What responsibility do theists have in communication/relationships with non-theists?

[wynn]

This thread is to discuss the responsibility that the theists may have in communication and relationships with non-theists.


Some stances to argue for, against, or improve:

"Theists have no responsibility for the communication and relationships with non-theists. It is the non-theists who should align themselves with the theists; and if they fail to do so, then the failure of the communication and relationships with theists is solely the blame of the non-theists."

"Theists have as much responsibility to make the communication and relationships with non-theists meaningful and pleasant for both parties, as the non-theists. The fact that the other party are theists, does not obligate the non-theists to take sole responsibility for the communication and relationship."

"Theists have the greater responsibility to make the communication and relationships with non-theists meaningful and pleasant for both parties, than the non-theists. This is because as theists, they have superior knowledge and abilities, and are thus more responsible to provide meaning and wellbeing for others."



Please discuss.

 

[Adstar]

I cannot agree with any of your boxed answers.

As a theist I am responsible to do my best to relay to others the Message of God as accurately as i can. I am called on to persist with others with patience, but when one feels lead to move on, one should not continue to waste their time and energy on one who is determined to refuse the message.

As for the message being meaningful. The message will be meaningful to one who is open to the Love of the truth. For others it shall not be meaningful.

As for pleasant. No, the path to the acceptance of the Messiah Jesus always involves a period of personal emotional discomfort. Conviction is never pleasant experience to anyone no matter if they are meek or proud. Of course the message of salvation through believing Jesus is very pleasant indeed. So the process involves pleasure and pain, lows and highs.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Yazata]

This thread is to discuss the responsibility that the theists may have in communication and relationships with non-theists.

I don't think that theists have any special responsibilities that non-theists don't also have. I don't assign theists any special status.

"Theists have no responsibility for the communication and relationships with non-theists. It is the non-theists who should align themselves with the theists; and if they fail to do so, then the failure of the communication and relationships with theists is solely the blame of the non-theists."

Theists have all the normal rhetorical and inter-personal responsibilities that everyone else has, at least if they want other people to respond to their words and actions in some desired way. Non-theists have no reason to "align themselves" with the theists unless they have been persuaded somehow to do so.

Perhaps some theists believe, from their theist point of view, internal to their own belief system, that they possess some divine grace, favor or revelation. And that belief may convince this kind of theist that everyone who lacks that divine favor should humbly defer to those who do.

But those who don't share those peculiar beliefs aren't likely to share that opinion as to their own status and role. (I think that you are an exception in that regard, Wynn. You seem to believe in God and also seem worried that other people know God while you don't.)

"Theists have as much responsibility to make the communication and relationships with non-theists meaningful and pleasant for both parties, as the non-theists. The fact that the other party are theists, does not obligate the non-theists to take sole responsibility for the communication and relationship."

Right, that's my view, concerning every-day non-religious subjects at least.

"Theists have the greater responsibility to make the communication and relationships with non-theists meaningful and pleasant for both parties, than the non-theists. This is because as theists, they have superior knowledge and abilities, and are thus more responsible to provide meaning and wellbeing for others."

I'm not a theist, so I'm not going to agree that theists "have superior knowledge and abilities" or that they are "more responsible to provide meaning and wellbeing for others".

For me, it's just a matter of basic rhetoric. If A wants B to agree to something that B doesn't already agree with, then A has the rhetorical burden of bringing B around to A's point of view.

It doesn't matter who's a theist and who isn't. If an atheist wants to convince a theist to accept atheism, then the atheist is going to carry the rhetorical burden.

 

[gmilam]

Whoever is trying to sell holds the responsibility. And don't be offended if the other person isn't buying.

 

[wynn]

For me, it's just a matter of basic rhetoric. If A wants B to agree to something that B doesn't already agree with, then A has the rhetorical burden of bringing B around to A's point of view.

How does this work out for you IRL?


My experience is that when people want others to agree with them, they tend to place the burden of proof on them.

The short version is - "If you don't see it this way, you're an idiot. And if you want to remain seeing it your way, you need to convince me that you're not an idiot."

 

[Adstar]

For me it is rarely about idiocy. Though people can say stupid things when their emotions are hot, discussions on God can have that effect on some.

It is more often about different moral perceptions.

There is nothing idiotic about believing that God exists. Neither is there idiocy in believing that God or gods do not exist.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[elte]

G'day Wynn, I say the answer is no responsibility. It's a mess from people having all kinds if ideas which they think are from or about God and pushing them onto others. If God is out there, we need God to speak to each sentient being, who should then leave it to God to explain it to the others.

 

[gmilam]

How does this work out for you IRL?


My experience is that when people want others to agree with them, they tend to place the burden of proof on them.

The short version is - "If you don't see it this way, you're an idiot. And if you want to remain seeing it your way, you need to convince me that you're not an idiot."

If someone tries to sell a product to me that I don't need, I don't give a fuck if they think I'm an idiot for not wanting it.

 

[Yazata]

How does this work out for you IRL?

In real life? I'm not sure what the alternative is.

My experience is that when people want others to agree with them, they tend to place the burden of proof on them.

Well sure, people can often be lazy, willful and self-centered. People will try instruct other people, give orders and tell others what to think and how to behave.

Unfortunately, the people on the receiving end of that stuff would transform themselves into puppets if they automatically acquiesed to everyone else's desires and simply believed and did everything that they are told. By behaving that unquestioning way, they would effectively be dehumanizing themselves.

The short version is - "If you don't see it this way, you're an idiot. And if you want to remain seeing it your way, you need to convince me that you're not an idiot."

People often become very frustrated when their wills don't prevail and other people fail to obey. People will often express that with anger and by insulting those who frustrate them. It's part of what we have to expect and accept, living among other human beings.

 

[The Esotericist]

When you refer to relationships, do you mean romantic relationships, or just everyday interpersonal relationships?

 

[kx000]

A true theist would say your agnostic, go about your day.

 

[wynn]

When you refer to relationships, do you mean romantic relationships, or just everyday interpersonal relationships?

When in doubt, read the OP:

This thread is to discuss the responsibility that the theists may have in communication and relationships with non-theists.

All other posters so far seemed to have understood what is meant.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How does this work out for you IRL?


My experience is that when people want others to agree with them, they tend to place the burden of proof on them.

The short version is - "If you don't see it this way, you're an idiot. And if you want to remain seeing it your way, you need to convince me that you're not an idiot."

Theism isn't about getting others to agree with them, that is an institutional thing, ie, evangelical, christians, atheists, and so on.


jan.

 

[Bells]

Or maybe you can just treat people equally, regardless of whether they are theists or atheists or "non-theists" and value them as human beings and work from there.

 

[wynn]

What do you mean by "equally"?

To default to the assumption that everyone has the same level of goodwill, education, patience etc. as everyone else?


The same idea of what it means to be a human being may be uplifting to some people, but demeaning to others.
It's impossible to please everyone.