Why do theists associate with non-theists?

[wynn]

Generally, theists consider non-theists (ie. atheists and agnostics of various kinds) to be people who are not worthy to be associated with.
In fact, associating with non-theists is considered bad for one's spiritual advancement.

In theistic scriptures, we can find instructions such as:

Association with persons who are not spiritually advanced is forbidden. Lord Caitanya advised, asat-sańga-tyāga: one should avoid persons who are attached to the temporary. Asat is one who is too materially attached, who is not a devotee of the Lord and who is too attached to women or enjoyable material things. Such a person, according to Vaiṣṇava philosophy, is a persona non grata.
source


The question is:

How come some theists engage in lengthy discussions - and often, fights - with non-theists?

We could debate whether that counts for "association" or not.

But the simple truth is that hours spent with someone - are hours spent with someone.

Do theists actually believe they won't be adversely affected by all that interaction with non-theists?

Do theists actually believe that not being friendly with the non-theists (if we define "association" as 'being friendly with') will do away with the negative effects of associating with unsuitable people?

Would that not be like thinking "When I am in close breathing space with someone with the flu, I will simply not engage in being friendly with them, while having long ongoing conversations, and this will protect me from getting sick" -?

 

[Yazata]

Why do theists associate with non-theists?

Because they are friends, family members, co-workers, because they have common interests, cheer for the same sports teams, are buying or selling things to each other, attract each other sexually, or for a multitude of other reasons.

Generally, theists consider non-theists (ie. atheists and agnostics of various kinds) to be people who are not worthy to be associated with.

That's not true in the United States, where I live. Unless somebody wears distinctive religious clothing of some sort, which is unusual, we are rarely able to distinguish what a person's religion is or isn't when we meet and interact with them.

In my own experience, religious adherence isn't really a major consideration when we meet and come to know people, and when we discover whether or not we like them.

In fact, associating with non-theists is considered bad for one's spiritual advancement.

Religious compatibility is obviously important if somebody is auditioning somebody else as a religious teacher or if somebody is a monastic. It's probably of some importance if a person is relating to one another person as a fellow religious seeker as well.

In theistic scriptures, we can find instructions such as:

Association with persons who are not spiritually advanced is forbidden. Lord Caitanya advised, asat-sa?ga-ty?ga: one should avoid persons who are attached to the temporary. Asat is one who is too materially attached, who is not a devotee of the Lord and who is too attached to women or enjoyable material things. Such a person, according to Vais?n?ava philosophy, is a persona non grata.
source

That introduces cultural variations.

Are Caitanya's writings really considered 'scripture' in India? I've heard that members his sect believe that he was an avatar of Vishnu himself. But do Indians generally think that?

Even in India, Caitanya's version of Vishnaivism is kind of analogous to religious fundamentalism elsewhere in the world, isn't it? It seems to me to be a stronger and considerably more emotional form of religiosity than many Indians display.

It's also possible that religion plays a larger part in the daily life of the average Indian than it does the average American, as well. I'm not really sure about that one (there's going to be lots of variations) but if it's true, then that's going to factor into your issue as well.

The religious exclusivitity that you suggest might tend to be more prevalent in India than here. Or maybe not.

 

[spidergoat]

The purpose is to spread the gospel. I think it's motivated by a sense of empathy. If you really believed an atheist will be mistreated by God if they don't believe, then wouldn't you do anything within reason to change their mind? And why would you consider your faith so fragile that merely interacting with an atheist would be bad?

And to address this ridiculous point:

Association with persons who are not spiritually advanced is forbidden.

Some atheists might just be spiritually advanced. I think theists are afraid this is sometimes right.

 

[scheherazade]

To my way of thinking, we are all born atheist and may or may not become theist through the teachings and beliefs of the culture(s) to which we are exposed.

In the course of a lifetime, many people progress through different theist teachings and beliefs and may even return to an atheist frame of thinking.

A tolerant atheist foundation is perhaps more inclusive than some of the theistic teachings.

A strong contributing factor in association between atheists and theists may be curiosity.

 

[arauca]

Generally, theists consider non-theists (ie. atheists and agnostics of various kinds) to be people who are not worthy to be associated with.
In fact, associating with non-theists is considered bad for one's spiritual advancement.

In theistic scriptures, we can find instructions such as:

Association with persons who are not spiritually advanced is forbidden. Lord Caitanya advised, asat-sańga-tyāga: one should avoid persons who are attached to the temporary. Asat is one who is too materially attached, who is not a devotee of the Lord and who is too attached to women or enjoyable material things. Such a person, according to Vaiṣṇava philosophy, is a persona non grata.
source


The question is:

How come some theists engage in lengthy discussions - and often, fights - with non-theists?

We could debate whether that counts for "association" or not.

But the simple truth is that hours spent with someone - are hours spent with someone.

Do theists actually believe they won't be adversely affected by all that interaction with non-theists?

Do theists actually believe that not being friendly with the non-theists (if we define "association" as 'being friendly with') will do away with the negative effects of associating with unsuitable people?

Would that not be like thinking "When I am in close breathing space with someone with the flu, I will simply not engage in being friendly with them, while having long ongoing conversations, and this will protect me from getting sick" -?

That is not truth in my case . Many of my friends are atheist even tho they try to convert me to atheism

 

[Pineal]

That introduces cultural variations.

It does, but this belief - that it is spiritually deleterious to associate with non-theists or others who would contest your beliefs - was something I encountered regularly in the East and in Western places of worship with Eastern Religious leaders - gurus and masters.

Of course people spend time with their families and coworkers, if they do not live at the ashram or temple - but there is a strong injunction to cultivate your own mind and spirit through association with like minds - and more highly developed ones if possible - and to avoid exposure to the thoughts of others, especially those hostile to your beliefs. Disease metaphors are often used - though the idea of memes supports this in a sense.

To engage in ongoing, repeated arguments and debates with atheists and people who do not share your spiritual beliefs would not be considered spiritually healthy.

To go out of one's way to an environment where this must happen - rather than say dealing with your sister's aggressive atheist husband when they come over for dinner - seems an ill fit and to go against both implicit and stated rules and guidelines from a number of traditions.

Christianity, however, for example, is another cup of tea.

 

[Pineal]

The purpose is to spread the gospel. I think it's motivated by a sense of empathy. If you really believed an atheist will be mistreated by God if they don't believe, then wouldn't you do anything within reason to change their mind? And why would you consider your faith so fragile that merely interacting with an atheist would be bad?

And to address this ridiculous point:

Association with persons who are not spiritually advanced is forbidden.

Some atheists might just be spiritually advanced. I think theists are afraid this is sometimes right.

The above point may or may not be ridiculous, but it is a guideline to rule in some traditions.

Also I would think to some degree most people follow this idea - without necessarily viewing it in terms of advanced or not. IOW I think most people will spend most of their time where their beliefs are not always challenged or worse. I mean an atheist could drive around to Southern Baptist Churches all the time, looking for a good argument, but really, even setting aside some of the potential danger, it's an odd way to spend you time and probably rather hard on the body from the stress. To do this means that one's own ideas are always being defended. Who wants to be defending and attacking all the time.

 

[Adstar]

Generally, theists consider non-theists (ie. atheists and agnostics of various kinds) to be people who are not worthy to be associated with.
In fact, associating with non-theists is considered bad for one's spiritual advancement.

The teaching to not associate with atheists in any way is an extremist mis-interpretation of scripture.

2 Corrinthians 6
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

To be yoked with someone is to be in a bondage to them such as marriage. So if one is a believer one should not get married to a non-believer. But being a friend to an unbeliever is a good thing. Showing friendship to someone loving ones brother. The message of Jesus in His parable of the Good samaritan shows that all men are our brothers that we should do or best to live in friendship and harmony with.

The question is:

How come some theists engage in lengthy discussions - and often, fights - with non-theists?

Maybe because they care for the non-theists.

We could debate whether that counts for "association" or not.

Well it's not a binding association is it. We don’t have to sign a marriage contract to discuss beliefs do we. In fact with the internet i don't even ever have to see your face or even know where you live or even know your gender. Sweet hay.

But the simple truth is that hours spent with someone - are hours spent with someone.

Yes and i find it most worthwhile. Sadly i do not see many atheists benefiting from it. But i certainly do. It makes me look deeper into scripture and has made my faith stronger.

Do theists actually believe they won't be adversely affected by all that interaction with non-theists?

Well if a Theist is weak in the faith then they should avoid intensive contact with atheists. But if they are strong in the faith then they should make themselves even stronger by the adversity that often comes from contact with atheists.

Do theists actually believe that not being friendly with the non-theists (if we define "association" as 'being friendly with') will do away with the negative effects of associating with unsuitable people?

I believe in being as friendly as passible with all people. Unfortunately some people really work hard to put that to the test.

Would that not be like thinking "When I am in close breathing space with someone with the flu, I will simply not engage in being friendly with them, while having long ongoing conversations, and this will protect me from getting sick" -?

Strong faith = good immune system: let them cough all over you and laugh it off.

Weak faith = poor immune system: At the first sign that they are about to cough leave that space quick.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Arioch]

@Adstar --

The teaching to not associate with atheists in any way is an extremist mis-interpretation of scripture.

2 Corrinthians 6
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

To be yoked with someone is to be in a bondage to them such as marriage. So if one is a believer one should not get married to a non-believer. But being a friend to an unbeliever is a good thing. Showing friendship to someone loving ones brother. The message of Jesus in His parable of the Good samaritan shows that all men are our brothers that we should do or best to live in friendship and harmony with.

You left out the part where this is merely your opinion based on your personal interpretation of said scripture. Nothing you've said invalidates the interpretation that some use to endorse the segregation(and this discrimination) of nonbelievers. Hence one of the problems that most nonbelievers have with the bible, it can be interpreted to support damn near anything, including slavery and genocide.

 

[wynn]

That is not truth in my case . Many of my friends are atheist even tho they try to convert me to atheism

A strange idea of friendship you have then?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm an atheist, and I don't mix with theists, basically because I would argue with them all of the time. The problem is that I have had to divert myself away from some really beautiful women in my time. I have been tempted to say "Yes, of course I'm a Christian!"

 

[Yazata]

It does, but this belief - that it is spiritually deleterious to associate with non-theists or others who would contest your beliefs - was something I encountered regularly in the East and in Western places of worship with Eastern Religious leaders - gurus and masters.

I haven't experienced that. But I don't have a great deal of personal experience with Hindu sectarianism either. There is a style of Indian religiosity that calls upon people to be devotees, totally devoted to whatever purported religious manifestation they are supposed to be worshipping in their particular sect. So some religious leaders may well tell their followers to avoid outsiders. I'm not sure how widespread that is in India though. (That's an expression of ignorance, not skepticism.)

In Buddhism, there's some emphasis on laypeople having wholesome spiritual friends. But I don't think that there's a great deal of emphasis on those friends and associates all being Buddhists. They just shouldn't be the kind of people who entice those around them into behavior that's antithetical to following the path.

Of course people spend time with their families and coworkers, if they do not live at the ashram or temple - but there is a strong injunction to cultivate your own mind and spirit through association with like minds - and more highly developed ones if possible - and to avoid exposure to the thoughts of others, especially those hostile to your beliefs.

Those who actually live in a temple or ashram are kind of analogous to Buddhist monks, aren't they? It's a deeper level of religious engagment. So I'd expect them to follow more stringent disciplines which might extend to who they associate with. Monks typically spend much of their time associating with fellow monks. (Less so in the east than in the west though. Buddhist monks are far less cloistered than Christian monks. They are often out and about in their communities.)

Disease metaphors are often used - though the idea of memes supports this in a sense.

Yeah, India's kind of big on that. It merges into caste, I guess, and the idea that people will be polluted and get spiritual cooties from even eating with, let alone (horrors!) marrying outside their timy social group.

I'm not sure how much that kind of thinking flows over into the religiosity. India has a tremendous amount of social exclusivity, but it's very very different than the kind of religious exclusivity that I occasionally see being displayed by Christian fundamentalists here in California. That's very unusual.

Around here, it's often immigrants who are most into that kind of stuff, sending back to the old country for appropriately pure brides for arranged marriages and stuff. In particular, some of our Muslims seem to be awfully stand-offish, accentuating their religious differences from everyone else and sometimes creating considerable mutual discomfort in mixed company. (Especially when it's sexually mixed company.) Hindus and Sikhs seem to mix a lot better, though they may have to go through six hours of ritual purifications at home after shaking my hand that I don't know about.

To go out of one's way to an environment where this must happen - rather than say dealing with your sister's aggressive atheist husband when they come over for dinner - seems an ill fit and to go against both implicit and stated rules and guidelines from a number of traditions.

Yet millions of them move to Europe, America and right here to Silicon Valley. They are gladly jumping right into the unbeliever's fire.

Most of my contact with the immigrant communities around here has been with the Buddhists. They are typically very relaxed about their religion and I expect that the new arrivals will fit in and assimilate well, just as earlier generations have. Whatever clannishness and exclusivity they show is mainly the result of their being strangers in a new country and their desires to hang out with people like themselves and speak the old language from time to time. It's not unlike Western expats hanging out with one another in Asia. Buddhist temples around here are often kind of segregated by ethnicity and function like social clubs and community centers for newly arrived immigrants. But they don't have any big reluctance about welcoming curious outsiders and may even engage in small efforts at outreach.

 

[arauca]

A strange idea of friendship you have then?

Atheist are human with a different point of view , we can joke around but we maintain pit religious view separated .
Believe me, some of the atheist are just as good as Christians

 

[Dywyddyr]

Believe me, some of the atheist are just as good as Christians

Now there's a meaningless "compliment".
You appear to be presupposing that Christians are, by default, good.
Are you claiming this applies to all Christians?

 

[arauca]

Now there's a meaningless "compliment".
You appear to be presupposing that Christians are, by default, good.
Are you claiming this applies to all Christians?

Pal, I speak only and only for my self.
If you don't want take the complement , then is not meant to you
But ... rather not

 

[Dywyddyr]

Pal, I speak only and only for my self.

Ah, so you're claiming that YOU are good (so why the plural?), and that some atheists (presumably you decide which ones) are as good as you.

Isn't that a little bit, er, arrogant?

 

[Cifo]

Generally, theists consider non-theists (ie. atheists and agnostics of various kinds) to be people who are not worthy to be associated with.
In fact, associating with non-theists is considered bad for one's spiritual advancement.

Neither statement is true for Christians.

 

[wynn]

Neither statement is true for Christians.

Which Christians?
I've known Christians for whom I was not good enough, on account that I was not a Christian.

 

[Pineal]

Neither statement is true for Christians.

I disagree. It is true for many Christians. Down South in the US and heading out into the middle of the US I encountered quite a few Christians of this sort. Non-theists were the equivalent (or worse) of someone who showed up in high school wearing their underwear on the outside of their pants. Incomprehension, distrust, judgment were de rigeur.

 

[gmilam]

One could say those people are not "true" Christians (whatever that means). After all, Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes.