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?

Bertrand - welcome to what I realised when I was 14 and was told that because I willfully refused to believe - because I could not - I was condemned to burn in Hell for all eternity...that many of those that have religious faith, at bottom, consider those that do not have faith both dangerous and worthless.

But there are plenty of rational arguments for the existence of God. I'm not saying that every religious person has engaged with them, but some of the greatest philosophers have presented entirely rational arguments for the existence of god.

Personally, I'm an atheist, but I know that actually we can't know categorically one way or the other. The reason I would say I'm an atheist rather than an agnostic is a moral one, in that I do not believe in lesser beings worshiping their creators.

The so-called rational arguments for the existence of God are all either a) based on unprovable assumptions or b) tautologous.

Why are they not rational? They are reasononed, and take logical steps.

you don't have to go to every argument to which you are invited

That's a fantastic way to approach life.

"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?"

Because you have posted, I think, 3 times about how angry and combative I am. Your first post was about how "fervent" I am!

I said at least twice that I am not angry or combative but you are just refusing to believe me which seems a very strange way to approach a conversation, to be honest.......

I'm Christian and I've debated with atheists frequently. I never bring up the subject of religion, ever. If asked I am happy to answer any question you throw at me but in a general conversation I do not mention it unless relevant e.g. "What were you doing on Sunday morning?"

People tend to get confused by me though because I'm not a "typical" Christian. I have a strong faith but I'm pro life and pro gay rights. For me personally I would not abort but I don't believe I have any right to make that decision for anyone else. It's the same with gay rights. Who am I to say what someone else does? I don't believe in anyone having less rights than anyone else.

Many people say "but the bible says" then some wish washy bollocks. The bible also says "do not judge" whatever someone else does that's their business and they can take it up with God if they so desire. It's not my place to be judge and jury for someone else's sexuality. It's zero to do with me.

This is the thing I get questioned on the most.

And there you go again.

All the best Bertrand. I hope you get the answers you seek.

And there was I thinking this was a TAAT Bertrand how silly of my to misjudge you. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/2955906-chat-across-the-great-divide

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

Are you sure she wasnt saying this as a joke. Does she have quite a dry sense of humour?

I mentioned I'd had to go to church to one of my mates, his response was "Oh, are you ok? You didn't burst into flames did you?"

"Why are they not rational? They are reasononed, and take logical steps."

Because they all reach a point where reason has to be abandoned and faith takes over. Nothing wrong with that - it's what faith's all about. It's non-intellectual. (Please note use of non, not anti. Lots of things are non intellectual- it's not a criticism.!)

Honestly, it wasn't a joke. But maybe it's time to put that one to bed!

Sorry, gerda- I didn't see it as a problem. I assumed that it was obvious. Report if you like-but it seems a shame.......

C8H I'm also a vegetarian and I completely understand. I was brought up vegetarian so never eaten meat and people asking me rude questions has been going on since I was in infant school. It's usually done in quite a bullying way, and comes from a defensive place, rather than from actually wanting to learn. I think people aren't able to really understand that while logically to not eat meat, I must think that eating meat is wrong, that I can also respect that someone else can come to a different moral conclusion.

Sorry. I said "so-called reasoned" because many people seem to equate reasoned with valid.
The arguments are reasoned in the technical sense, but not valid for the reasons a) and b) I gave.

I think it's partly difficult because many, if not most, atheists have reached their position having been brought up, even if just nominally, in a faith. I spent my childood as a typical tepid C of E suburban girl - Sunday School, church on high days and holidays, assemblies and hymns at school, Church Parade with the Brownies. I was a morbid and romantic child so was equally persuaded by Keats and God. I went through a quite passionate Christian phase in my teens (after horseriding).

There was no one moment of atheistic revelation for me. It was just a gradual realisation which crystallised at some point in my 20s. And once you've 'unseen' religion and God, you can never see it again. So for an atheist who has travelled that road, it's a bit like debating with members of the Flat Earth Society.

I try not to talk about religion now with my religious friends. I'm no longer so romantic and morbid but rather extremely argumentativee and tenacious. It becomes unpleasant for both of us.

I don't actually think it's a believer vs atheist thing. Just two people with differing but entrenched views.

Maybe it's worse with religion because you can't use evidence as an arguement. Lack of evidence will not convince someone who believes not to. And if you don't believe you can't be reasoned into it in a discussion.
Derren Brown might be able to do it by forcing a false conversion experience on you but reasoned arguement isn't going to cut it.

This is why I don't get into debates on religion in real life. I'm pissed off why if impacts my choice of school place for my kids (etc). But in general I run along with most people pretty well regardless of faith.

Sorry again so-called rational was what I originally said, and meant to write in my last post.

Bertrand I think following a religion does require faith, and many would say that doubt is an essential aspect (rather than sensory evidence or blind faith) as it calls for the leap of faith. However, theism just as the idea that the universe has a creator doesn't necessarily call for this in my opinion.

"However, theism just as the idea that the universe has a creator doesn't necessarily call for this in my opinion."

That's interesting. Can you say why not?

Sometimes it is about perspective. There was a children's book about two monsters who argue over where the sun sets and rises.

For theists, their perspective involves God. It underpins language, and colours everything they see. When they speak that is there. If you find that offensive as an atheist, then it is pretty much impossible for you to have meaningful communicaction.

Well actually, I'm so out of the habit of philosophical debate I might not be able to! All I really mean, is when talking as an atheist to a Christian, we're talking about a lot more than the existence of a creator. It's a particular creator that they have a different idea of to me. And when we talk about the existence of a creator, we then jump to a particular one and religious beliefs based around the Bible, and the question becomes too wide.

I don't think any theist arguments conclusively prove the existence of god, far far from it, it I also don't think there is proof of an absence of god. I think scientific knowledge has an alternative creation narrative, and doesn't even investigate the question of god, which is exactly as I like it, as I think god is philosophy and should stay there.

I think that a lot of the time we take the approach that because, say, Aquinas' 5 ways offer no conclusive proof, that that proves non-existence, or that they are logically inconsistent throughout, which I don't agree with. I would say that is similar to saying that not being able to prove someone guilty confirms their innocence.

As an atheist I agree with their answer, just not their working.

However, while I find all this very interesting, it's probably not very helpful to your initial question. As I said upthread, I'm a vegetarian for moral reasons, but can't imagine ever saying 'what can you expect, he eats meat' about anyone. I don't think religious beliefs are any more valid than my secular ones, so I dare say I hold my beliefs as sacred as your friend does so the comparison is valid for me.

Your choice of words is interesting. Lord knows I've been patronised by atheists! And I sometimes get exasperated too.

Although I can certainly see that my position (it is irrational, I just don't seem to be able to stop believing however many questions I ask) must be infuriating.

I recently had a conversation with a person I consider to be a friend, albeit a fairly new one. During the conversation she said to me "Ah so you are an atheist? I never knew that!"

It jarred. Firstly because I don't feel that I need to label myself as something other than. I am not a Christian or a member of any other religion. Why does not being something have to have a name?

Secondly because it felt like some kind of accusation that I did not fully disclose something from the beginning. When actually the only reason she didn't know is that I was totally respectful of her beliefs to the point that I didn't feel the need to discuss my own. We are each our own person after all.

Even writing this post has raised a question I didn't know I needed to ask about the labels associated with not believing.

Interesting. I feel like I need to think about this a bit.