Can Atheists and Christians engage in civilised debate, Hell yes.

Originally posted by Occam

I believe it's as a number of you pointed out: some of our beliefs are formed prior to our age of reason. It's irrational for us to think we can discuss those topics based on reason. They are set in our minds far too permanently. Psychologists call them logic-proof compartments.

As such, I've realized that it's a waste of my time to visit the faith threads.

Occam

Occam?

May I?... sum it up with the saying:

Some people, are too stuck in their ways and therefore are NOT open in their mind/heart to entertain other notions.

Originally posted by TheDuckster
Some people, are too stuck in their ways and therefore are NOT open in their mind/heart to entertain other notions.

TheDuckster,
Never have truer words been spoken.
And that clearly relates to both sides of the argument.
But there are those from both beliefs who can surely benefit from frank and open discussion without resorting to name calling or refusing to acknowledge the thoughts of others. I for one am interested in learning, even if it doesnt sway me from my beliefs.
Nice one.

mojo

It's very difficult for sure. It's like you knowing that you have blond hair, but someone else, that you never met, wants to argue that you have red hair. It's absurd, it's something that can't be argued because you know the truth, you know you have blond hair.

Though I rarely cast pearls anymore.

Originally posted by kinglizard
It's very difficult for sure. It's like you knowing that you have blond hair, but someone else, that you never met, wants to argue that you have red hair. It's absurd, it's something that can't be argued because you know the truth, you know you have blond hair.

Though I rarely cast pearls anymore.

But cant we debate the benefits of Blond hair versus Red hair in a civilised manner, which is what i'm getting at. I'm not looking to be converted nor do i wish to challenge theists beliefs, but surely we can relate our life experiences that led to our beliefs in a non confrontational way. Couldnt there be benefits for both from this sort of discussion.

I rarely catch the pearls that have been cast anymore. (jk)

cheers mojo.

Originally posted by mojo4sale
I rarely catch the pearls that have been cast anymore. (jk)

It's not the catching that's the problem it's the trampling.

Anyway there is nothing to learn or discuss with an atheist. They don't believe in anything, they just believe that there is no God and in this case that Christians are wrong. That's it, their only belief is that everyone else is wrong.

Maybe it would be different if they had a body of work behind them but there isn't. I could discuss things with a Jewish person a Muslim person or other faiths because there is something to talk about but with an atheist there is nothing.

Originally posted by kinglizard
Anyway there is nothing to learn or discuss with an atheist. They don't believe in anything, they just believe that there is no God and in this case that Christians are wrong. That's it, their only belief is that everyone else is wrong.

I'm surprised at that view Kinglizard.
I certainly believe in many worthwhile things, including some of the things that Jesus taught.
Its true i dont believe in God, but it surely is not my only belief, nor do i think that everyone else is wrong. That would be totally illogical.

mojo

You are absolutely right, I shouldn't lump all atheist into the same small group I was referring to in my posts above. It's just that I never see any of the larger group of reasonable even tempered atheist in faith threads.

I haven't seen too many unreasonable, hot-tempered nontheists myself.

May I inquire, what leads you to make that statement? I don't recall flaming anyone personally, ranting in a rage or throwing poison darts, so how are you inferring that I am not reasonable and even-tempered?

If I am mistaken, accept my apology, but I'm wondering why you would make a statement like that.

If it is not directed at me among the others, again my apologies. If it is, then what is it about my posts that leads you to the conclusion that I am not reasonable? Is it that I do not submit to the theist arguments? Is it that I keep questioning because the debates do not make sense to me?

Just curious. That statement was a bit on the cutting side, IMO.

Originally posted by kinglizard
It's just that I never see any of the larger group of reasonable even tempered atheist in faith threads.

Maybe we can change that.





(edit to add bold)

[edit on 21/5/07 by mojo4sale]

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by kinglizard
It's just that I never see any of the larger group of reasonable even tempered atheist in faith threads.

Maybe we can change that.

(edit to add bold)

[edit on 21/5/07 by mojo4sale]

Now that I agree with.
Its not to bad here though, I'v had more hastle sometimes on the christian forums with petty nitpicking, and thats with people with the same beliefs.
Cheers
jon1

Jon1, that often does seem to be the case. Atheists, while I don't agree with their ideology, have never tried to tell me what I should or shouldn't believe. They might tell me that they don't agree, but, :shk: a lot of people don't agree with my beliefs, so....

So true, SoT. We may question WHY you believe until the cows come home, but we aren't going to tell you WHAT to believe. I suppose there are always exceptions to the rule, but most of the nontheists I know are the same.

We just don't get how people can believe in something for which there is no real empirical proof, and are very curious about the process.

Besides, there have been some right lively debates here about it. I seem to spend most of my time in this forum.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

We just don't get how people can believe in something for which there is no real empirical proof, and are very curious about the process.

Well, belief in God is indeed a matter of faith and I don't think there will ever be any conclusive empirical evidence for God. When you try to mix materiality with spiritual issues you run into some problems.

The Masons believe that the physical world is "God revealed." They would state that the fact that there is a physical existence is proof that God exists. If one looks at some of the current theories in quantum physics, although, that is all they are, theories, the Masons may not be too far from the truth on that count.

Funny you should mention quantum physics. I've been saying for years that the Hindus have been describing QP in religious terms for a long time.

I DO believe that the universe is made up of energy at it's root. That all the energy is interconnected and part of the same cosmic whole. But ascribe sentience and godhood upon it, I will not.

Interesting how our belief systems can entirely parallel each other without once intersecting.

Yes, Major, much of what the Far Eastern religions have stated for ages seem to correlate with many of the conceptions in quantum physics. Quantum physics is very interesting. However, Quantum physics is still in a rather infantile state and is really just now starting to come to the forefront.

I am not saying that quantum physics hasn't been around for a while because it has been around for quite some time, but it has just, relatively recently, begun to get some mainstream attention.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Regarding religion and quantum physics, perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between the two, and can religion evolve to embrace new discovery's in quantum physics, and science adjust to embrace parts of religion that may begin to fit in with new discovery's, if they are made?

Where exactly do you think quantum physics may lead, and what will the repercussions be for mainstream religions?

Not that thats what i believe but your discussion led me to think of this question.

Originally posted by mojo4sale
Regarding religion and quantum physics, perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between the two, and can religion evolve to embrace new discovery's in quantum physics, and science adjust to embrace parts of religion that may begin to fit in with new discovery's, if they are made?

Where exactly do you think quantum physics may lead, and what will the repercussions be for mainstream religions?

Well, to be honest, I don't really see the claims of most religions and science as conflicting at all. While they certainly word things differently, they, at least for me, affirm the same things.

Now obviously, no one who views things like I do is a literalist because a literalist would not see any correlation between,say, evolution and creationism. However,I do. For me, evolution is just an explanation of how things were created and formed, not why or by what.

No doubt, religion would have to change with any inception of quantum physics. There would be some things that people would have to just say, "fair enough," and go with. Quantum physics will in sense "force" the church to become less absolutist and more open ended in regards to the reality of things.

It is not the beliefs of atheists or christians that prohibit civilised debate, rather the fact that those debating are unwilling to accept the possibility that an opposing belief could be true. This pig-headedness irritates the opposing debater, thus closing the door on civilised discussion.

Ironically, the very thing that both sides are most strongly opposed to about eachother is the very same thing each side is guilty of themselves. Unfortunately neither party is able to realise the error in their ways, thus it is most unlikely they will be able to remedy it.

I think the following analogy can sum up the plight of atheists and christians alike:
Both groups are trying to reach the sun by orbiting around it in opposing directions. Of Course, neither will achieve their goal.

Originally posted by speaker
It is not the beliefs of atheists or christians that prohibit civilised debate, rather the fact that those debating are unwilling to accept the possibility that an opposing belief could be true. This pig-headedness irritates the opposing debater, thus closing the door on civilised discussion.

Sorry but i cant agree, i can discuss the merits of opposing sporting teams with others without changing which team i support.(probably not a great analogy, but the best i could come up with on short notice). I dont see that i have to believe that the otherside's belief could be true or that it would rock my beliefs to accept a different pov.
I dont see any difference here, i'm more than willing to discuss others beliefs, it doesnt mean i have to change my beliefs for it to be civilised, i'm sure there are others who believe the same.
I think as long as your not badgering the other side for proof of their beliefs an open and frank discussion is more than possible, as we are seeing in this thread and others of late.
(Just ask MM, she was having quite the civilised discussion with a theist the other day)

I understand where your coming from though, thanks for your thought's.

mojo.

Not only was I having a polite discussion with a theist, he put me on his friends list! So I think it's quite possible to discuss stuff without changing POV.