The nature of the relationship between theists and atheists

[greenberg]

What do you think is the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists:

What are the characteristics of this relationship?

What do you think this relationship is not, but should be?

What do you think this relationship is, but should not be?

 

[S.A.M.]

What do you think is the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists:

What are the characteristics of this relationship?

Generally speaking, there is no unique characteristic that I can distinguish.

What do you think this relationship is not, but should be?

Thats too generalised. In Bombay for instance, no one cares if you are a theist or athiest, its a personal choice and we accomodate both sides in all aspects of society, so there is a healthy relationship. I've never felt it necessary to even consider anyone's beliefs.

What do you think this relationship is, but should not be?

I think the nutcases who are taking center stage and crying Armageddon!, should be consigned to the bin. Or at least, not given the power they are.

 

[redarmy11]

I utterly disagree on every point.

 

[everneo]

What do you think is the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists:

What are the characteristics of this relationship?

What do you think this relationship is not, but should be?

What do you think this relationship is, but should not be?

2 groups visting a lunatic asylum.
each group thinks the other group is inmates & pass comments accordingly.
the real inmates think they are 2 groups of doctors.
most of the real inmates strongly suspect that some people from each group ulitmately endup joining them.

 

[Adstar]

What do you think is the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists:

Varies a lot. Depends on the brand of theist and the attitude of the atheist towards theism. Other varying factors can be both parties’ personality flaws. And their tolerance for the other person’s personality flaws.

What are the characteristics of this relationship?

The atheists reaction to the message of the theist and the theists style in delivering it. And the theists reaction to that reaction. that’s in most cases. Sometimes the atheist takes a lead in the proceedings and in those circumstances the roles are reversed.

What do you think this relationship is not, but should be?

The theist should give his message without clouding it with their own emotional or prideful input. And the atheist should take the message and think about it without their assessment of the message being clouded by their own emotional or prideful input.

What do you think this relationship is, but should not be?

Well if we are talking about theists who remain theists and atheists who remain atheists the most common relationship is this one.

Theist delivers the message ( the tone and quality of this delivery varies tremendously). The atheists feels they have been subject to an unjust accusations and feel they have suffered an injustice and that their honour has been insulted. They also see that the one who delivered the message is a clear hypocrite and this makes the negative emotions even more acute. The atheist in a moment rejects the Message of the theists and the rest of the contact between them (sometimes minutes sometimes months) will be only about seeking to undermine the message of the other or seeking to overcome the resistance of the other to the message.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Spud Emperor]

Theist delivers the message ( the tone and quality of this delivery varies tremendously). The atheists feels they have been subject to an unjust accusations and feel they have suffered an injustice and that their honour has been insulted. They also see that the one who delivered the message is a clear hypocrite and this makes the negative emotions even more acute. The atheist in a moment rejects the Message of the theists and the rest of the contact between them (sometimes minutes sometimes months) will be only about seeking to undermine the message of the other or seeking to overcome the resistance of the other to the message.

Except if no-one was trying to hammer home a point in the first place there'd be no problem.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The theists think that they are like children in danger and must be guided in their decisions.
The atheists think that they are adult enough to make up their own minds on all things.

 

[(Q)]

What do you think is the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists:

What are the characteristics of this relationship?

What do you think this relationship is not, but should be?

What do you think this relationship is, but should not be?

It's a lot like a love/hate relationship.

Theists love death and hate life, love the ethereal and hate the terrestrial, love the supernatural and hate the natural, love to indoctrinate and hate to educate, love to oppress and hate freedom, love ignorance and hate knowledge, love tribalism and hate civilization.

Atheists are the other way round.

 

[LiveInFaith]

What do you think is the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists:

What are the characteristics of this relationship?

mostly prejudice.

What do you think this relationship is not, but should be?

What do you think this relationship is, but should not be?

when one side keeps seeing other's as wrong/bad/craps/bullshit/etc, expect flaming.

 

[Adstar]

Originally Posted by Adstar
Theist delivers the message ( the tone and quality of this delivery varies tremendously). The atheists feels they have been subject to an unjust accusations and feel they have suffered an injustice and that their honour has been insulted. They also see that the one who delivered the message is a clear hypocrite and this makes the negative emotions even more acute. The atheist in a moment rejects the Message of the theists and the rest of the contact between them (sometimes minutes sometimes months) will be only about seeking to undermine the message of the other or seeking to overcome the resistance of the other to the message.

Except if no-one was trying to hammer home a point in the first place there'd be no problem.

The "point" is often the most vital issue of concern to the one giving the message, one that has a real eternal life or death consequence. So for them where there is discussion/debate/argument there is hope for the other. So it should not be surprising that a theist would resist being the first to walk away from such an exchange. So the point can only be "hammered" if the athiest (through whatever motivation they have) persists in hammering back.

Of course there are other motivations that can be either dominant of mixed in with a blend that motivates the message giver and the message resister; Pride, fear, seeking self justification, a begrudging sense of duty. Often it is very hard for the one to tell what motivates the other.

The reasons why people will lock horns for months and sometimes years varies a lot. It would be great if people had the power to read the mind and know the motivations of the other, unfortunately we do not have such powers.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[superluminal]

What do you think is the nature of the relationship between theists and atheists:

What are the characteristics of this relationship?

What do you think this relationship is not, but should be?

What do you think this relationship is, but should not be?

I think that most theist/atheist interactions are completely innocuous. We all go about our daily lives in which the foundations of our metaphysical world views have little or no impact. Theists and atheists alike go to jobs, raise their kids, get irate at presidential candidates, etc.

It's when the larger issues of public policy raise their head that we both become a bit fanatical. Many theists are convinced that their gods teachings must be followed by all. They are the commands of their god, after all. Makes sense. Many atheists are afraid of this and fear the all too real possibility of a theocracy if we aren't vigilant. To say that it can't happen to us is naieve.

The foundational issue, putting aside all of the words and rhetoric, is the issue of objective evidence. Many theists have a hard time comprehending how anyone can not see the hand of god in the world. And without deeper analysis, this makes sense for a number of reasons including intuitive and emotional. Many atheists have a hard time comprehending how anyone can invest belief in something without any real objective evidence.

Atheists are analytic and apply it to all facets of their lives (imo, and possibly to our detriment?) where theists may be analytic in parts of their lives (or not at all) and give over the makeup and functioning of the cosmos to god.

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheists are analytic and apply it to all facets of their lives (imo, and possibly to our detriment?) where theists may be analytic in parts of their lives (or not at all) and give over the makeup and functioning of the cosmos to god.

Hmm good point, which is why you have theistic airheads like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Tolstoy who give over the functioning of their lives to the cosmos. And you have analytical athiests like Stalin, Mao Tse-Tsung, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Il who apply rational secularism to all parts of their lives.

 

[superluminal]

Hmm good point, which is why you have theistic airheads like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Tolstoy who give over the functioning of their lives to the cosmos. And you have analytical athiests like Stalin, Mao Tse-Tsung, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Il who apply rational secularism to all parts of their lives.

Thanks for the sarcastic response to what I thought was a fairly generous and realistic statement. I did say that many theists were analytic in large parts of their lives. Nowhere did I say the word "airhead".

Are you now going to argue that theistic belief is a scientific, analytical endeavor?

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks for the sarcastic response to what I thought was a fairly generous and realistic statement. I did say that many theists were analytic in large parts of their lives. Nowhere did I say the word "airhead".

Are you now going to argue that theistic belief is a scientific, analytical endeavor?

Clearly, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Luther and Tolstoy should have used the scientific method to ensure their achievements met the required rigor. Look how well the athiests did in that regard. :shrug:

 

[superluminal]

Hmm good point, which is why you have theistic airheads like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Tolstoy who give over the functioning of their lives to the cosmos. And you have analytical athiests like Stalin, Mao Tse-Tsung, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Il who apply rational secularism to all parts of their lives.

It just occurred to me how fanatically biased and irrational your response was. Are you trying to help our little cause sam, buy supporting the theistic fundamentalist stereotype? Thanks!

 

[S.A.M.]

It just occurred to me how fanatically biased and irrational your response was. Are you trying to help our little cause sam, buy supporting the theistic fundamentalist stereotype? Thanks!

I was trying to think of the top representatives in the last century in terms of global impact. You can change it if you like. :m:

Hmm forgot those fanatics, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.

 

[superluminal]

Clearly, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Luther and Tolstoy should have used the scientific method to ensure their achievements met the required rigor.:shrug:

WTF? Are you stoned sammy? How can I be any clearer? Are you suggesting that these people didn't analyse their methods? That they were purely intuitive/emotional driven? I think that's unlikely.

 

[superluminal]

I was trying to think of the top representatives in the last century in terms of global impact. You can change it if you like. :m:

Hmm forgot those fanatics, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.

You've clearly given up on rationality. Your fundamentalist makeup has firmly taken hold. Congrats.

 

[S.A.M.]

WTF? Are you stoned sammy? How can I be any clearer? Are you suggesting that these people didn't analyse their methods? That they were purely intuitive/emotional driven? I think that's unlikely.

Dunno, do you think Gandhi's decision to allow himself and his followers to be beaten to the ground by batons everytime they were faced by the British, without reciprocating, was the result of a scientific experiment?

 

[superluminal]

Dunno, do you think Gandhi's decision to allow himself and his followers to be beaten to the ground by batons everytime they were faced by the British, without reciprocating, was the result of a scientific experiment?

What a deeply stupid question! Of course not. But it was a directed, well thought out, course of behavior designed to bring about some desired outcome. The motivation was clearly one of human compassion and a desire to improve the condition of others.

Or do you think he just did it for kicks?