Can we find common ground?

[strongnrelaxed]

In the last thread I read, I realized that I am frustrated with many of life's challenges because we don't seem to make progress. Rhetoric and heated discussions take place, but I doubt that perspectives change much - at least not right away. So I have a thought.

 

Imagine if Atheists and Theists made a deal in which both sides to a few conditions ( I know that there are more than just two camps here, but one thing at a time).

 

So for example, while I cannot speak for all Atheists, there are a few fallacies that just keep coming up over and over again. If Theists of all persuasions could agree to a few relatively easy things, it would make our conversations more fruitful. To wit:

 

- Theists might agree to stop referring to the bible for answers to scientific phenomena

 

- Atheists could stop being so condescending (not likely)

 

- Theists could stop calling Atheism a "belief"

 

- Theists could back off on blaming (or implying complicity in) the atrocities of the past on current believers

 

- Both sides will agree to stop cherry picking the bible. It is an entire document and I believe meant to be read in its totality. We would all do much better if we read it without external pressure and read it critically.

 

Thoughts?

[Eve]

H'mm.. it probably boils down to self insight into when one has a vengeful attitude.. on both sides. Most people know when this is happening within a conversation without having to be told.

 

So, nothing needs to concretely change as one cannot determine an overall parameter of learning for the human race. That is stupid and usually taken up by those who are cruel minded. Nope, believer and non believer equally have to decide how they are going to manage vengeful feelings when beliefs are tested.

 

It's not rocket science and most of the world get on perfectly fine in discussing .. whatever about what they believe. The ones who don't are usually very similar anyway and the root of many problems in the world.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[TaraMaiden]

I think it important to understand that you're all wrong, and I'm right.

 

See?

Now, wasn't that easy?

[mercy]

In the last thread I read, I realized that I am frustrated with many of life's challenges because we don't seem to make progress. Rhetoric and heated discussions take place, but I doubt that perspectives change much - at least not right away. So I have a thought.

 

Imagine if Atheists and Theists made a deal in which both sides to a few conditions ( I know that there are more than just two camps here, but one thing at a time).

 

So for example, while I cannot speak for all Atheists, there are a few fallacies that just keep coming up over and over again. If Theists of all persuasions could agree to a few relatively easy things, it would make our conversations more fruitful. To wit:

 

- Theists might agree to stop referring to the bible for answers to scientific phenomena

 

- Atheists could stop being so condescending (not likely)

 

- Theists could stop calling Atheism a "belief"

 

- Theists could back off on blaming (or implying complicity in) the atrocities of the past on current believers

 

- Both sides will agree to stop cherry picking the bible. It is an entire document and I believe meant to be read in its totality. We would all do much better if we read it without external pressure and read it critically.

 

Thoughts?

 

Well I'll speak for all those who believe just like me. There's two, God and I.

[BetheButterfly]

The Title is so beautiful!!

 

In the last thread I read, I realized that I am frustrated with many of life's challenges because we don't seem to make progress. Rhetoric and heated discussions take place, but I doubt that perspectives change much - at least not right away. So I have a thought.

 

Imagine if Atheists and Theists made a deal in which both sides to a few conditions ( I know that there are more than just two camps here, but one thing at a time).

 

Making deals are complicated, especially because not all Atheists are the same, same as not all Theists are the same.

 

So for example, while I cannot speak for all Atheists, there are a few fallacies that just keep coming up over and over again. If Theists of all persuasions could agree to a few relatively easy things, it would make our conversations more fruitful. To wit:

 

- Theists might agree to stop referring to the bible for answers to scientific phenomena

Ok, first of all the Bible is not a science book. However, the Torah is an ancient and amazing collection of manuscripts that have been preserved for a long time. Many Theists do see Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch, as an account of how God created the world, even though the scientific facts are not provided. For them, they would not agree to not refer to the Bible, anymore than secular scientists would agree not to refer to tests they have made which they use to determine how old the earth is.

 

Basically, I personally think it would help if both Creationists and Evolutionists (with the idea of no Creator) would agree than none of us living today was alive during that time, and that all speculations are that, speculations.

 

Now, maybe someday Scientists (those who are Theists, because there are indeed Theist scientists and/or those who are Atheists, because there are indeed Atheists scientists) will learn how to manipulate time and can go back in time to prove to the world who is right.

 

That would be very interesting. i would hope if that is someday possible, that they'd get a video of it in color... if the Creation is right (which I personally believe is true) that they'd get some video recording of each "day" and if Evolution without a Creator is right, that they'd go to different ages and show how human beings became what we are today. That'd be fascinating!!! As it is, both sides today merely make very cool videos but those videos are not at all live accounts of what happened, but merely creative speculations.

 

Now, something else that interests me concerning evolution without a creator which I'd love to see is if humans can evolve into a being more advanced than humans of today. One of my favorite science fiction movies is X-Men. I love it!!! It would be amazing if human beings could evolve like that, but I haven't seen that yet. Basically, what I've seen is people learning about the human body to help prevent and heal diseases, which is awesome. However, I haven't seen another step in evolution to make a species more advanced than humans. You know what I mean?

 

- Atheists could stop being so condescending (not likely)

Some aren't condescending. Some Theists are condescending.

 

- Theists could stop calling Atheism a "belief"

What about no belief in a Supreme Being? Atheism = no belief in a Supreme Being (that is not human) or Creator of the earth. Some Atheists do not see people as the advanced species, right? Some Atheists do see humans as the most advanced species, yes? It's kind of hard to get a definition for Atheists that fits all Atheist then, maybe.

 

- Theists could back off on blaming (or implying complicity in) the atrocities of the past on current believers

Please explain? Thanks.

 

- Both sides will agree to stop cherry picking the bible. It is an entire document and I believe meant to be read in its totality. We would all do much better if we read it without external pressure and read it critically.

The Bible speaks to people depending on the hearts of the people. Those who want to find bad in it will find it. Those who want to find good in it will find it.

 

Thoughts?

Interesting and cool topic! Edited September 14, 2012 by BetheButterfly

[Mme. Chaucer]

I swear I'm not just being contentious here.

 

What IS the problem? Why do you feel that people with different belief systems need rules of order to have a discussion?

 

It's between the individuals having the conversation. If there needs to be "off limits" topics or stuff that is understood in advance to fall into the "agree to disagree" zone, then so be it.

 

If people express disrespect with the other's perspective, why even bother trying to have a discussion with them?

 

I've posted before about my husband's extremely rigid and fundamentalist upbringing. Talking with him and with some of his family members about Christianity, the meaning of faith, the Bible, etc. is some of the most stimulating, fun and vibrant conversations I ever have.

 

IMO, we FIND our common ground with others through communication, NOT by establishing roadblocks right up front.

[mercy]

If you are actually interested in what I believe and don't believe, feel free to ask again.

 

I would really be interested in your answer.

[amaysngrace]

That's pretty much where I see theology today. Everybody is taking wild guesses, insisting their guess is right, but none have the ability to show their working out or verify that their answer is correct.

 

 

Albert Einstein would disagree...

 

 

Richard Greene: Albert Einstein and the Scientific Proof of 'God'

[amaysngrace]

I see, so, if I have this correctly (from the article):

 

We can quantify the amount of energy in the universe and it's a lot, therefore god exists.

 

I remain unconvinced.

 

That's your choice. If it is working for you that's great as well.

 

I believe in God and I don't need a whole lot convincing that He exists. For me it's as simple as water. Water...the colorless, odorless, tasteless fluid that without its existence no other living thing on Earth would exist.

 

It's perfect. To me that's proof enough.

[TaraMaiden]

Water...the colorless, odorless, tasteless fluid that without its existence no other living thing on Earth would exist.

 

The descriptions are inaccurate.

Water has colour, it has flavour and it very often has fragrance.

 

And - it's tangible.

 

Try again.

 

[amaysngrace]

The descriptions are inaccurate.

Water has colour, it has flavour and it very often has fragrance.

 

And - it's tangible.

 

Try again.

 

 

I don't know where your water supply comes from but it sounds unhealthy.

[amaysngrace]

I don't mean to be rude, but that much is evident.

 

Okay then why don't you prove that He doesn't exist?

 

Actually it's just the same old argument so don't. Because you can't.

 

But I find it fascinating that from the beginning of time man has worshipped. All around the world people worship. They never communicated that they worshipped yet they all drew the same conclusion to worship.

 

And when people are pronounced dead and are brought back to life they report the same experience. The Afterlife.

 

It is a most peaceful experience for them.

 

But like Einstein stated in that link that I posted it is too powerful to grasp.

[amaysngrace]

What I truly find sad is the number of non-believers who frequent the Spiritual Forums.

 

It's like you are so in need of answers and to me that's sad.

 

Edit to add: also highly argumentative which suggests no peace.

Edited September 15, 2012 by amaysngrace

[TheFinalWord]

I always feel as long as we're talking about God, it's a good thing. When no one talks about God anymore, that's when I worry. I think about a professor I had that taught an elective course on minority issues. Some of the other students said some insensitive things during class discussions. Others in the class got angry. Prof said "as long as we're talking about minority issues then I am happy b/c the conversation is continuing and it gives us an opportunity to talk about these issues". That really struck me b/c with minority issues it would be very easy to get offended. And, although she was a minority herself and had experienced incredible racism in her life, she still had that positive attitude. I was humbled

 

 

[OpenBook]

On the contrary, I think it's great to have non-believers posting here. I think we as a society absolutely need to keep talking about it, and questioning things and exploring each other's viewpoints. It helps keep the issues honest and above-board, and hopefully also keeps things from veering out of control & into Jim Jones/David Koresh territory.

 

I hope we never stop talking to each other.

[Eve]

Back posts tell all.

 

I go with it being a case that some people have key people in their minds/lives who are Christian/religious who they don't like/have issues associating with because of various factors - which at the root seems to return to an admitted reality that they concretely don't have any interest in believing in God. Sometimes they have good reason for not liking the person/persons, sometimes not but this snowballs to also not believing in God.

 

Hence, I have concluded that the angst displayed is characteristic of how they have already treated other people of faith (possibly also a matter of how they have been trreated) and is not to be taken seriously or personally on any level by strangers. H'mmm.. the relational angle can be interesting indeed and would be where my interest would lay in understanding why a person behaves as they do.

 

So saying, faith is a funny thing. It can wipe away the past. Common ground? Not sure it is possible. It is about living authentically and I think the rest sorts itself out, for the more patient.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Eve]

On the contrary, I think it's great to have non-believers posting here. I think we as a society absolutely need to keep talking about it, and questioning things and exploring each other's viewpoints. It helps keep the issues honest and above-board, and hopefully also keeps things from veering out of control & into Jim Jones/David Koresh territory.

 

I hope we never stop talking to each other.

 

I take interest from a cultural perspective only. Where I live religion is not seen to be 'a problem' at all so it surprises me how detatched people can become on here! Behaviour would always be the factor to be called out... but I do live in an exceptionally nice place.

 

Nope, not talking has never been an option in my world! People are people. God is God.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Feelin Frisky]

I for one can't be bothered engaging with everyone on their beliefs or faiths. I can get along just fine with anyone who agrees to treat each other with respect and dignity. Unfortunately religion is partly comprised of elements of ego-centrism, narcissism and paranoid delusion. It creates a window through which mental illness climbs and takes over individuals because people around them just assume this person to be "devout". The religious get very defensive and combative if you try to enter into a rational discussion about it. I watched a debate on PBS last week questioning "Would the world be better off without religion?" I found the defenders of religion to be ruled by emotion and truthfully unable to stick to rationality without defending themselves with contrivances that didn't stand up to scrutiny. My personal feeling is that the question is not good enough. I don't believe that if you just take religion away the world becomes a better place. But if the question were would the world be a better off if we all held truth higher than faith, then the answer would be absolutely. That would have mean that when Europeans first set foot in the Americas they would have thought "wow, a perfectly preserved stone age culture" but instead they saw godless heathens and savages in the way of treasure. And Spanish missions became just a way to fake the natives into yielding their gold.

[Eve]

I for one can't be bothered engaging with everyone on their beliefs or faiths. I can get along just fine with anyone who agrees to treat each other with respect and dignity. Unfortunately religion is partly comprised of elements of ego-centrism, narcissism and paranoid delusion. It creates a window through which mental illness climbs and takes over individuals because people around them just assume this person to be "devout". The religious get very defensive and combative if you try to enter into a rational discussion about it. I watched a debate on PBS last week questioning "Would the world be better off without religion?" I found the defenders of religion to be ruled by emotion and truthfully unable to stick to rationality without defending themselves with contrivances that didn't stand up to scrutiny. My personal feeling is that the question is not good enough. I don't believe that if you just take religion away the world becomes a better place. But if the question were would the world be a better off if we all held truth higher than faith, then the answer would be absolutely. That would have mean that when Europeans first set foot in the Americas they would have thought "wow, a perfectly preserved stone age culture" but instead they saw godless heathens and savages in the way of treasure. And Spanish missions became just a way to fake the natives into yielding their gold.

 

Ok, do you have a family member/someone known to you who you would say displays elements of ego-centrism, narcissism and paranoid delusion and is this person a person of faith? If yes, do they have a medical diagnosis?

 

Just curious. I remember you posting something about a sister...

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Eve]

What I find sad is how easily you abandon adult discussion resort to ad hominems, and how consistently other believers approve of this sort of behaviour just because you're on the same side.

 

Same thing can be said by 'the other side'.

 

I don't buy into this at all. People are NOT so complex.

 

The primary difference I see is that there is an absence of a personally derived 'testimony' of why they do not believe by atheists in general. This is then generalised as being a position where they assume a right to completely ignore all testimonies of faith.

 

I would agree with Karen Armstrong, (whom I love dearly) that between the faiths there should be an aspect of common ground and she has succinctly coined this as 'first do no harm'.

 

I would say that is a good direction to follow on every level.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Eve]

What I meant, Eve, was that quite recently we seem to have developed a bit of a peanut gallery of a handful of Christians who "like" pretty much every post made by another Christian in any discussion with an atheist. A couple of really immature comments have been made (and posts deleted), yet they still receive "likes".

 

I would assess that a lot of projection goes on here but there are moments of true insight also. Right or wrong, the liking thing is an aspect of this and the question should be how we can better communicate.

 

So saying, I have had similar negative experience here too. At times quite extreme! Lol, I am not sure where my arch rival is at the moment. Thought she would have popped up by now... but no, not yet. In total I see this as a human to human issue which is turned into a religious argument. I think this is how it has been since the beginning of time and probably why I so like Shaman's and persons whose faith is visibly about what they actually do.

 

In the UK people tend not to gravitate towards organised religion and there is a tendancy to look at the person firstly. As such I am culturally biased to consider that we should present ourselves in a way which the other can see where we are coming from a personal, life experiece orientated view point. This mode of interaction is the most illuminating methinks and we should afford to make sure that people can share on this level without being ridiculed.

 

Especially when the original experiences are hidden from view. That is quite insidious.

 

It would be interesting to see what this could look like here. Agnostics seem to be the ones who can most easily engage in this fashion.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Taramere]

harmfulsweetz: I asked a similar question to you previously that, to my knowledge, went unanswered, so here it is again, with regards to atheism being a belief:

 

How is the lack of belief a belief? What, in your mind, would constitute a genuine lack of belief?

 

If it's simply a case of lack of belief, why not apply the term "agnosticism"? I agree that lack of belief should be deemed to be a belief in its own right. However, atheists such as Richard Dawkins are making it so on account of their disgust with the agnostic position. "Intellectual cowardice....peelly wally..." etc.

 

There's a sense of sneaking admiration, in amongst that kind of talk, for fundamentalists and extremists. Some theists have it too, opposite ways around. There's a bit in "Life of Pi" where the character, who has a strong faith, expresses affection for atheists. I can't remember how it's worded, but what I took from it was that theists see strong atheists as being more susceptible to conversion than agnostics are, in the end. Which I agree with.

 

People who inhabit the middle ground are often described as not having the courage of their convictions, but in fact they can be as stubborn in refusing to inhabit an extremist position as extremists are in shifting towards a more moderate stance. Extremists would rather bounce from one end of the spectrum to the other. I bet you a lot of people on here switched from self described atheism to theism or vice versa on account of feeling compelled to take a strong stance, one way or another, on the subject of popular belief in an all-powerful and supernatural deity.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Taramere

[Taramere]

Because gnosticism/agnosticism is a position on knowledge (can this be known?), while theism/atheism is a position on belief (do I believe this?). While they frequently overlap, they are distinct.

 

That's fair. I think Dawkins says something about the unlikeliness of many people, including theists, picturing an old man sitting on a cloud and ruling over us all. I tend to think that the popular notion of God involves ascribing human motives and emotions to the forces of nature. The natural world is, indeed, awe-inspiring.

 

On a good day, in beautiful surroundings, I will definitely get a sense of gratitude to nature. Often gratitude is also due to people who campaign to preserve and cultivate it so that others may benefit from natural surroundings of course, but there's that other sense of gratitude to a higher power which some people call God and I would term "nature". The difference is that I don't think nature loves us and watches over us. It simply provides us with an opportunity to exist. In the best moments, we feel that gratitude to those forces for giving us that opportunity, and I can understand why people feel somewhat religious in those moments.

 

Common ground can probably be found between theists and atheists in terms of appreciating what nature has to offer. I think it's notable that David Attenborough shies away from the term "atheist"...and I do wonder if some aspect of him does so because of his enormous love for the natural world. It's hard not to ascribe qualities like goodness, altruism and some sort of loving temperament to nature when it presents us with its best. But then nature can also be intensely cruel and ruthless. Again, people feel compelled to fit the cruel aspects of nature into a moral framework that makes sense. "Don't question the workings of God" "Don't dabble with nature."

 

If nature is accepted as a whimsical psychopath, then human societies have to create a moral code that is confirmed as human - with no pleas to the special authority of a deity. I think that scientists who care about such things tend to point to the success of the group in promoting survival of a species. Whereas tigers, who live a solitary existence, are under major threat as a species (despite their power and their admirable hunting abilities) lions manage well, on account of operating as groups which manage to reach a balance between conflict and co-operation, aggression and affection. United we stand, divided we fall.

 

The conflict between the individual and the collective has echoes of the conflict between atheists and theists, I think. Some of the more famous atheist thinkers/philosophers have tended to be very pro-individual anti-collective. So the common ground question is an excellent one. For me, the theist at his worst is the violent extremist who rationalises his desire to destroy with reference to religion. The atheist at his worst seeks to destroy nature (calls it conquering), rationalising that desire with reference to science.

 

They don't fit into the tribal model, and are usually universally ostracised. Story of my life.

 

Well, I can certainly identify with that. To sex it up in a self-flattering way, people like you and I might well be the tigers to more tribal "others'" lions.

[strongnrelaxed]

The Title is so beautiful!!

 

 

 

Making deals are complicated, especially because not all Atheists are the same, same as not all Theists are the same.

 

Ok, first of all the Bible is not a science book. However, the Torah is an ancient and amazing collection of manuscripts that have been preserved for a long time. Many Theists do see Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch, as an account of how God created the world, even though the scientific facts are not provided. For them, they would not agree to not refer to the Bible, anymore than secular scientists would agree not to refer to tests they have made which they use to determine how old the earth is.

 

Basically, I personally think it would help if both Creationists and Evolutionists (with the idea of no Creator) would agree than none of us living today was alive during that time, and that all speculations are that, speculations.

 

Now, maybe someday Scientists (those who are Theists, because there are indeed Theist scientists and/or those who are Atheists, because there are indeed Atheists scientists) will learn how to manipulate time and can go back in time to prove to the world who is right.

 

That would be very interesting. i would hope if that is someday possible, that they'd get a video of it in color... if the Creation is right (which I personally believe is true) that they'd get some video recording of each "day" and if Evolution without a Creator is right, that they'd go to different ages and show how human beings became what we are today. That'd be fascinating!!! As it is, both sides today merely make very cool videos but those videos are not at all live accounts of what happened, but merely creative speculations.

 

Now, something else that interests me concerning evolution without a creator which I'd love to see is if humans can evolve into a being more advanced than humans of today. One of my favorite science fiction movies is X-Men. I love it!!! It would be amazing if human beings could evolve like that, but I haven't seen that yet. Basically, what I've seen is people learning about the human body to help prevent and heal diseases, which is awesome. However, I haven't seen another step in evolution to make a species more advanced than humans. You know what I mean?

 

Some aren't condescending. Some Theists are condescending.

 

What about no belief in a Supreme Being? Atheism = no belief in a Supreme Being (that is not human) or Creator of the earth. Some Atheists do not see people as the advanced species, right? Some Atheists do see humans as the most advanced species, yes? It's kind of hard to get a definition for Atheists that fits all Atheist then, maybe.

 

Please explain? Thanks.

 

The Bible speaks to people depending on the hearts of the people. Those who want to find bad in it will find it. Those who want to find good in it will find it.

 

Interesting and cool topic!

 

Ouch! You caught me on a horrendous typo - " meant Atheists would stop holding Theists responsible for past atrocities.

[strongnrelaxed]

Because gnosticism/agnosticism is a position on knowledge (can this be known?), while theism/atheism is a position on belief (do I believe this?). While they frequently overlap, they are distinct.

 

Agnosticism is definitely not a fence-sitting middle ground between theism and atheism. For example, any theist who takes the position that god cannot be known and must instead be taken on faith is an agnostic. They might also be absolutely fanatical and spend their afternoons street preaching, but they're still agnostic. They might also hurl blunt objects at you if you point this out, but it doesn't change what things are.

 

 

I guess on some subconscious level they may see a little of themselves in the other. Flipsides of the same coin.

 

 

They don't fit into the tribal model, and are usually universally ostracised. Story of my life.

 

 

I would not take you up on that bet.

 

Bravo Joe. This deserves more than a "like" vote.