Indeed, I find common ground with you and Aup all the time, but I'm a 50/50 atheist/theist. Atheist to the Abrahamic god, theist to the dharmic one. I perhaps errantly jumped to the conclusion that the OP was about the Abrahamic version exclusively.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can atheists reconcile with theists?
I am not sure if I have a positive answer for this, though I want one. On a theological basis, I do not see atheists and theists having any chance for common ground, since atheists have no theology. But this is not the only place that people interact.
I will tell you that the most difficult group I have trouble with is a mixed group of people that I call fundamentalists. They could equally be referred to as extremists. There may be a better term to describe them, but I could not come up with one at this time.
What I see common in this group is reliance on dogma, assertions without evidence, closed-minded adherence to belief, often arrogance, reliance on emotion rather than rational thought, and, also quite often, reliance on logical fallacies instead of sound reasoning and evidence. In my experience, you can find members of this group anywhere and sometimes entire groups are made up of people with that mindset. Fruitful discussion is difficult to find among members of that set. Often it is impossible to find.
In my experience, there are atheists that fit the description above, but I often find that there are many more among atheists that do not and productive, intelligent and even fun conversations can arise with them on a variety of subjects. The common ground is logic, reason and evidence without the interjection of assertions based purely on belief.
I see the question of God or no God as irrelevant. I've no desire to seek or know an answer to this question. I'm going to be the same person I am, make the same choice's I make whether there is a God or not. God's existence or non-existence make no difference in my life. So why should I seek an answer to a question which makes no difference in my life?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Theists believe a god exists, atheists do not believe a god exists. Those two lines of thinking can coexist, as long as theists do not insist that others believe in their god, do not proselytize, and do not try to enact laws based upon their religious beliefs that ultimately affect others.
I do not see that happening, however.
I am trying to imagine how many times you have been explicitly told that this is not true, and why you still cannot grasp it. It is a true mystery.
Yes, theists are asserting a belief. But atheists are not. They are simply saying that they don't share that particular belief, and they do not then go on to replace it with some contrary belief.
Why is this so very hard for you to understand?
Exactly! I would have no objection to anyone wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan, "In God I trust." But to insist that it appear on the money that everybody must use in common is to insist that we all somehow tacitly agree that "in God WE trust."
So ask a theist in the US if they'd be happy to remove that affirmation.
Is not finding reason or evidence to turn an assertion into a belief, asserting a belief?
I cannot say that Bigfoot does not exist, and I see no reason to believe that Bigfoot does exist. Are you saying that I am asserting a belief in not-Bigfootism?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Actually atheists are asserting a LACK of belief. Not the same thing. Just like stating a lack of belief in Big Foot is NOT the same as asserting that Big Foot absolutely does not exist.
I see what Siddhārtha was saying that you shouldn't be asking someone else whether God exists or not, since one can believe whatever they want and whatever they choose to believe doesn't change reality.
Our beliefs are irrelevant to reality. Believe whatever make you happy but don't go about looking for someone else to give you confirmation for your belief.
A common ground would be to accept that reality is not affected by what we believe so don't express your belief in such a way that implies that it is.
If theists can accept that, so can I.
Philosophically I see no way to reconcile this with materialism, since I can't see either side offering the complete surrender that'd be required.
But life is about interacting with other people, and we can all do that with respect, inclusion, cooperation, kindness, decency. There are many situations where the importance of philosophy can be overstated. (Just not here on RF.)
It's challenging for me to vote either way. What will continue to get in the way of atheists and theists finding common ground is ego.
I just read in another thread where a theist actually made a statement to the effect that anyone with any amount of intelligence should believe in God.
Conversely, atheists will continue to state that their lack of belief in God is not a belief that there is no God.
Until one realizes that there really is no way, in either camp, to conclusively state whether or not God exists, ego will sustain the divide on what could be common ground.
Dude, if you didn't care to watch, why did you care to respond?
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
I didn't see the link in the post, and I just responded to the question. After the link was mentioned, I went to the video, it was 10 minutes long , not just a few minutes long as implied to me. The video had some dude from India whose accent was like that of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon.; I lacked the patience of hearing that accent for ten minutes.
Which foreign accent of the English language do you find most annoying?
Would it happen to be from a place where their people's last names are typically too long?
Last edited:
Although I disagree with most of his points, he's actually a pretty funny speaker.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
I'll take your word for that; but there'd be nothing pretty nor fun for me about having to listen to his foreign English accent from India .
You must not have listened to anyone with an actually strong Indian accent. His is barely noticeable compared to some. (I hear a lot) I recall a math class at uni where it took me 6 weeks to figure out what he was talking about.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well you got the theist part right.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
One option is to turn on captions and mute it.
Brooklyn.
I'm charmed by their non-rhotic accent....
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
I watched the video. In it I see one of the reasons there is discord between the two views. Although he states that there is god, there is no God are both unknowable beliefs, he assumes that atheists believe there is no God. That is just not so for a majority of atheists. He is like many theists, is telling atheists what they believe. Most atheists just don't believe any of the stories MEN have created and told about gods. Most do not say they know for certain there is no possibility that some type of god (s) exist some where.
The view from the non-believer side is a very small fraction of humanity. If there were no common ground where atheists can accept the theistic views, it would be a really lonely life for atheists. The majority of atheists are surrounded by theists in their lives and families. We sure better be able to find some common ground which of course we do.
The major problems between the two come from theists either politely or not so politely, telling atheists what they believe or judging atheists for what they don't believe. If that ever stopped, the two opposing views would have little to argue about when ir comes to belief in God.
Atheists understand that believers believe. It's not a problem until the arrogant judging or making policies based on that belief comes into the picture. By either party.