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?

"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."

Of course it does. But is there a way of talking about it that doesn't involve implying that non theists are also coloured by it? Does that make sense?

That makes complete sense, and I think it's a massive hurdle.

The design narrative is almost inescapable when talking about anything in nature. 'The human eye is designed to...' when it isn't, wasn't, it just does.

why does not being something have to have a name

Interesting. I thought that atheism was something- a firm belief that there is no god. Is that not the case for most atheists?

"The design narrative is almost inescapable when talking about anything in nature. 'The human eye is designed to...' when it isn't, wasn't, it just does."

Yes- we all say that things like that, however hard we try not to. It just shows how powerful language is and how careful we have to be with it.

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

Yes of course. I used the words that seemed to me to characterize a lot of the debate. Other opinions are, of course, available!

No because the only reason people want a discussion is to convince others that they are wrong. In the absence of proof either way the closest way to feel "correct" is to get others to agree with you.

Most people don't enter the discussion and then come away saying "I've seen the light, I was lost thank you for bringing me to god" or "how foolish I've been, it's obvious there's no god, thank you for freeing me" but people still insist on banging on and on, page after page about how "ignorant" the others are.

I'm not sure the emphasis on rational versus irrational is that helpful.

Are we inherently rational, really? In some ways, yes - but I don't think we're driven by rational impulses.

What is the rational basis for being moved by beauty in art, or in nature? I just think we're misrepresentating ourselves if we insist our belief system must have pure reason at its core.

I like intellectual and non intellectual. No value judgement- they are both equally inortant mental processes.

Our differing perspectives certainly influence our analysis of the debate. As you say language is powerful. In asking whether debate between theists and atheists can have a reasoned debate while using what I would characterise as unsympathetic words for one group and sympathetic for the other.

Oops, middle sentence went a bit is wrong there, sorry. Distracted!

"using what I would characterise as unsympathetic words for one group and sympathetic for the other."

Sorry, I didn't mean to do that.

But is there a way of talking about it that doesn't involve implying that non theists are also coloured by it

I don't think so! I can recognise you interpret what you see differently, I can't interpret what I see differently because you are in it, IYSWIM. So God made the world (random simplified example), including the bit you are standing on.

I'm not a creationist. If I were and said to you 'Well you may have evolved, but I was created', that wouldn't stop you thinking I evolved too, would it? Though you might think I hadn't evolved far enough!

I'm sure you didn't. But it's interesting that you did, in the context of your question.

YABU OP. I have had many interesting and enlightening conversations with people of different faiths and none, coming from both the perspective of an atheist and a believer.

I think however that some conditions are necessary.

1. Neither is trying to "convert" the other.
2. Each actually hears what the other person is saying and addresses that.
3. If your old teacher/a friend/ your auntie Mabel has said something that annoys you, you are not going to rectify that with someone who is not your teacher/friend/auntie Mabel, just because they share a belief system.
4. If someone makes a statement about themselves, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are making a statement about you. If X says that their moral compass comes from their parents, it doesn't mean that they are saying that those orphaned at an early age have no moral compass.
5. Apply self awareness and critical thinking. IME, too many people think that Critical Thinking is something to be applied to those whose views they disagree with, but not themselves.
6. Be honest with yourself! Why are you engaging in this discussion? If it is to convert, project your feelings about someone else, tell them they're doing it all wrong, or simply enjoy pissing off people who believe differently, then of course it will end with dissatisfaction or anger.
7. Accept that you are talking to a real person, who, like yourself is mostly doing their best with life.
8. Remember we have more in common than that which divides us.

OP, speak to your friend. Perhaps she was being ironic, maybe it was a case of Foot in Mouth, maybe she really does think that you lack morals. You'll never know until you bring it up with her. Good luck.

Trying to list good, non judgemental words for the discussion: experiential, concrete, spiritual, rational...

Oops, too many 6s and no 8. I'm on my phone.

"I'm sure you didn't. But it's interesting that you did, in the context of your question."

Fair enough. I don't think of exasperated and angry as positive/sympathetic words, but I see your point.

"Trying to list good, non judgemental words for the discussion: experiential, concrete, spiritual, rational.."

I don't like rational in this context- simply because non rational and irrational are both usually negatives.

Interesting. I thought that atheism was something- a firm belief that there is no god. Is that not the case for most atheists?

This makes sense. I suppose being an atheist is the exact opposite of being a theist.

Therefore I am not an atheist either. And I am not agnostic because I am not in confusion over my beliefs.

I just am and my beliefs just are is what I conclude. Because even saying that I am nothing implies that there is something....an alternative.

And now I am walking myself around in circles.

Taken alone, I would agree. But set against patronising and defensive, which they were, they seem reasonable responses.

But anyway... I use irrational in the context of my own faith because when I ask myself how I can possibly believe, I have no answer.

I tend to be able to as my belief literally just is "I believe in God". I don't particularly adhere to any religion, i don't take the Bible literally and will happily debate or point out the inconsistencies in it.
I've only had arguments when people that don't believe went out of their way to make me stop believing or pointed out how absurd it is that someone as rational as me can believe in God. I don't see how what I believe and don't preach,promote or even particularly announce it(I only tell when I'm asked) affects them or changes who I am as a person.

An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So, if you don't have a belief in God, even if you don't feel particularly passionate or committed to that non-belief, you are an atheist.

IMO the reason atheists get so passionate is because a lot of them have suffered at the hand of religion. And for many of them that is one of the reasons why they're atheists.

It's not like it's some quaint little folkloric tale from the past that has no effect on us. Our values and judgements come from either religious childhoods or a religious infused society.

It's not harmless.

The euphoria of being free from religious guilt combined with resentment that one was made to feel guilty in the first place makes some atheists quite zealous.

Of course, my son and lots of my friends are atheists, I'm pagan. I don't argue with any of them, not even my christian friends. It just doesn't happen.
Mind you if I'm meeting a christian friend I don't go on and on about my own religion, it's just plain rude.

'I think it depends on the individuals involved'

This ^ with bells on.

Doesn't matter whether its religion, politics, feminism or even infant nutrition it is the individuals total inability to debate in a balanced way without derogatory comments that is the problem, not the topic.

Sadly lack of self awareness is rampant irl too not just mn.