A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  palmtree67

  Loz:

  Currently I personally don't attempt to convert anyone, nor would I. It requires a mention to justify my belief in god very often though,

  I know that about you, Loz

  But I'm asking everyone if we can give attention to not polarizing the board by not supporting bad behaviour, even when it's from someone we like.

  And not taking EVERY disagreement with our view personally.

  "There are good atheists and there are bad atheists. There are good believers and bad believers."

  Can we please stop supporting the bad ones on either side?
• 

  Lozhasleft

  Yep I'll go with that Palm.

  Loz x
• 

  tec

  Share.

  And then leave it be.

  People almost always ask questions, or make a statement that requires further explanation or clarity. So what comes afterward, is often response and discussion.

  I am not bothered by disagreement though. Not at all. Very often, the questions and even the disagreement will lead to even more understanding.

  I understand what you are saying about yourself, and your way with what is personal. I would not think to criticize you for it (and i'm not suggesting that you are doing that to me, not at all)

  For me, if I am given to understand something, then I want to share. I don't want to keep it to myself. I realize that will bring challenge, and disagreement, on an open forum. But that, in itself, does not bother me. I post for the a,b,c reasons that i stated above.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  I think another thing that causes division is our different approach. I saw this to a degree on a science thread.

  As you pointed out, Palm, when atheists put scientific ideas out there, we welcome all the challenge in the room. Because we welcome it, we assume others will welcome it also. But I learned that when I took the exact same approach to some scientific statements that I would take in a room full of atheists, people got their feelings stepped on. I was met with emotional responses for doing something that would not have caused me to look twice. It was weird, and I finally just left the conversation.

  So while we accept and encourage challenge to our ideas, without feeling hurt or scorned, I think some non-atheists feel a more emotional attachment to their ideas, so criticizing the idea is the same as criticizing them. I had come to accept this when it came to spiritual ideas, but then I saw the same dynamic when it came to scientific ideas. I have to admit, I was taken aback. Some were making 'points' but I saw it simply as a way to look more deeply into things that I may have misunderstood, or things that may have been presented in a misleading way, or something we could bounce around until we all came away a little stronger. That's not exactly how it went.

  There is a different way of thinking, and I'm starting to understand that better now. I don't know if I'm able to engage it anymore, even if I understand it. It's like walking on eggshells when you can't just express criticism at an idea without a lot of drama following. So I've taken a mixed approach. For non-atheists that are as attached to their scientific ideas as they are their spiritual ideas, I need to just not engage. I won't get anything out of the discussion anyway---and maybe that is the result of a black and white view---and if it can be explained to others so that they understand that this is just how we discuss some subjects, and we don't take things personaly, then maybe I can have the conversation with them.

  I've been backing out of a lot of conversations lately. They just reach the point where they aren't worth the effort.
• 

  tec

  I've been backing out of a lot of conversations lately. They just reach the point where they aren't worth the effort.

  NC, I think that is a healthy/peaceful approach, regardless of one's belief/non-belief.

  I have noticed that you try to accomodate when you understand. Just wanted you to know that. Others notice as well, i am sure.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  sabastious

  NC, in a previous thread you said that you were frustrated with something I said that you percieved to be false. No offense, but isn't that being emotionally attached to an idea? Sure it's not belief in pink unicorns, it's the idea that people must speak in the most correct way possible for them. If we are talking about a recipe for a specific brand of food there is only one way, but if we are talking about a certain type of food there are many different takes to that style. In my conversations with you over the months I can't help but feel like I am walking on eggshells after of getting lambasted with a fact audits. I have adapted and I thank you for it, but it's no less grueling than a believer, actually more so. Sometimes people just want to discuss a topic with a few assumptions on the table. If you want to challenge the assumptions that's OK, but you might also temporarily make those assumptions as well to join the discussion. Just because you turn a fact blurry doesn't mean you can't refocus. I just feel like you require a certain standard of accuracy in your discussions and that's not a bad trait. I would love to be accurate too, but I do my best. "Walking on eggshells" would mean that you would rather avoid inducing emotional reaction in believers than not, right? Why would an emotional reaction bother you? What's feels worse getting yelled at or having a fact audited? It depends.

  -Sab
• 

  NewChapter

  Tec,

  Perhaps, but the problem is that I am backing out of discussions that interest me greatly, because they are the kind of discussions that are supposed to be taking place without emotional drama. It's a shame that my only choice is to back away from stimulating conversation, but the other option, that someone not become emotionally attached to their ideas is rarely considered.

  Anything less, and I get painted the angry atheist. Ah well. I have a place to discuss such things the way they are meant to be discussed.
• 

  NewChapter

  I'm not going into that with you, Sab. I have left the conversation---can that be enough for you? I am expressing my feelings on it. I can't reason with you, so I shall bow out again.
• 

  tec

  that someone not become emotionally attached to their ideas is rarely considered.

  If we are thinking about the same thread (the one about people getting less intelligent), I think that once you expained what you were doing and others understood your position, this was also considered.

  I was really impressed with a couple of you (believer and non-believer) on that thread ;)

  (You sound sad to have felt that you HAD to back out. I could be projecting. Because I feel sad when I back out also, for similar reasons. But I think people are more aware and are trying harder now, and that is something good.)

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  I don't know if I'm sad, but it is sad. When some people get so emotional and personal during a conversation that was meant to be challenging and stimulating, that the thread gets derailed and reasonable people have to back out. That is sad. But if we refuse to bow to the person that gets emotional overy non-emotional things, we are angry atheists. I have passion about things, that's true, but I don't think I become devastated or provoked when challenged. It can happen, but not generally with scientific issues---but I will become upset and focused if I feel that people are trying to keep our children in ignorance in the schools---but that doesn't happen here too often.

  It's nice to discuss those things here, because there are so many people around to bounce things around with, but when someone gets defensive and emotional, it just ruins it for everyone. I don't know how to handle it anymore without the accusations flying, so I just leave. I suppose that could be considered a 'win', but it's not. Part of me often wonders why someone who has the trust of some of these posters doesn't step up and say calm down, because coming from me it is perceived as simply an attack and not valid---but they don't. It is what it is. It would be nice, but things aren't always nice.