Theists and atheists

[kowalskil]

Theists and Atheists

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

theo_sci

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.

[secrets0stolen]

Immediately, the issue I see with this paper (and, really, with the whole argument) is that no one defines God. You can't sensibly make claims about the existence or non-existence of something you have no definition for.

[OAAN]

Here's a crazy idea... Acceptance! Not in any one belief, but acceptance in that everyone has their own.

...I know, I know, it's a bit much to ask.

[Anthoneee]

Originally Posted by OAAN

Here's a crazy idea... Acceptance! Not in any one belief, but acceptance in that everyone has their own.

...I know, I know, it's a bit much to ask.

I second this, let people find happiness in any way they can.

[Michael Chui]

The problem is really not with the atheists, which is why I tend to side with them in the versus debates. However, presented with an opportunity, I very much enjoy being theistic. It's just that I rarely to never get this opportunity. Because the problem is with the theists.

Theists tend to be hugely arrogant, and more to the point, believe so fanatically that they feel compelled to push their viewpoint. In the case of the younger Abhramics, this is even backed by divine edict (theoretically; for the people who are capable of thoughtful theology, the Great Commission is in fact debatable in its details).

Atheism is a reaction to this. It's firstly a reaction to internal pressure: disbelief is a straightforward escape: but then as it is hammered by theistic repetition, it becomes a question of how an oppressed person relieves their oppression. For some, it's becoming very quiet and not expressing their beliefs anymore. For others, it's switching into something more and more militant in hopes of beating them back.

It has, quite frankly, absolutely nothing to do with beliefs whatsoever.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists.

The what now? There's a conflict? ...I'm good, I'm not fighting anyone.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Immediately, the issue I see with this paper (and, really, with the whole argument) is that no one defines God. You can't sensibly make claims about the existence or non-existence of something you have no definition for.

Conflicts between theists and atheists do exist. That is what I am interested in. I am not a theologian.

Ludwik
.
.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Immediately, the issue I see with this paper (and, really, with the whole argument) is that no one defines God. You can't sensibly make claims about the existence or non-existence of something you have no definition for.

Aggressive theists and aggressive atheists exists. The "we know better" conflicts between them are also very real. That is what I am interested in; I am not a theologian.

Ludwik
.
.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

Conflicts between theists and atheists do exist. That is what I am interested in. I am not a theologian.

Ludwik
.
.

Aside from the repercussions of fundamentalist interpretations of religion in politics(which is about three steps removed from the concept of theism itself), these conflicts come down to one saying to the other "I think you're wrong."

If someone is really nasty they might say "I think you're going to hell" or "I think you're deluded". Either way, I'm not sure why it's desirable that these "conflicts" end if it involves either group psuedo accepting something they don't believe as "just different" for the sake of politeness. I don't think that fosters intellectual honesty or acceptance of people because they're people not because there are mental gymnastics you* can go through to make their beliefs sort of fit in to your paradigm.

*general you, for the sake of convenience

[kowalskil]

Theists and atheists exist. And the "we know better" confrontations are real. Who benefits from such aggressive conflicts? How to eliminate them? That is my topic. I am not a theologian.

Ludwik
.
.

[kowalskil]

Why was I able to reply to myself but not able to reply to secrets0stolen? Something is not working at your website. I tried three times and each attempt was a failure.

Ludwik
.
.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

Why was I able to reply to myself but not able to reply to secrets0stolen? Something is not working at your website. I tried three times and each attempt was a failure.

Ludwik
.
.

What are you clicking on?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Immediately, the issue I see with this paper (and, really, with the whole argument) is that no one defines God. You can't sensibly make claims about the existence or non-existence of something you have no definition for.

If one believes in a God that interacts with people in some way then they are a theist. But if they define the God concept as a sort of Brahman type thing, the source of all things but a non-interacting source then you have another group - deist.
If they define the God concept as real but ultimately unknowable then you have an agnostic.

Then you could have an atheist who believes in the version of physics or cosmology that includes an infinite parallel realities. An infinte realities has profound implications including a reality where the universe might be conscious somehow, maybe creating other realities, not unlike God.

So definitions do expand the debate.

Also, imagining just one universe to avoid uncomfortable infinities, popping out of nothing but with all these rules and incredible organization where randomness and chaos should rule, is ridiculous.
Weak and strong anthropological principals aside.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Aside from the repercussions of fundamentalist interpretations of religion in politics(which is about three steps removed from the concept of theism itself), these conflicts come down to one saying to the other "I think you're wrong."[/SIZE]

I get the feeling that were it not for the repercussions of these religions in politics, many atheists would care a lot less about arguing their points. Sure, there would still be some who want to argue, but some would be content knowing that no one was legislating religious beliefs they don't follow into law.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by floslib

I get the feeling that were it not for the repercussions of these religions in politics, many atheists would care a lot less about arguing their points. Sure, there would still be some who want to argue, but some would be content knowing that no one was legislating religious beliefs they don't follow into law.

This, pretty much. Virtually every atheist or agnostic I've encountered would be perfectly fine with theists doing their own thing... if they weren't being evangelized on forums, on the street, every time they ask a question, and so on. Granted, some of them have done the whole "we will rise up and wipe out religion" shtick, but they're a vocal minority. And I think even most of them wouldn't mind religion if it stopped validating their dislike of it.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

This, pretty much. Virtually every atheist or agnostic I've encountered would be perfectly fine with theists doing their own thing... if they weren't being evangelized on forums, on the street, every time they ask a question, and so on. Granted, some of them have done the whole "we will rise up and wipe out religion" shtick, but they're a vocal minority. And I think even most of them wouldn't mind religion if it stopped validating their dislike of it.

I prefer not to discuss religion. Discussing theism is already a big challenge.

religion = theism + much more

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.

[Anthony1973]

Originally Posted by OAAN

Here's a crazy idea... Acceptance! Not in any one belief, but acceptance in that everyone has their own.

...I know, I know, it's a bit much to ask.

I believe the answer lies here. Your question really is how do we create an accepting world... and that professor as OAAN puts it, is a bit much to ask for!

However... for those scientifically suffocated athiests there is the promise of a deeper understanding of the nature of life as we delve depper and deeper into quantum physics. You probably already know this.
Humanity goes through stages, there was religious fervour, crusades etc, all bringing death and forced submission to religion. Then there was the enlightenment period, which brought about its own deaths in the form of resulting toxic waste/nuclear, biological and chemical weapons etc.
It is thought by many that this current era is one in which science and spirituality will meet and perhaps things will improve. HOWEVER... this still requires acceptance.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Anthony1973

I believe the answer lies here. Your question really is how do we create an accepting world... and that professor as OAAN puts it, is a bit much to ask for!

Working on it.

[goldberg]

The only way this will ever stop is once the theists all realise they are wrong

The views are diametrically opposed, either one is right or the other, you will never get a consensus, there is no half god. Add on to that, this is pivotal to many peoples identity, and the other side is a direct affront to that.

[Lucidism]

People bicker, whether it's religion, politics, taxes, or so on. There is no simple solution that would suddenly cause Atheists and Theists to stop debating. It requires every single human being to just accept the other point of view, even if they disagree with it. Good luck!

[goldberg]

Originally Posted by Lucidism

People bicker, whether it's religion, politics, taxes, or so on. There is no simple solution that would suddenly cause Atheists and Theists to stop debating. It requires every single human being to just accept the other point of view, even if they disagree with it. Good luck!

I think that will only happen once there is only one human left on the planet, and even then he/she will probably develop a multiple personality disorder soon enough.

[veloci]

I have finally accepted that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, especially when they say your beliefs are wrong. They are entitle to that, and I will still love them regardless. So they can label themselves as an athiest, christian, muslim, agonistic, whatever.

The only set of beliefs I have a hard time "loving" is when they endanger others. Beliefs themselves are not dangerous, but the person can take it to the extreme. However, certain beliefs like "kill children because they are worthless" or whatever... I just cannot accept those beliefs. I guess you can say I am open to all beliefs now except such beliefs that have inherent intentions of harming others or other sentient beings.

Anyways, as long as people can have civilized discussions without beating and killing each other, have a go at it. To me you're all going to be with the Creator and choose to remain with Him or reincarnate yourself for your soul to continue growing. Yeah, bicker all you want about my beliefs. Just do not make a physical altercation out of it, and have fun.

>_> If only others could relinquish their ego regarding religious matter, in so they do not kill in the name of religion. <_<

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by veloci

The only set of beliefs I have a hard time "loving" is when they endanger others. Beliefs themselves are not dangerous, but the person can take it to the extreme. However, certain beliefs like "kill children because they are worthless" or whatever... I just cannot accept those beliefs. I guess you can say I am open to all beliefs now except such beliefs that have inherent intentions of harming others or other sentient beings.

Aaaand... *invokes* abortion! *runs*

[martydrury]

Conflict and aggression: inventions of men. Games played by politicians. Nothing to do with the lights and peace of this world or any other.

I've had quite heated arguments with bishops. The bishop in question had written that women shouldn't become priests/vicars because they didn't understand the notion of sacrifice. I asked the bishop whether his ridiculously antique sexist drivel was intentional or an unfortunate mistake and the whole thing kicked off from there. LOL.

Never really had arguments with non believers. And I've met some wonderful Christians, Muslims, Jews and members of other religions with whom I've had some amazing discussions and debates.

But, at the end of the day, we all suffer, lose those we love, feel terrible sometimes, bleed when something cuts us, hurt when we feel pain. Fighting and dying for religious beliefs is ridiculous beyond belief and all fundamentalism eventually becomes the shadow of what it reports to be about.

It's not tolerance that holds us together. It's compassion, love, friendship and the understanding that what I don't understand is not always a threat to me. I don't stand with a lot of what Islam has to say but then again, who on earth am I. I don't come from a perspective of being a Christian, Jew or non believer. But who on earth am I?

You find your own path in this life. One big criticism of Paganism is: "it's a mix and match religion". Yes, so what? Spirituality and religion is meant to be mix and match. It's about self discovery not about some bloke in a weird looking dress telling you what you should or should not be doing or which made up sin is this weeks "deadly sin".

Sorry, people commit crimes not sins. And it is no sin or crime no intellectual blindspot to have a religious or spiritual side that you express. And I think most non believers understand this and respect it so long as we do not seek to preach or claim ridiculous false moral authority over anyone or anything.

Then there's the whole "science vs religion" thing. What a load of twaddle. You can tell that's invented by mankind, can't you? Why is there a conflict there? Do we just imagine conflicts like we can imagine patterns and designs when they may not be there? I mean, seriously: the spiritual and the scientific have never met? One can't exist with the other? I can't be a believer and yet not be an idiot?