Finding More Effective Ways For Atheists And Believers To Communicate

[Padawanbater2]

So I'd like to start this thread to talk about the reasons why most atheists think believers are wrong and why most beleivers think atheists are wrong and how we can talk about these things without getting offended or feel like we're being attacked.

If you post in this thread, you subject your beliefs to criticism. Any reply or question someone else posts cannot be considered an attack on your beliefs.


OK, so why do I think believers are wrong?

-I think most of them haven't learned enough about the processes of the natural world so they just assume the supreme being of their faith is responsible for them

-I think most of them feel like science lies to them because it contradicts what their faith tells them is true. If they are already conditioned to believe that whatever their faith tells them is true no matter what, then anything that goes against that couldn't also be true

-I think most of them can't understand how life could have any meaning or purpose without believing in God

-I think most of them are afraid of death, and the thought of nonexistence

-I think the detailed processes science has the explanations for are too advanced for the average person to understand, so when they don't understand it, it's easier for them to dismiss it. The herd mentality plays a role in this as well

-I think deep down, believers feel embarrassed to hold certain beliefs because they know the only way they can rationalize them is by faith

-I think believers think atheists feel like they know everything, they have all the answers, but in reality, atheists are the only ones saying "we don't know". It offends believers because atheists know that nobody could possibly know, and we know they are just pretending to know, no matter how much they think they understand their specific god or how much they think they feel it

 

[Naminator]

OK, so why do I think believers are wrong?

-I think most of them haven't learned enough about the processes of the natural world so they just assume the supreme being of their faith is responsible for them
- This is cyclical. I could say the same for atheists. We as a species know very little about how the world has come about, why we are here, how we came about, how the universe was created ect. Creationists believe in intelligent design. The world was created for a purpose and that their are many complex organisms that appear to have been perfectly designed.

-I think most of them feel like science lies to them because it contradicts what their faith tells them is true. If they are already conditioned to believe that whatever their faith tells them is true no matter what, then anything that goes against that couldn't also be true
- Actually this is a common misconception. Most people believe christian's have no faith in science and that's quiet the contrary. I personally believe a lot of scientific teachings are correct and many notable scientists believe in creationism. See my above answer about what we currently understand about the world around us. I was never "conditioned" to believe whatever someone tells me is true. I was raised with limited bible education. I made my own decisions. Their is no punch, no room where they tape your eyes open, none of that crap. Your conception is obviously that everybody in religion is brainwashed. That would be like me saying "Atheists are brainwashed" because you have your own sets of beliefs.

-I think most of them can't understand how life could have any meaning or purpose without believing in God
- I can understand what a life without God or meaning is like. I used to live that way. You get up, you accept what is going on around you, you go to sleep ad nauseum until you die. I used to live that way. When I started studying the bible I realized there is more to life then that. That there is a future and hope for us.

-I think most of them are afraid of death, and the thought of nonexistence
- Actually quiet the opposite. The bible actually says that when a man dies, he goes back into the ground. That is it. Nothing else. No dreams, no purgatory, no hell fire.

-I think the detailed processes science has the explanations for are too advanced for the average person to understand, so when they don't understand it, it's easier for them to dismiss it. The herd mentality plays a role in this as well
- Alright stop. I understand many scientific theories. I understand and agree with them. But no scientist can explain where the universe came from, how we came to live here, how life evolved out of nothing. We have a very limited scientific grasp on what goes on around us. I choose to believe in scientific theories that can be backed up, not best guesses.

-I think deep down, believers feel embarrassed to hold certain beliefs because they know the only way they can rationalize them is by faith
- I agree with you on the majority of religions. This is because so many religions barely use the bible. Think about what most people are considered catholics. Church twice a year and a couple crosses. Now the die hard catholics might go every Sunday but they still have a limited grasp of bible teachings. I am not embarrassed about my beliefs because I can back them up from the bible.

-I think believers think atheists feel like they know everything, they have all the answers, but in reality, atheists are the only ones saying "we don't know". It offends believers because atheists know that nobody could possibly know, and we know they are just pretending to know, no matter how much they think they understand their specific god or how much they think they feel it
- I am not following you on this. I don't believe you, or anybody understands much about the world we live in. I personally believe you have a very narrow grasp on religious teachings and have a tendency to lump all religious organizations into one group.

This is coming from a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Monkeyfloss]

this is coming from a jehovah's witness.

knock! Knock!

 

[Naminator]

knock! Knock!

Pretty much.

 

[crunchy frog]

I find that these days roles have reversed,now it's atheists that feel the need to convert lol

 

[Nitegazer]

So I'd like to start this thread to talk about the reasons why most atheists think believers are wrong and why most beleivers think atheists are wrong and how we can talk about these things without getting offended or feel like we're being attacked.

Padawanbater,

Perhaps the best way to create an environment in which neither side feels attacked is to talk about commonalities rather than differences.

I will take a shot here at refocusing the points you raised:

- We all recognize that we have not learned enough about the processes of the natural world, and feel compelled to find answers
- We all frequently find that our empirical understanding is contradicted by what we are told is true (be it a God in heaven, or quantum physics); it takes faith to accept what is beyond our empirical understanding
- Accepting a meaning or purpose to life (even if it is the absence of meaning or purpose) is an act of faith
- We all fear death, which is beyond our understanding
- There is so much accumulated knowledge, that as an individual each of us must go along with the herd in accepting much without directly experiencing it.
- We are all embarrassed knowing that so much of what we believe and pretend we 'know' can only be rationalized by faith.
- Not knowing feels wrong, and faith fills the gaps (including faith that what we don't know 'doesn't matter')

To put it another way, atheists experience faith as much as anyone else. I am typing on a laptop right now that I believe is sending the words I write over some network of wires to be read by other people. The processes behind this baffle me, and I can't even know that they are happening. I simply have faith that they are. I have never seen a Space Shuttle launch, but I believe it has happened. My experience is so narrow, that I could not possibly survive if I didn't accept things on faith.

So, what separates the atheist from the religious? Mostly the institution they accept their information from on faith. Church and Academy are both self-interested institutions that want me to accept what they tell me, and both institutions want my allegiance and money.

 

[Girdweed]

How about this for an idea: Don't discuss religion. That solves the communication problem quickly.

 

[Nitegazer]

How about this for an idea: Don't discuss religion. That solves the communication problem quickly.

Or it embodies one.

 

[Heisenberg]

You made blanket statements, Karri0n is gonna bust you on that.

 

[Robert Paulson]

I don't believe in anything created by man and man created all religions...To me its that simple.

 

[Monkeyfloss]

Or it embodies one.

Brilliantly put

 

[Heisenberg]

- Accepting a meaning or purpose to life (even if it is the absence of meaning or purpose) is an act of faith

Wow, can you clarify that one for me? It sounds like you said, accepting a meaning and purpose in life, even if you don't accept a meaning an purpose in life, requires faith; which is a ridiculous statement. It's like saying, eating ice cream, even if your not eating ice cream, requires a spoon. It's meaningless.

- There is so much accumulated knowledge, that as an individual each of us must go along with the herd in accepting much without directly experiencing it.

This depends on your standards for belief. I personally require proof for belief, and never give credence to something because it's popular. It's true I can not possibly research and verify all the things I believe, which is why we have published journals, peer review, and the scientific method. It really isn't that hard to research topics now days for just about any belief, and if you understand how to think critically, you can eventually wade through all the bunk and find answers. Most people have no problem with me taking this approach, until their deity comes into question.

- We are all embarrassed knowing that so much of what we believe and pretend we 'know' can only be rationalized by faith.

I don't think most believers, whatever the topic, are embarrassed. Most people I have experience with are proud of their faith. When asked a reasonable question that they can't provide an answer for, they proudly swell up and proclaim their faith; their acceptance of ignorance. When faith is 'tested', or rather when someone is subjected to reasonable doubt and still chooses ignorance, their faith becomes even more of a badge.

To put it another way, atheists experience faith as much as anyone else. I am typing on a laptop right now that I believe is sending the words I write over some network of wires to be read by other people. The processes behind this baffle me, and I can't even know that they are happening. I simply have faith that they are. I have never seen a Space Shuttle launch, but I believe it has happened. My experience is so narrow, that I could not possibly survive if I didn't accept things on faith.

You are using two different context for the word faith, commonly known as the false equivalence fallacy. Do you really think the 'faith' you have in your computer to transmit data is the same faith a believer has in religious claims? Believing your computer will work is trust, trust based on replicable results. Your trust is placed in the technology, the engineering, in people. Having faith in god is accepting a claim without demanding any evidence. Essentially, religious faith is trusting that your conclusion is correct without knowing why you trust that your conclusion is correct..

So, what separates the atheist from the religious? Mostly the institution they accept their information from on faith. Church and Academy are both self-interested institutions that want me to accept what they tell me, and both institutions want my allegiance and money.

Again, false equivalence; Atheist = Academic establishments. I don't remember an atheist asking for my money, although god does all the time. It seems to me the difference is simply the standard with which each side judges evidence and evaluates claims.

 

[mindphuk]

Equivocating on the use of the word 'faith' always seems to me to be incredibly dishonest. Everyone understands the use of the word faith as high level of confidence when it comes to things that we have actual experience with that follow natural laws that do not deviate and how it is different than the religious/spiritual faith which is belief without, or even contrary to evidence. It is merely pathetic that one would try to equate the extremely successful scientific method with absolute credulity which is theism.

 

[Nitegazer]

Wow, can you clarify that one for me? It sounds like you said, accepting a meaning and purpose in life, even if you don't accept a meaning an purpose in life, requires faith; which is a ridiculous statement. It's like saying, eating ice cream, even if your not eating ice cream, requires a spoon. It's meaningless.

What I was saying was that belief that 'life has no meaning' is still a belief, for we cannot know if life has meaning or not. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "choosing not to choose is till a choice?" It's like that. I would add that I don't think it is generally possible to exist without meaning; we ascribe meaning and value to things around us (family, beauty, knowledge) and live in a way that reflects those values.

You are using two different context for the word faith, commonly known as the false equivalence fallacy. Do you really think the 'faith' you have in your computer to transmit data is the same faith a believer has in religious claims? Believing your computer will work is trust, trust based on replicable results. Your trust is placed in the technology, the engineering, in people. Having faith in god is accepting a claim without demanding any evidence. Essentially, religious faith is trusting that your conclusion is correct without knowing why you trust that your conclusion is correct.

I do not believe it is an equivalence fallacy. The definition of faith that I am working from is "belief that is not based on proof." There are very few things in our lives for which we have actually experienced proof-- we usually take for facts what others tell us (the constitution of stars, age of rocks, and workings of a computer). Since we have not worked out or experienced the proofs ourselves, we must accept these facts 'on faith.'

You may say the facts you live by are not based in faith, because they have been peer reviewed, but you have not read the peer review article for everything you think is true, nor do you even know that the articles are written by people who actually studied what they write about. You trust the system exists and works on faith.

The object of what I wrote was not to equate religion and science, but to find the overlapping union of these two spheres. I understand that you 'could' take apart the computer to see some of how it works, while a Catholic could not demonstrate that wine is chemically transformed into blood, but that's not my point. My claim is that from the perspective of our personal experience, faith is something that can all relate to, and can act as a bridge over which 'atheists believers can communicate' as the OP puts it.

 

[guy incognito]

What I was saying was that belief that 'life has no meaning' is still a belief, for we cannot know if life has meaning or not. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "choosing not to choose is till a choice?" It's like that. I would add that I don't think it is generally possible to exist without meaning; we ascribe meaning and value to things around us (family, beauty, knowledge) and live in a way that reflects those values.



I do not believe it is an equivalence fallacy. The definition of faith that I am working from is "belief that is not based on proof." There are very few things in our lives for which we have actually experienced proof-- we usually take for facts what others tell us (the constitution of stars, age of rocks, and workings of a computer). Since we have not worked out or experienced the proofs ourselves, we must accept these facts 'on faith.'

You may say the facts you live by are not based in faith, because they have been peer reviewed, but you have not read the peer review article for everything you think is true, nor do you even know that the articles are written by people who actually studied what they write about. You trust the system exists and works on faith.

The object of what I wrote was not to equate religion and science, but to find the overlapping union of these two spheres. I understand that you 'could' take apart the computer to see some of how it works, while a Catholic could not demonstrate that wine is chemically transformed into blood, but that's not my point. My claim is that from the perspective of our personal experience, faith is something that can all relate to, and can act as a bridge over which 'atheists believers can communicate' as the OP puts it.

Dude you are certifiable.

We know exactly how stars, age of rocks, and computers work. You don't need any faith at all to believe these things, you can go learn exactly how they work. You claim that is not your point, but it absolutely is the point you highlighted. You are misusing the term faith. Trusting something that has been proved a million times over (like a computer - even if you are too lazy and/or stupid to understand how it works) and produces consistent results is NOT the same as having BLIND FAITH in something.

 

[Naminator]

How does gravity work. How does space work. How do stars work. How do black holes work.

Have we ever been to a star? Have we ever seen a black hole? What causes gravity. Why is space a vacuum?

There are tons of questions out there that cannot be adequately explained by science. The kicker is how the universe came to be. Please explain that one to me.

 

[guy incognito]

The precise mechanism for gravity? I don't know. I know it exists and is measurable though. I do not attribute it's effects to anything supernatural though. There is a natural explanation, I just don't fully understand it yet.

Stars work by fusing lighter elements into heavier elements under intense gravity. We haven't been to a star, but we can still measure it and understand what process is going on.

Yes we can measure and detect black holes, and we do.

Why is space a vacuum? Because there is very little mass in open space? I'm not sure I get the question.

The universe came to exist because of the big bang.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How does gravity work. How does space work. How do stars work. How do black holes work.

Have we ever been to a star? Have we ever seen a black hole? What causes gravity. Why is space a vacuum?

There are tons of questions out there that cannot be adequately explained by science. The kicker is how the universe came to be. Please explain that one to me.

No no...the kicker is "God dun it"... Why don't you explain that one to me. (oh you can't? Guess that means it's false?

 

[dababydroman]

oh my GOD! another one?!

 

[Naminator]

The universe came to exist because of the big bang.

I will focus on this one answer. Explain where the big bang came from. Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, then where did all this matter come from? Don't say it was energy because energy and matter are transmutable. Therefore without mass there is no energy without energy there is no mass, therefore without something being there before.... Or something being created there was nothing.

At any rate I am done with this riveting discussion. The obvious lack of understanding when it comes to religion coupled with the close mindedness of the audience here does not lend to this thread becoming anything more then a big flame fest in a few posts.