Two Pillars of Religious-Atheist Dialogue

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/be-scofield/religious-atheist-dialogue_b_1626450.html

Be ScofieldFounder, Mettaversity

Two Pillars of Religious-Atheist Dialogue
Posted: 06/26/2012 11:00 am


Walking through the UC Berkeley campus last semester I caught a glimpse of a young woman proudly holding a sign that said "God does not exist" in big bold letters. It stood out like a sore thumb even amongst the dozens of fraternities, clubs and bake sales that were vying for students attention on the sun filled Sproul Plaza.

By the time I got to her table she was engaged in a heated conversation with a devout Christian who was passionately arguing that God had a plan for her life. She was challenging his every point with references to science, history, biblical criticism and comparative religions. "Jesus didn't even exist," she proclaimed. "God sent his only son for you," he countered. Needless to say it was a heated conversation. It was clear that neither was going to "win" the argument.

As much as I love a good debate, I began wondering what, if anything, may be a foundation for dialogue between atheists and the religious. Was there any possibility of listening to each other? What was beneath the particularities of each side? Could there be something beyond the fighting?

It should be mentioned that these identities are of course complex. Many atheists are indifferent to religion and others like Chris Stedman are doing excellent work to bridge this cultural divide. There are also lots of atheists within religious traditions such as Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism. Furthermore, there are several terms that atheists and religious people use to describe themselves. In other words there is no simple "atheist" or "believer." Some religious people are theists while others reject a interventionist God and are panentheists. Many non-believers identify as agnostics, atheists and skeptics or a combination of these. It's a complex landscape for sure.

much more at link

[AlbertCat]

1. Could there be something beyond the fighting?

Yes. Reality.

"It was clear that neither was going to "win" the argument. "

There's no argument. It's fantasy vs reality. Reality "wins" every time... because it's there!

[cbayer]

2. The article is really good and I was hoping more would read it.

If you did, which I doubt, you missed the entire point.

[AlbertCat]

3. OK, I read it.

"Perhaps religion is best understood like Ibuprofen, "





Nothing new there except for the dumb analogies. And terms like "New Atheists Movement".... does he mean folks who simply do not give religions their usual "pass" to criticism? The only thing new about that is it gets out into the mainstream.

Sorry. It's a religio-friendly article pretending it's all "equal".... or should be. Should it?

[cbayer]

4. Well, I thank you for at least reading it.

If you can't get your head around being "religio-friendly", then it's not going to mean much to you.

As for equal? My position is that we are all equal. If you can't agree to that, I will again say that it is not surprising that this did not speak to you.

That's OK. There are a lot of people on both sides of this who will not hear it, but I remain hopeful that others will.

Thanks for taking the time.

[rug]

5. That's a good read.

He's put his finger on it.

"At the end of the day, both religious people and atheists of all varieties have important stories to share about their experiences. These can themselves be the foundation for dialogue. However, I fear that the current landscape may be too filled with stereotypes, misunderstandings and down-right anger. If each "side" is willing to step back and listen, self-reflect and open themselves to broader positions based on what's needed then I believe we can lay the groundwork for genuine dialogue. We can all benefit from asking, 'What's it like to be you?'"



Stereotypes once served a purpose.

[skepticscott]

7. Oh goody

the much prized "good read" award has been bestowed. Guess that clinches it.

[rug]

8. Crap, now I have to make more tea.

The milk curdled.

[cbayer]

9. I thought so, too, and the paragraph you quote was the real takeaway for me.

I recognized myself in parts of it and came away with a better understanding of how the way many of us are approaching this is really counterproductive.

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

[skepticscott]

6. Instead of religious people asking

"what's it like to be you?", they might try asking "what's it like to have people like me try to shove their beliefs in your face and then whine about religious freedom when you won't sit still and take it?" That might get them a bit closer to the true state of things.

But please...if this guy spat out the word "dialogue" one more time, I was going to puke. There is nothing that religious people need to know about how atheists feel about religion's intrusion into public policy that hasn't already been said uncounted times. They don't care. And yes, atheists do get that people believe silly and unfounded things for all sorts of reasons, including emotional and psychological need. What more are they going to tell us? And why would we care, so long as they kept their beliefs a private matter and didn't try so hard to impose them on everyone else?

Like every other hack who writes about this topic, the author doesn't even go near the most fundamental issues: Do any of the gods that so many people believe in actually exist? Is there any good reason to believe that they do and to act as if they do? I suspect he doesn't because he knows deep down that the answers are no and no, but he, like so many others, needs to cling to something, he knows not what. But if he wants "dialogue", that's the place to start. The most important common ground that two people or two groups can have is agreement on what is true and what is not, what is real and what is not. Without that as a foundation, you have nothing more than sham and pretense.

[trotsky]

13. Well said.

The most important common ground that two people or two groups can have is agreement on what is true and what is not, what is real and what is not. Without that as a foundation, you have nothing more than sham and pretense.

It appears, though, that the "dialog" many theists want is exactly that - walling off certain subjects, giving them special protection and status. When non-believers don't agree to those terms, we're being unreasonable, rude, and well, might as well pull out the big guns too: bigoted.

[Evoman]

10. I don't get why religious people wanna keep "dialoging" with us.

Man, just go to your church, and keep your stupid god shit out of my life and government. There is NOTHING I want to learn about your religion or your thoughts on the nature of the world. Because its bullshit. If you can play guitar, I'd like to learn from you. If you have a specialty or advanced degree, I might wanna hear your thought on an issue. Hell, Im even interested in your political ideas, because you may have some new thoughts I haven't heard yet.

But I don't wanna fucking dialogue about religion. I find it condescending as hell when religious people write articles like this. Don't pretend you give a shit what atheists want or think. You either want to convert us to your bullshit, or like to mentally masterbate over how open minded you are. But your really not, because you can't really ever hear us: LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE.

[tama]

11. Just ignore it

You can stop participating in DU religion group and/or use the ignore function to avoid reading and dialogue of what you don't want to learn. I'll show example by "leaving you fuck alone" and adding you to my ignore list of angry persons not interested in dialogue about religions and lack of.

[cbayer]

17. +1 - Welcome back tama!

Isn't it a shame how people are forced to come into this group and talk to religious people.

Someone really ought to put a stop to it, lol.

[Evoman]

24. I come here because I like the people here. Even the religious ones.

I also kind of like when religious people are put in their place. It's all sorts of fun.

Eh, at least I'm honest.

[cbayer]

25. Put in their place?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it sure doesn't sound very good.

Would it be ok if someone were here to put atheists in their place?

[Evoman]

28. You can't put us in our place. It never happens.

Religious people never win arguments.

And calm down...by putting you in your place, I simply meant having one of the religious ideas being shot down by logic and well reasoned arguments. It's all great fun.

And no, I don't like when religious people put atheists in their place....they tend to do it with violence and government intervention. It's a little different than how we do it.

[cbayer]

29. Okey, dokey. Knock yourself out.

There are plenty of people around here, both believers and non-believers, that really enjoy having a civil and productive discussion.

Think I will stick with them.

[Evoman]

39. And from my lips, you drew a cold and broken hallelujah.

Your missing out babe. I'm a whole mess of fun.

[Meshuga]

50. Good to see you back here, Evoman

I haven't visited DU in a while but followed your blog occasionally. You were one of the many here who often made me chuckle. It is great seeing you here and I hope you are doing better.

Take care,

Meshuga (former MrWiggles)

[eqfan592]

21. -1. Having a dialogue about the political ramifications and repercussions of religion...

...and talking about its impact on our society and government is very different from a dialogue about the virtues of one belief system over another. This group, while being clearly open to the latter, seems more geared toward the former. One can be interested in one type and not the other.

And you placing him/her on ignore isn't leaving them alone in the meaningful way I think the poster intended. Fighting against the use of government to try and impose religion and religious beliefs on others, on the other hand, would be.

[Evoman]

26. Exactly. Thank you for being awesome.

[eqfan592]

31. lol, you're welcome.

[Evoman]

23. No. It's fun here.

I don't know who you are. I don't care if you ignore me.

Also, I don't post here much. So if you ignore me, you are more ignoring my pro-feminist posts, my posts on videogames, my updates on my cancer issues (not that you probably care) and my anti-authority posts on cops, and jail violence. But at least you got do a snappy, self righteous post before you did it. That's always fun.

[Dorian Gray]

30. Evoman

I'm sorry you have cancer. I haven't seen you around in awhile. I hope that you are fighting it with all your might, and good luck to you.

I actually appreciate your honesty here. I've said it before, but I also find the dialoguing tedious at times. It always leads to people being offended, which, I consider to be a total waste of time when it's faceless/nameless people posting at you on the internet. Your post actually said what I've wanted to say about all this at times. But, you know, from a practicing Catholic perspective.

[Evoman]

37. Thanks man. Your one of my favourites.

Oh yeah I'm fighting. Last chemo was last Thursday. Now I just gotta live for five years. Doesn't sound so hard....I'm like a cockroach.

I'm brutally honest. Bout a year ago, I began a bit of a truth quest. I don't lie....fuck the consequences. It's been interesting lol....liberating. The cancer has helped in this....cuz fuck it. Seriously. We take life way to seriously. Being true to yourself is fun as hell.

Thanks for the message. This is why I come here, even though I find most of you full of shit. You're just too damn awesome for me to stay away.

[Dorian Gray]

49. Ha

I like that your brutal honesty is enhanced by your cancer. Sometimes when something serious like that befalls us, the pleasantries and politeness have to go away. I get that.

Anyhow, I'm glad you're giving it your all. I wish you much peace in your fight. Cancer sucks. Chemo sucks. But you're strong. My best to you as you kick it to the curb!

[Evoman]

53. Lol...I'm not a monster

Im still a pretty nice guy. Im even pleasant on occasion. I just have a low tolerance for bs...

[xfundy]

35. I'm sorry, no.

I have to disagree.

As one who tried and tried with all my might to believe, even before I grew up and was able to understand tangible reasons to question the faith I was told I believed, or had to believe, as a child, I still don't see how "persons of faith" and authorities in the church could have convinced me to believe, and in fact they used threats and promises of unending fire and torture to get me to lie and pretend to go along with the program.

[skepticscott]

12. One of many points the author misses here

is that most atheists were religious believers and regular church goers at some point, often for substantial parts of their lives. Far more than the proportion of religious believers who were once atheists. Most of us have seen both sides of the street, and we know their religion and their "sacred" books much better than they do, in many cases. We've had the dialogue and we continue to have it. Atheists still have far more contact and interaction with religious people on a daily basis than religious people do with atheists. What they think and want is not a big mystery.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Thank you very much. Well said. n/t

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

14. Getting through to the fundamentalists on both sides is nearly impossible...

but there are cracks in the cement where flowers are able to bloom...where the light gets in. In those cracks are the possibilities of living together on this planet with maturity and civility. Be Scofield understands this. Unitarian Universalism, though far from perfect, understand this. (Be is studying for the UU ministry, by the way.) I continue to advocate for "free-thought alliances" to be active and operating within every UU congregation in the world...to keep us all honest and our priorities in order. We live in a society where we could do worse than nurture honesty and good priorities, seems to me...and to do it together, in community.

[trotsky]

15. Time for this one again.

[cbayer]

18. I have come to realize that as well, but there are plenty of non-fundamentalists in both

camps and it is them I hope to reach.

Beautifully said, EPU.

[Evoman]

27. What do you mean by "reaching them"?

Seriously, what is your goal?

[skepticscott]

34. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response

You've probably already been put on ignore. Fingers in the ears is a favorite tactic here.

[Evoman]

38. See, that's my point.

No one is ever honest here. It's all just posing bullshit. Why even bother? You can't "dialogue" with someone who doesn't really listen.

I might be an asshole who deserves to be ignored, but you'll never catch me bullshitting anyone or pretending that I care about what someone else thinks, unless I actually do.

[skepticscott]

33. The priority of atheists and anti-theists

is to keep religious beliefs and practices from being imposed by law or government fiat on those who don't share them and to keep people who don't share them from being forced to subsidize them. What part of that do you find objectionable?

[Odin2005]

16. False equivalency.

The Atheist was stating facts, the religious nut was spouting dogma.

[cbayer]

19. Did you read the article? I doubt it.

But if you did, you completely missed the point (as have many in this thread).

[AlbertCat]

22. False equivalency.

That was my point. One is talking reality, and one is talking fantasy.


And reality "wins" every time... whether one knows it or not... because, well, it's real.

If religious people would accept the reality we all MUST live in, there's nothing to argue about.

[MineralMan]

20. Some people accept the premise that deities do or may exist.

Others cannot or do not accept that premise.

A logical argument between those two positions is impossible, since no proof exists for either position. Arguments between atheists and the religious are a waste of time, if they pertain to that premise. The only argument that is possible, logically, has to do with whether or not one is free to accept or reject the premise.

[skepticscott]

32. Since the OP and her supporters

seem to have their fingers in their ears with regard to anything but their own mutual admiration, let's try looking at yet another flaw in this "good read". Namely, the straw man argument (also propagated by some here) that because a discussion is "heated", it isn't worth having and can't possibly be productive, and that since nobody is going to "win" right then and there, the exchange is a complete waste of time.

Well, of course, after 5 or 10 minutes of discussion (or a few exchanges on a chat board), nobody is going to just say "you know, you're right...these things I've believed my whole life just don't make sense and I'm going to stop believing in them right this minute". People just don't behave that way, and for the columnist to act as if that's a reasonable expectation bespeaks an utter lack of thought and understanding (maybe he had a deadline to meet and just couldn't be bothered). Minds DO change though, and they change all the time, but usually not quickly and not in a witness-stand-confession sort of a way in most cases. Maybe someone isn't ready to give up a lifelong conviction the first time it's challenged, or even the second, or the third, but the seeds are planted nonetheless. And maybe it isn't the people directly involved that have their ideas influenced by the exchange, but someone else reading or listening. To argue that a certain tone of debate is the only one capable of changing minds and that any other is completely counterproductive is the height of arrogance and presumption.

Again, it's clear that none of those calling for "dialogue" and "meaningful", "productive" discussion have the slightest interest in engaging on anything that's been said in this thread beyond patting each other on the back for being so warm and fuzzy, but that's their problem, and it's out there for everyone to see.

[eqfan592]

36. Well, EXCELLENT post.

[skepticscott]

42. Hey, I got an "Excellent Post" award!

Thanks!

[trotsky]

44. Let me bestow this upon you:

That was a very Thoughtful Post®!

[skepticscott]

47. Awesome!

Better than a Pulitzer Prize!

[eqfan592]

45. You're welcome!

[Evoman]

40. You're kinda awesome.

You always say what I'm thinking, but am too dumb to actually say in a good way. I'm not gay, but you kinda make me hot sometimes.

[skepticscott]

41. Thanks, I think it's important to show people

that atheists can engage in mutual masturbation (in an entirely figurative sense, mind you) with the best of them.

[trotsky]

43. Very well stated.

AGAIN.

[daaron]

46. More of the usual disingenuous balancing of POVs.

Not that the basic respective observations about new atheists and liberal believers don't have some truth. But who would compare new atheists and liberal believers and frame it as a "fundies on both sides" argument? That's comparing cactus to marshmallows. Instead, let's compare new atheists to fundamentalists, not to liberal believers. New atheists want the absolute separation of church and state, and for believers to keep their religion at home or in the church (many would like to see religion fade away, but that's unrealistic, so beside the point). Fundamentalist believers, OTOH, believe we atheists should DIE or be KILLED so we can BURN for ETERNITY in HELL.

There's also about a mazillion-to-one quantitative slant in favor of fundamentalism, aside from the above qualitative difference.

What the article does in reframing the issue this way is to play the usual MSM game of falsely "balancing biases", with a mean-spirited twist at the end pushing the believer's new lie that atheism has a racism/sexism problem (Oh, let's DO talk about hypocrisy, let's DOO!!) In doing so, the article quickly moves from disingenuous mush to insulting claptrap. We could all get along on the left, it seems to say, if fundies would act like good open-minded liberal believers, and if atheists would, y'know, act like liberal believers, too. If everyone just acted like a good milquetoast kumbaya liberal believer, we'd all get along! Typical Hufflepuff Post religion page garbage. It's only worth reading in order to frame rebuttals.

It's in concluding their take on what atheists need to understand about believers, that the author really shows their hand. They go after PZ Myers for being naive (how patronizing), then imply that new atheists are tone-deaf to sexism, racism and homophobia in their ranks. REALLY!?! You wanna go THERE!?! Because examples of bigotry are piled ten miles deep on the fundie believer side, whereas the Nones are acutely aware of the challenge as the movement grows and it faces rapid demographic changes - and by-and-large they've EMBRACED that change. They don't ostracize it or call for it's death, like the fundies on the believer side.

If I were a believer, I'd steer clear of positions in which my hypocrite was hanging out. This article wags it in our faces.

[onager]

48. Got your Two Pillars right here...

[EvolveOrConvolve]

51. LOL!