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?

The thing that offends me the most is when Christians and other religious people believe that atheists can't have a moral code without a God.

I think this is because atheism doesn't have a written guide or book, its not an organised 'thing' (so while many atheists may have a very strong moral code, it is more of a personal thing, and could vary wildly). So theists may confuse rejection of the belief in god, with rejection of all their religion means for them (which includes a kind of moral code).

"It doesn't Bertrand.

It just means she and you had a discussion but at the end of the day she didn't agree with you."

I don't understand. We were talking about the behaviour of a teacher that we both considered wrong. Religion wasn't part the conversation at all- until she said, basically, "Well, what can you expect? He's an atheist" It wasn't a case of her disagreeing with me!

I think the only rational debate possible is between agnostics tbh.

I find all versions of theism (mono, pan, poly, a) to be much the same.

But she does Bertrand. She believes religion informs moral code. You don't.

Therefore you disagree.

See?

I've had good discussions in the past - on MN even - with theists. I find that these are most likely to occur when the participants are all philosophically agnostic i.e. accept that it's impossible to absolutely prove or disprove a deity, and therefore it's down to faith. The people I'm thinking of know that this is not 'rational'. I used to be a Christian so can understand that. I'm pretty sure none of the people I'm thinking of would have come up with that 'godless atheist' comment.

sunny - but it sounds as though in previous discussions the friend had apparently not had that attitude Which means that all the conversations we have previously had about morals and stuff must have been completely false. That's why the OP was so taken aback, I think?

But she can say I see what you're saying and yes perhaps - and then go away and think about it. Or perhaps she was mmmm and uhuh and mmm ?

I just couldn't find it in me to get my knickers in a knot about that kind of comment. I'd shrug and let it go.

As I said. Don't have to attend every argument.

"But she does Bertrand. She believes religion informs moral code. You don't."

But we have talked in the past about morality-we've been friends a long time. It didn't cross my mind-and she has never said anything to suggest- that she thinks my moral code is lacking or absent. It was shocking to hear it so starkly set out.

She's not saying that your personal moral code is lacking.

Or at least. That's not how I would take it.

Why be so combative? It must be exhausting.

"Why be so combative?"

Sorry- I''m genuinely not being. Or at least I don't think I am being.

Bertrand, I wouldn't even take a comment like that under my notice. I'd just file it under "opened mouth without thinking" - especially from a good friend who you know wouldn't want to offend or upset you.

You seem as if it's shaken your view of her to the core.

And I wanted to put a nice smile on that but the smile on here is used so passive aggressively I was worried you'd take it the wrong way.

She's not saying that your personal moral code is lacking.

She might not have meant that, but it is the logical implication.
The reversed analogy is if they'd discussed some wrongdoing by a religious person and the OP had said something like, 'well, thats what happens if you have to get your morals from an old book'.

Oh I get that Errol.

It just wouldn't have fizzed on me. I'd have mentally filed it under "I know she doesn't mean that the way it came out"

"You seem as if it's shaken your view of her to the core."

No. it's shaken my view of what she thinks of me.

Incidentally, even if she did open her mouth without thinking, what other interpretation could you put on what she said?

People have to be taught critical thinking skills and how to debate without rancour. And we dont seem to think its important to teach that.

Did she actually say "well he's a Godless Atheist" in those words? If I heard Godless Atheist as a phrase ( with capital letters!) I'd assume that was ironical/ a joke,and in air quotes... - particularly if you had talked a lot about moral codes etc in the past.
If she said "well what do you expect,he's an atheist' - even that could be aimed at being an friendly dig between friends now I type it .
Though possibly reflecting underlying belief.Some of my Christian friends believe that good / bad are meaningless without the underlying idea of God as the originator.Not sure if they think atheists don't have a moral code but they do think that without God as the source what do you base a moral code on? And so it's meaningless.
Interesting philosophical question.

Actually,Bertrand - have reread your post about what she said and think I've misunderstood you - sorry.

I would think she meant no offence and just shrug.

But you seem to be getting angry with me and I appear to have annoyed you with my comments so I'll just leave it at this point. 😊 (Not meant passive aggressive)

As you know from our previous conversation, there seems to be a big gap in perception where each reads things which are not there. No matter how I tried to explain that I wasn't saying what you were reading, you and a couple of others couldn't see that. I'm not saying it was your fault, just a communication mismatch which made talking further pointless, particularly in the context we were in. I certainly got frustrated and found it hard to stay polite, so left.

I have never met anyone who thinks people without faith have no moral code. I have met people who don't want to know me because I go to church.

I have met people with appalling morals.
I have met people who are spiritually bankrupt.
I do not associate that with their faith or lack of it.

My friends are of all kinds of belief.

"But you seem to be getting angry with me and I appear to have annoyed you with my comments so I'll just leave it at this point."

I'm really, really not! I am not even slightly angry or combative - although you seen very keen for me to be!

But would you really have just shrugged if it had been a faith school and I had said "What do you expect from a Christian?"

"Well, what can you expect? He's an atheist"

I might say something like this. I might also substitute "fundie" for atheist. I'd be being ironic and would only use that phrasing with someone I knew well because I've learned from bitter experience that irony without supporting gestures is often missed.

To answer the original question - its down to the individuals. I know some staggeringly patronising atheists (defend the right to discriminate against non atheists in the work place on grounds of their stupidity etc). I know some wildly exasperated religious.

In a nutshell, all atheists are amoral and all theists as stupid. Now everyone is outraged.

Yes this is my experience of most online discussions which is why although I find the subject fascinating I rarely discuss it online.

I also find it frustrating to ignore the wider perspective and distill all discussion to 'sky fairies' vs 'rationalism'. Religions are not just about god(s) - there are plenty of atheists/agnostics on the pews of churches, temples and synagogues.

Yes Bertrand I would. If it was a good friend who I knew wouldn't want to offend me.

The most I might have said was "oi. I'm one of those godlessness atheists" with a laugh.

You are coming across to me as very combative because I don't share your view. I feel attacked by you, even when I'm trying to be as pleasant as possible and phrase things is as non-argumentative a way as possible. You're like a dog with a bone and it makes me feel anxious even over typed words the way you are coming back and back at me.

We have a different view. If I was you I would either accept it and let it go, or if I was going to challenge it I would do so in a much less combative way.

YOu got a dig in at me "even though you seem very keen for me to be" - why did you feel the need to do that? Why didn't you just say "I'm really really trying not to be" and stop there? Why did you need to throw out the attack at me?

If you can look to yourself for the answer to that question, you might find the answer to the one you're asking here.

I would love to discuss it.
Nobody wants their fragile belief system to be questioned.

If you start from the position that you are right and they are wrong what is there to discuss? Maybe they don't discuss with any evangelists of the believing or non believing type?

I'm a vegetarian. People often ask me about it - I try to answer questions and if people actually want info I provide it willingly.
However quite often they have no real interest in me they just want me to accept that somehow I'm wrong and they are right. I can't be arsed - I don't go out socially to spend an evening defending my dietary habits. I don't tell them how to eat, its bloody rude for them to keep on about it. They will interpret my lack of engagement as 'being afraid'.

I know some of my religious friends feel exactly this way when atheists want to 'discuss' but from the starting assumption that they are stupid or have a fragile belief system and are afraid to be challenged.