Can atheists and theists really communicate?

[Iestyn]

This question has been bugging me for awhile. I know its a very generalized question as "some" atheists/theists must communicate to each other for people to become believers and unbelievers. But in general an average debate/descussion goes like this:

Atheist: &%%^&%$ Evolution %£££%^ Natural selection.

Theist: ? Goddidit!

or

Theist: £$£%^% God Loves You ££%£^&* whats the point
of living without God?

Atheist: What the fuck are you talking about?

What I'm basically asking is do atheists/theists exist in totally different preceived realities? If thats the case how can any real communication take place?

If you were once a really strong atheist/theist and are now the opposite, how did it happen? When did the other side start making sense?

Iestyn

[NormalDan]

I have to agree, it is often difficult to discuss religion and philosophy with a theist for those reasons. However, if both sides can agree to speak the same language, listen to each other, and explain things properly, atheists and theists can communicate. often even setting up simple rules of debate to follow can be challenging. Both sides really do have to be open to a real discussion.

-Dan

[Enuffalready]

I think the nature of the discussion makes it very difficult. Most religions don't allow logical scrutiny. The only way the theist can make his case is through the same logical scrutiny. And as for the reverse the only argument is faith, which the atheist has none of. So to get on topic, can we communicate? Sure we can try to understand eachother be civil etcetera, but when it comes to philosophical debate it will always go round and round, because both sides think the other is pretty much nuts.

[GodsAreUs]

Did you mean communicate? Or did you mean attempt to convince the other side to change their view(s)?

Unless someone is a blithering idiot, there's always the potential to communicate. If by communicate you mean challenge someone's beliefs, forget it.

I have found in my conversations with hardcore Christians that once you start throwing questions at them that directly challenge their way of thinking, they wrap it up with a quick "I'm sorry, but that's what feels right in my heart and you're not going to tell me any different. Oh by the way, you're going to hell."

Whatever gets you through the day.

[Iestyn]

GodsAreUs said:

Did you mean communicate? Or did you mean attempt to convince the other side to change their view(s)?

Unless someone is a blithering idiot, there's always the potential to communicate. If by communicate you mean challenge someone's beliefs, forget it.

No not convince, just to try and communicate your point across. I've come across many hard core theists (mainly fudy christians) and have tried to get something quite simple across such as the impossibility of the Noah flood story. I used geological evidence, biological evidence and pointed out the impossibilty of 8 people being able to care for the vast amount of animals on the ark (which couldn't fit on anyway). I was simply trying to get them to grasp maybe the story was just a story that the Isrelites used to explain a local flood event. But they just couldn't get it. In their minds if reality and the bible contradict each other then reality must be wrong. I dont understand why they Need the story to be true and go to such lengths to warp reality to the way they want to preceive it.

Iestyn

[GodsAreUs]

IVJ said:

In their minds if reality and the bible contradict each other then reality must be wrong. I dont understand why they Need the story to be true and go to such lengths to warp reality to the way they want to preceive it.

I get you. But in their view, “miracle” is the answer to anything scientific study attempts to explain through hard facts. It’s also a great way to justify something that can’t be understood without knowledge, research, or cranial evolution. Ya, it’s frustrating as hell to attempt to reason with these people. I’d say keep trying (I do). But the better option might be try once, and if it doesn’t work, move on and chalk it up to experience. That’s all you can do. Most theists believe what they believe so completely that there is no question. And those of us that question are more slaves to reality. But I’d rather be a slave to reality than delude myself.

[droskey]

I think that it is possible for the two to communicate just fine. The religious and nonreligious can be equally rational and/or nonrational. The main issue is that the religious and nonreligious begin from different assumptions. An atheist generally begins by assuming that no god exists. Or else, he doesn't have an active belief in a god/gods. He refrains from believeing until he has adequate evidence to believe in a god. He puts no value on faith. If you have to believe in order to know something your really don't know anything.

A believer, on the other hand assumes that there is a god. He values faith and holds that you cannot "know" god without it. Faith is the only way to know god. You have to believe first.

Theist: Believe first and then justify and search for evidence.

Atheist: Suspend belief, search for evidence and then make a judgement.

See, different starting points.

[GodsAreUs]

jacopo said:

If you have to believe in order to know something your really don't know anything.

Excellent.

[godslayer]

jacopo said:

..
A believer, on the other hand assumes that there is a god. He values faith and holds that you cannot "know" god without it. Faith is the only way to know god. You have to believe first.

Theist: Believe first and then justify and search for evidence.

and many a believer BTDT= been there done that ,
and became atheists as a result

[william]

jacopo said:

I think that it is possible for the two to communicate just fine. The religious and nonreligious can be equally rational and/or nonrational. The main issue is that the religious and nonreligious begin from different assumptions. An atheist generally begins by assuming that no god exists. Or else, he doesn't have an active belief in a god/gods. He refrains from believeing until he has adequate evidence to believe in a god. He puts no value on faith. If you have to believe in order to know something your really don't know anything.

A believer, on the other hand assumes that there is a god. He values faith and holds that you cannot "know" god without it. Faith is the only way to know god. You have to believe first.

Theist: Believe first and then justify and search for evidence.

Atheist: Suspend belief, search for evidence and then make a judgement.

See, different starting points.

i would probably agree with this answer. it is often nessisary to define terms when discussing beleifs.

Ive read things from both sides on the fezability of the ark the math has been done over and over, Im not into the math but I think its interesting that they have found a whale fosil at 8000 feet on a mountian. the flood story is not unique to the Bible ,there are over 200 flood ledgends from all over the world. many are very simmilar.

[william]

first is believing then reveiling then knowing. but to one who hasnt believed there is no reveiling.

[Iestyn]

william said:

first is believing then reveiling then knowing. but to one who hasnt believed there is no reveiling.

This sums up exactly what I'm saying.
Your basically saying you have to believe in God before there is proof for God, once you believe you get your proof (the revealing) and then you have knowladge of God. Correct me if I'm misintepreting.

To me that is prefoundly illogical???. But to you and many other theists it makes purfect sense. I go where the evidence takes me-

I'm an agnostic atheist because there is no evidence for a god that I'm aware of and I accept evolution because that is the best theory for explaining the natural world.

You on the other hand seem to put your beliefs first. As another theist once told me- "you have to have faith before you can have faith"

Iestyn

[Iestyn]

I think its interesting that they have found a whale fosil at 8000 feet on a mountian

Have you got a reference for that please?

the flood story is not unique to the Bible ,there are over 200 flood ledgends from all over the world. many are very simmilar

Well people do tend to settle near rivers and rivers tend to flood. To me the fact that there are many cultures with flood stories points towards lots of local floods. We see local floods happening over the world today and there seems to be no need to attribute these stories to one global flood event.

What similarities are between these stories? I'm aware of the similarities between the Noah flood and the Gilgamesh myth (big flood, animals on boat, hero gets rat arsed) but many scholars see the Noah story as a modified verson produced by the Jews when they were introduced to the Gilgamesh legend during their exile in Babylon.

Iestyn

[william]

IVJ said:

This sums up exactly what I'm saying.
Your basically saying you have to believe in God before there is proof for God, once you believe you get your proof (the revealing) and then you have knowladge of God. Correct me if I'm misintepreting.

To me that is prefoundly illogical???. But to you and many other theists it makes purfect sense. I go where the evidence takes me-

I'm an agnostic atheist because there is no evidence for a god that I'm aware of and I accept evolution because that is the best theory for explaining the natural world.

You on the other hand seem to put your beliefs first. As another theist once told me- "you have to have faith before you can have faith"

Iestyn

AHH! this sums up what I was saying about defining terms! to the atheist "belief" or "to believe" has separate meanings for himself and for the theist. when you hear an atheist say, "I believe in evolution" you asume he has as you say,looked at the evidence and found it to be convincing. but when you hear the theist say" I belelieve in God", you asume that he has made some irational leap of faith and created for himself an imaginary friend in the sky. you make the asumption that he has not looked at any observable data (proof). while it IS true that many theists exercise such a leap of faith and dont spend a great deal of time looking into all the details of the evidence. the same could be said about some people who believe in evolution. Many people have become believers in God through close examination of the evidence.

[Iestyn]

AHH! this sums up what I was saying about defining terms! to the atheist "belief" or "to believe" has separate meanings for himself and for the theist. when you hear an atheist say, "I believe in evolution" you asume he has as you say,looked at the evidence and found it to be convincing. but when you hear the theist say" I belelieve in God", you asume that he has made some irational leap of faith and created for himself an imaginary friend in the sky.

Very few theists I have met have investigated their beliefs. Most believe in what they believe because of indoctrination from an early age. There are many firm christians I have met both online and in person that are ignorent to what their own bible says. They have not bothered research or in some cases been put off researching their religion.

Many people have become believers in God through close examination of the evidence.

What is this evidence? Go on convince me ;D

Iestyn