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?

"Christian values" have changed a lot over the centuries.

And, forgive me, but we do seem to be getting back to everything good is down to God even if atheists do it?

Am I a kind and empathetic person because I once attended Sunday school (where I was bullied) or is it just something I was born with and later chose?

In my life I chose to attend church occasionally with my parents despite having an absence of belief (thanks to PP who said this...I can't help but continue to use it) because I felt that the values of their church aligned with my own and it pleased them for me to do so. My values were there first though, a conscious choice and consideration, before church was ever involved.

Incidentally, it could be suggested that I live my life in a far more "Christian" way than quite a few of the Christians I know.

I think it depends on the personalities of the people arguing/debating.
I love a good argument (studied politics at uni) and don't tend to take things personally...so if you told me my belief in God was irrational I wouldn't get annoyed/offended.

I think it also needs a bit of self awareness....I know which of my friends enjoy a good debate about politics/religion etc. and which ones would get huffy...so I talk about different things with them.

so if you told me my belief in God was irrational I wouldn't get annoyed/offended.

Surely it's inherently irrational?

I just object when people take that a step further and infer I am stupid.

And, forgive me, but we do seem to be getting back to everything good is down to God even if atheists do it?

I think that this is one of those areas of language where Christians and atheists use the same words but with different meanings and associations and get cross with each other.

When I was an atheist, I would hear someone talk about a non-Christian doing God's work, or being an agent of God, or, worst of all, being moved by God without realising it. What I heard was people being incredibly patronising by declaring me nearly as hood as a proper good Christian person and denying my agency over my own moral choices by claiming that my own ethical behaviour was due to the intervention of a supernatural creature.

Now that I'm a Christian, I realise that in the vast majority of cases when I talk about God, I could reasonably substitute a phrase along the lines of 'perfect love and justice' and that begat those patron sizing

Oh can I join. I k ow exactly the point at which I cognitively understood there was no God. I was 7. And refused to pray from then on.....and refused to sing hymns

I thank my little 10 year old neighbour who also made me question monarchy bless her and no her family was on no way radical. Miss you x

Sorry, my phone is extremely temperamental.

...what those patronising Christians were actually trying to say was that Christians don't have a monopoly on acting with love and justice. But their concept of God was so entwined with their concept of love and justice that didn't really think of them as discrete concepts, and didn't realise that they thought they were talking about love but they were actually conveying a very different meaning to the people listening.

Listen to Unbelievable show theists and atheists debating cordially. www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable

It has certainly been my experience in RL but on MN it seems a lot harder.

And tbh the fact that your very first sentence is couched in language that suggests that the atheists' reaction is a justified reaction to the unreasonableness of the theists is not terribly promising. Ime this is not how balanced discussions start.

I have always been accepting of others views and interested in their beliefs. As long as there's a mutual view of agreeing to disagree or acceptance of difference its all ok

But re the comment which led to your initial reaction I would not consider this a very Christian way of thinking. In the Bible we are constantly warned against the arrogance of thinking that just because we are believers we have some kind of monopoly on goodness (or as one might put it in religious terms, on the kind of behaviour that pleases God). The good Samaritan, Ruth the Moabitess - they are good people and not just because of some natural good humoured tendency: they make a conscious decision to do good under very difficult circumstances. To believe that this conscious choice is the prerogative of Christians I would have to stop reading the Bible. I'd also have to stop looking around me in the world I live in. I know there are people who do far more good than I do and who are better people and who are not Christians. My job is not to try to prove that I am better than them on some kind of cosmic scale. That is not something that interests me and I don't really believe it interests God either. My job is to be the best I can in the circumstances in which I have been placed.

I've had many great theological conversations with people of lots of different religious orientations - but my experience is that they only work when both sides are coming from a place of being genuinely interested in each other's position as opposed to having an investment in the outcome of the conversation or an agenda.

One thing I do find frustrating is when someone who identifies as religious' beliefs are automatically considered more important than the beliefs of someone who identifies as an atheist because it's their "faith" as if that's somehow a trump card over someone's long held and well considered core values. But then that's a bit of a hot button for me because of the dynamics with my very religious and not particularly tolerant in-laws - so it's quite possible that I'm over generalising based on my personal experience there.

*Christian values" have changed a lot over the centuries.

And, forgive me, but we do seem to be getting back to everything good is down to God even if atheists do it?*

Two things here- that conversation about the source of Christian values came as a response to a complaint from a pp that I can't find now. The conversation was specifically about our western ethical framework being shaped by Christianity. There are other valid frameworks. We tend to go with the one demonstrated by Jesus, although ours tend to be a weak reflection of it. Church and society have, over the years, lost sight of the radical expectations of Jesus in the New Testament and replaced it with a stuffy patriarchal morality. That's a degradation of the message.

That is not the same as saying all good things come from God. Theists may think that, but it is a separate issue from the Christian values thing.

Is there a confusion about nouns and adjectives as well? So someone behaving in a way which is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus would be showing christian behaviour, even if not Christian. It's just an adjective, not a declaration. It doesn't mean it's down to God, linguistically speaking, it means it's a bit like God.

So someone behaving in a way which is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus would be showing christian behaviour, even if not Christian.

I think that's still massively problematic because there really isn't really any way to divorce what you might describe as the small-c adjective from the capital-C adjective and noun and all the stuff that goes with that, which many of us find problematic.

Why do those values and behaviours need a description that allies to a particular religious tradition? Why do they need to be 'claimed'?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree that those values were unique to or somehow derived from Christ and Christianity; I think the evidence is pretty strong that they aren't and didn't (and there is also, as Bertrand says, the fact that the values embraced as 'Christian' change greatly over time, and Christianity trails behind the prevailing cultural idea of morality at least as often in history as it has been seen to lead).

Jassy I think, 'agreeing to disagree' is often really key here.

I mean, the source of goodness? How can that ever be established through logic/reason/science? People would not even get past defining terms.

Yes, religious faith, has a perspective on this. But then there are also many non religious perspectives too. None are really past the belief stage.

I think beliefs and exploring them is important. This often provides the impetus for more scientific exploration and learning. Without beliefs I think life would get very boring. Denying opportunity to believe feels controlling. Expressing belief is not controlling unless it is done in a way that denies others the opportunity to hold their own beliefs. Law is concerned with actions not thoughts and I think this is important.

I mean, the source of goodness? How can that ever be established through logic/reason/science? People would not even get past defining terms.

I don't think I'm suggesting it can? More that the idea that what are currently described as Christian/Western values (if actually disagree that the two are interchangeable) are uniquely Christian or derived from Christianity doesn't really stand up - and as such non-Christians are likely to feel alienated and 'othered' when people say 'ah, but this country was built on Christian values of kindness, tolerance, etc' as I've seen many times on MN.

I think beliefs and exploring them is important. This often provides the impetus for more scientific exploration and learning. Without beliefs I think life would get very boring. Denying opportunity to believe feels controlling. Expressing belief is not controlling unless it is done in a way that denies others the opportunity to hold their own beliefs.

I'm a little confused by what this paragraph is addressing. Is it challenging the idea of uniquely Christian values? I don't think this falls into the same category as belief in the Christian god, where I wouldn't challenge someone's belief unless they were trying to impose their belief on me, either directly or via policy, or if they were trying to claim factual/historical evidence for the existence of God.

I don't think anyone is 'denying opportunity to believe'? I agree that would be controlling.

Can I ask what "denying the opportunity to believe" means?

I just don't feel a need to discuss my world views. I am no longer interested in debates or, if I'm being honest but not proud about it, other people's differing opinions. You do your stuff and I'll do my stuff and let's not hurt or offend one another. Simple.

Dudsville-that's fine, so long as your beliefs don't impinge on my life. Even in a tolerant country like the U.K. they do. And obviously much more in other countries.

Jassy,

"but this country was built on Christian values of kindness, tolerance, etc' as I've seen many times on MN."

In a Venn diagram, personally, I view values perceived as Christian ones, overlap with many values non religious people hold. The history of this country is largely Christian, this cannot be denied - thus the values of Christian people are implicit within many of this country's laws. This does not mean other non Christian people do not hold the same values, or that these values are exclusively Christian. Rather it is a reference to this country's heritage. As I see it, anyway. This should not be used to 'alienate' in anyway though.

"I'm a little confused by what this paragraph is addressing. Is it challenging the idea of uniquely Christian values? I don't think this falls into the same category as belief in the Christian god, where I wouldn't challenge someone's belief unless they were trying to impose their belief on me, either directly or via policy, or if they were trying to claim factual/historical evidence for the existence of God."

I made the statement in reference to where you said this,

"I think we'll have to agree to disagree that those values were unique to or somehow derived from Christ and Christianity; I think the evidence is pretty strong that they aren't and didn't (and there is also, as Bertrand says, the fact that the values embraced as 'Christian' change greatly over time, and Christianity trails behind the prevailing cultural idea of morality at least as often in history as it has been seen to lead)."

It was not intended to challenge what you say re. 'Agreeing to disagree' but rather the way you portray an argument concerning the source of goodness/morality. You refer to 'evidence' regarding development of these values, suggesting you are right according to the available facts. It is not something that, I believe, can be proved. The evidence is too scant, with too many variables, to be presented in anyway that 'trumps' religious belief, IMO. But since that puts this (your argument) in the realms of belief there is nothing to really comment on unless you are portraying this as an established fact.

Bertrand, denying the opportunity to believe, whilst being in some ways rather impossible, no one can stop people believing as they do, in my mind includes a non-acceptance of people being free to hold their own beliefs and any resulting action taken on people for simply holding a belief rather than what they have actually done.

'so long as your beliefs don't impinge on my life. Even in a tolerant country like the U.K. they do. And obviously much more in other countries.'

It is life though that in a diverse, inclusive society other peoples beliefs and ways of life will impinge on ours. From living near a mosque and hearing calls to prayer 5 times a day, to halal meat being served without actually asking for it, to allowing others to dress and express themselves that some, not you, may find 'impinges' on them.

I get that your 'impinge on your life' argument is specifically regarding faith schools and bishops in the HoL, however this is a historical system that has been said repeatedly on mn needs reviewing and updating. I don't know anyone of faith who thinks they have a right to preferential treatment re school admissions, but while an archaic system is in place they will use it.

Barring faith schools, brief prayers in school and bishops in the HoL can you give any other examples of how the beliefs of people of faith impinges on you?

"Barring faith schools, brief prayers in school and bishops in the HoL can you give any other examples of how the beliefs of people of faith impinges on you?"

I think those are pretty important, don't you?

"in my mind includes a non-acceptance of people being free to hold their own beliefs and any resulting action taken on people for simply holding a belief rather than what they have actually done."

I don't think anyone on here would disagree with that! Do you think it's happening in this country?

"I don't know anyone of faith who thinks they have a right to preferential treatment re school admissions, but while an archaic system is in place they will use it."

Really? Gosh. If that's true, it doesn't show people of faith in a very good light, does it?