Religion and secularism have already compromised and the proponents of both have been getting along quite well. You just have asshole hicks on both sides who don't want to get along with each other.

Yeah, it's always the hicks' fault.

Regions compromise all the time, for example; the new testament. The old testament is the one true bible.

I'd put em on reserves and walk the fence line Stimbo, the rest of you can wash your hands, I volunteer.

I used to think the answer to this was no, but i am friends with religious people and so far have managed to not argue with them to the point of hatred. But im almost certain if it came down to it, and we questioned each other extremely, it would be my religious friend who would be angry at being questioned and not me. I almost never get angry at any questions asked to me by any religious person, even the really simple and seemingly stupid questions ive seen atheists get asked many times by religious people.
Basically if i understand the question right as being can an atheist every get along well with a non religious person i think the answer is yes some of the time as long as you dont talk about religion too much.

(January 5, 2013 at 4:23 am)BGChuckLee Wrote: Regions compromise all the time, for example; the new testament. The old testament is the one true bible.

Judging your haircut, I conclude that you meant to leave this gem of erudition in a Justin Bieber fangirl forum.

At an individual level, it is certainly possible to achieve a level of compromise (ie. live and let live). I have a mixture of friends ranging from atheist and agnostic, to religious but secular, to orthodox and evangelical. We all get along well, and we all love having debates pertaining to science and religion. So we can compromise at an individual level and get along, with the compromise being that we can disagree and not be enemies (this is my wish for many groups on this planet). But what this really is, is simply the philosophy of live and let live. This is a societal or interpersonal level of compromise to allow different groups to function civilly with one another and not let different beliefs get in the way. If this is extended to the ontological problem, or rectifying science and religion, then I don't see how the two can fully and genuinely compromise. Religious text and science do not see eye to eye on many issues.

People try to reconcile creationism and evolution. For example, the idea that the world and its inhabitants were created by god in 6 days and that man was created in his image, but that we and other creatures have evolved since then, has no backing, but I have been told this numerous times by my more religious peers. I have seen this periodically over the internet at well. What this reflects is a growing body of empirical evidence for evolution, and a stagnant view of creationism that people are holding on to and they will attempt to infuse religious belief with science for the illusion of compromise. It truly reflects a psychological pull for an answer, mixed with the psychology of fear. At this level, compromise is essentially impossible when it comes to the origin of life, in my opinion.