Barriers to atheist - theist dialogue

[Gabriel Syme]

Hi everyone

Just looking for some views on what kind of things (if anything) you guys feel are barriers to useful dialogue or mutual understanding between atheists and religious people.

(this discussion or understanding could be on any point, but perhaps stick to concepts of morality or world view for now)

Over years I have watched debates, read forums etc and often interactions between believers and non-believers tend to be little more than slanging matches - they can certainly generate more heat than light!

There's a couple of things I have noticed, where people of either background can unwittingly do things to frustrate the others:

1) Bible-believing Christians pissing off atheists by using the bible as the justification for everything

Some protestant Christians re bible-believers, in that they believe every last word or story in the bible is literally 100% fact.

(It should be noted that mainstream Christians are not bible literalists)

It seems that this type of Christian is prone to justifying anything and everything on the grounds that "it says so in the Bible".

This is (obviously) a non-argument and I can well understand why it would annoy or frustrate an atheist who was trying to have an intelligent discussion with such a Christian.

In this case, the two people in the discussion are not even on the same playing field to start with, so no wonder nothing useful results.

For someone to use their own beliefs as justification, in a debate with someone who doesn't share the same beliefs, is essentially to insult the intelligence of the non-believer, or to patronise them (even if it is not intended to do so). You can only describe your own belief, you cannot use it as an argument to convince someone who fundamentally doesn't believe the same thing.

Christians (or any theist) cannot simply refer to the Bible to justify morality - they must instead put forward a good argument using reason.

You do not need to believe in God to be a moral person; morality is based on reason and so is therefore accessible to everyone who is able to reason.

A useful discussion between believer & non-believer can only take place if the two parties are engaging on the same playing field. This has to be reason, as it is the only one accessible to both.

If a theist is unable to engage with an atheist via means which are applicable/accessible to atheism, then they would be as well justifying their arguments by saying their pet budgie told them.

This is probably the biggest mistake which certain types of Christian make and it serves only to infuriate their audience.

2) Atheists discussing "religion" as though it were a homogenous mass

You often here criticism of "religion" in general, which is invalid as its not all the same. Sure, there are definitely things to criticise in the world of religion, but it should always be directed right at those responsible as opposed to everyone.

I guess this is kind similar to point 1 above, in that it can lead to people talking, but without being on the same page.

I think this can happen unwittingly - but then polemicists like Dawkins often deliberately use the tactic of taking an example of "bad" religion (eg Islamic terror, or the Westboro Baptists) and hold that up as being representative of religion in general.

This just leads to confusion - for example applying criticism about how Westboro Baptists behave to mainstream Christians - and can make it seem like the atheist doesn't know what they are talking about (which they probably don't, in the example I give!).


So, that's my tuppence worth for now!

So what do you guys think, what have you experienced, or perceive, to barriers to a good understand of one another?

It would be good to have no hostility between atheists and theists - after all, we would be as well getting along, given we all have to live on the same earth together!

Cheers
GS

[Minimalist]

Depends on the theist. It's almost impossible to remain civil with a fundie.

[Violet]

Depends on the theist. It's almost impossible to remain civil with a fundie.

I find it remarkably easy, but that's what I get for being so calm and lovely

I particularly love when we disagree on the definitions of the words we're using.

[Cyberman]

Regarding point one, though literalists as you describe are indeed exceedingly frustrating - just check out Thunderf00t's interviews with Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind and/or the Phelps clan for textbook examples - it can be equally frustrating for questions and discussions about (say) the character and nature of God to be met with select morsels from the bible. Similarly with the kerrang. It's like, ok we were talking about your god; now you want to talk about a book?

On your point two, it seems to me that what we face here is the limitations of language when discussing such universal concepts. Don't get me wrong, I love language, I enjoy painting with words and I appreciate the raw evocative power of a well-turned phrase. In this context, however, what an atheist means by religion may not completely mesh with what a theist understands the word to mean.

[paulpablo]

as far as i can tell it doesnt matter if a christian is a fundamentalist or not, with any christian theres 2 questions to ask.

1 why do you believe every word of a book which is obviously written with false stuff inside, example the flood of noah or the talking snake.

2 if you dont believe these things why do you believe god wrote or influenced a book including these things, wouldnt he specifically say "hey please take the retarded stuff out of my book please its making me look stupid"

[Cato]

I think this can happen unwittingly - but then polemicists like Dawkins often deliberately use the tactic of taking an example of "bad" religion (eg Islamic terror, or the Westboro Baptists) and hold that up as being representative of religion in general.

You invoked Islamic terror and the Westboro Baptists as examples of 'bad' religion. I'm curious. Why did you not mention the prohibition of contraceptives in Africa nor the relocation of pedophilic preists in your examples of 'bad' religion.

[fr0d0]

as far as i can tell it doesnt matter if a christian is a fundamentalist or not, with any christian theres 2 questions to ask.

1 why do you believe every word of a book which is obviously written with false stuff inside, example the flood of noah or the talking snake.

2 if you dont believe these things why do you believe god wrote or influenced a book including these things, wouldnt he specifically say "hey please take the retarded stuff out of my book please its making me look stupid"

^^^ this would make you a fundamentalist atheist I believe. Short of some fundamental education

[Angrboda]

3) Theists discussing "atheism" as though it were a homogenous mass

[Kayenneh]

1) Bible-believing Christians pissing off atheists by using the bible as the justification for everything

It's not so much that I get pissed, it's actually two things that bother me.
One being that when confronted with scientific data, these people who believe in the bible 100%, start 'counterarguments' based upon a a story book. (It's like bringing LotR to biology class to question your teacher.)
Two being those christians, who have never even opened the bible and haven't bothered to read it through. When having a theological conversation (and imagining that the bible indeed is the true word of God), some people try to cherry-pick and ignore the passages they don't like. It's hard talking to a person like that, who is insisting that even though it's written black on white, that I have gotten it wrong.

2) Atheists discussing "religion" as though it were a homogenous mass

Religion is homogeneous with so many similarities across the globe. It depends on the scale of the discussion, the more personal, the more heterogeneous it gets. '
What I can't stand though is the thing you brought up with the 'bad' religions. It's like an overweight woman seeing an obese one saying: "I'm not fat, look at that whale!". It doesn't matter how 'benign' your particular religion is, if you all talk in your heads to an invisible being, I think you all are a bit insane.

[fr0d0]

3) Theists discussing "atheism" as though it were a homogenous mass

Atheists ragging on a specific theism in response to generic atheism.