument does not apply to the other.

However, I am aware of arguments against this argument as well, and continue to read them to educate myself. I wish I had a more scientific bent - luckily my dc have and are heading that way :) I'm too arty farty.

However, cosmological arguments aside, convincing or not, my lived experience is of a loving God. But I do know they are only words, and not enough. But it is what it is.

Jainism is another religion without a concept of a creator deity. It's also interesting that as such the faithful of any religion with no God are technically atheists, but a lot of atheists I know would balk at being lumped in with people who believe in reincarnation.

Jainism is an interesting one as they are hugely big on Ahimsa (which Ghandi was a big proponent of), which is the whole concept of non-violence. Although those of us with western sensibilities will take issue with the idea that men are the apex and closer to perfection, and women must pursue virtue in order to incarnate as men!

Although that view is by no means ubiquitous amongst its adherents and a debate has been raging for awhile on that precise point.

The thing we need to avoid is bigotry and by that I mean a failure to listen to differing viewpoints. I can understand why people believe or don't believe certain things, and unless they are claiming superiority or
Authority over other people who don't believe (or not believe!) as they do I'm golden.

Essentially I'm advocating going beyond tolerance and to actually be able to respect those with different viewpoints. I am not advocating respecting all views that offend your own morals/ethics, as we'll all be able to respect somethings and not others, but figuring out why other people hold them is still worth figuring out.

So is god behind every single act?

Or only the beautiful things?

Say I use a coloured paint on a chair instead of varnish by mistake but it turns out really well- is that god?
If I use cranberry sauce in my cheesecake by mistake instead of raspberry jam and it's delicious- is that god?

Is there no such thing as a happy accident?

Does everything have to be "designed"?

And if everything is designed by god then why would he make the ebola virus? The herpes virus? Or malaria? Or tsunamis? Or earthquakes?

Why would he want to do that?

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.

I think that's really interesting not least because it sets up the act of having faith as a conscious choice rather than the way some describe it which is as having no choice/can't help but believe etc.

It's honestly interesting to me that there are different ways of approaching that and that for some it may be a conscious 'I want to have faith because of x/y/z reasons.'

Yes, I don't think faith is a choice.

Nor is atheism.

I don't choose to be atheist. I couldn't believe in god, it would be impossible for me.

Faith is not entirely dissimilar to Love, an experience may trigger it, but it takes effort and thought to nurture, build and maintain it into something of significance. Those parts are a choice. You might also want to have faith, and with an open mind go forth and search for the truth.

My faith isn't entirely cultural, whilst I was raised a Christian I had a set of experiences of a metaphysical nature when I was younger that led me to more questions. Whilst I could have framed them within a Christian context, I also looked elsewhere and as such I am now a pluralist. Which is to say I believe that no one "faith" has the truth. So I make a study of as many of them as I come across.

If I had not had those experiences I may very well have become an athiest, and in fact crucially an earnest pursuit of truth and knowledge can lead someone to an athiest position, which is just as valid a place to end up as within any particular religion.

My main point is that faith is not necessarily the enemy of reason nor vice versa. Although unfortunately, and often from people who do quite appreciate what faith and reason actually are they become opposed.

Sorry that last part should be "do not quite appreciate".

I really struggled to imagine life without God
It seems like life would be dark and futile and sad.

Most atheists I know would say
"I really struggle to imagine life with God
It seems like life would be subservient and puritanical and boring."

Life is what you make it, live every day like it is your last, savor every moment and don't wait until you die to start living. Because there is no reason to believe there is any such thing as the after life.

Essentially I'm advocating going beyond tolerance and to actually be able to respect those with different viewpoints.

you are advocating relativism.

people can have different view points, but there are certain questions where the evidence and strength of belief aren't commensurate. atheists may seem condescending, but it is only the religious that try to push their beliefs on others. As an atheist, I require absolutely nothing from anyone.

My main point is that faith is not necessarily the enemy of reason nor vice versa.

faith is by definition not reason. to accept something on faith means to not require adequate evidence. that's very irrational.

I don't choose to be atheist. I couldn't believe in god, it would be impossible for me.

i don't really know what this means. I choose to be an atheist. I have thought about and I am not convinced there is a god.

God, however, theists would say, does not have a beginning and therefore does not need a causal agent. God is infinite, outside time, with no beginning and end. So one argument does not apply to the other.

it's a broken argument. If god can break the law that everything has a cause, then not everything has a cause, so there is no such law. if something can break the law, why can't it be the universe?