Let them come to us.

[Spirit of Light]

Would it be less confrontation and heated debate if religious people let the agnostics and ateists come to them, instead of trying to "save" the ateists?

It look like many atheists are curious about why religious people believe what they do.
But how can religious people give an answer that the atheists are satisfied with?

Can we please try to keep the debate civilized

 

[Sirona]

Would it be less confrontation and heated debate if religious people let the agnostics and ateists come to them, instead of trying to "save" the ateists?

It look like many atheists are curious about why religious people believe what they do.

I'd call such people seekers not atheists/agnostics. IMHO atheists/agnostics are people who already made up their mind.

But how can religious people give an answer that the atheists are satisfied with?

Maybe by pandering to them by telling them that Richard Dawkins is the latest dispensation of their messiah Charles Darwin?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'd call such people seekers not atheists/agnostics. IMHO atheists/agnostics are people who already made up their mind.



Maybe by pandering to them by telling them that Richard Dawkins is the latest dispensation of their messiah Charles Darwin?

That is one way to look at it

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would it be less confrontation and heated debate if religious people let the agnostics and ateists come to them, instead of trying to "save" the ateists?

It look like many atheists are curious about why religious people believe what they do.
But how can religious people give an answer that the atheists are satisfied with?

Can we please try to keep the debate civilized

There are no case of the atheists. As a human and atheist I have more in common with some religious people than some atheists.

And remember this. Because most humans are social in some sense, most of us try to save other humans to a varying degree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd call such people seekers not atheists/agnostics. IMHO atheists/agnostics are people who already made up their mind.



Maybe by pandering to them by telling them that Richard Dawkins is the latest dispensation of their messiah Charles Darwin?

Well, I am a seeker, but I am still an atheist and agnostic.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There are no case of the atheists. As a human and atheist I have more in common with some religious people than some atheists.

And remember this. Because most humans are social in some sense, most of us try to save other humans to a varying degree.

Again, because you are openminded

 

[Sirona]

Well, I am a seeker, but I am still an atheist and agnostic.

Assumed you found your One True Religion one day, would you still remain atheist/agnostic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Assumed you found your One True Religion one day, would you still remain atheist/agnostic?

Well, I am also a strong skeptic, so I don't believe in The One True Truth.

 

[ChristineM]

Would it be less confrontation and heated debate if religious people let the agnostics and ateists come to them, instead of trying to "save" the ateists?

It look like many atheists are curious about why religious people believe what they do.
But how can religious people give an answer that the atheists are satisfied with?

Can we please try to keep the debate civilized

I don't see any non religious going to them though maybe a few would.

As for trying to save non religious, thst is the way to drive the wedge deeper.

I am personally curious because i don't see belief in religion/deity as anything more than a personal.mind game. I am interested in what drives people to accept religion as a primary force in their lives.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But how can religious people give an answer that the atheists are satisfied with?

I think being honest and forthcoming without prosyletizing is key. Non-religious folks are going to require good evidence and the nature of religion doesn't adhere well to this requirement since it is often deeply personal. I think understanding that and working from there is more helpful than how many religious folks attempt to force scientific concepts to justify their faith.

 

[stvdv]

Would it be less confrontation and heated debate if religious people let the agnostics and ateists come to them, instead of trying to "save" the ateists?

"Save", this I do with my computer documents
Never do I even think to "save" Atheists/Agnostics

 

[Brian2]

Would it be less confrontation and heated debate if religious people let the agnostics and ateists come to them, instead of trying to "save" the ateists?

It look like many atheists are curious about why religious people believe what they do.
But how can religious people give an answer that the atheists are satisfied with?

Can we please try to keep the debate civilized

I have not noticed that many are curious about why religious people believe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Assumed you found your One True Religion one day, would you still remain atheist/agnostic?

That's a pretty stupid question.

Kind of like asking "assumed you marry the woman of your dreams one day, would you still be a bachelor?"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have not noticed that many are curious about why religious people believe.

That is the case for me, yes.

In the words of the show The Atheist Experience: What you do you believe and why?

 

[Vinayaka]

Would it be less confrontation and heated debate if religious people let the agnostics and ateists come to them, instead of trying to "save" the ateists?

It look like many atheists are curious about why religious people believe what they do.
But how can religious people give an answer that the atheists are satisfied with?

Can we please try to keep the debate civilized

This can be turned around. Would it be less confrontational if atheists let religious people come to them? Many religious people are curious about why atheists don't believe.

Personally, I see fixation on the atheist-theist debate as a negative emotional attachment, independent of whatever side you're on. Why care so much about what another person believes?

 

[mangalavara]

I am interested in what drives people to accept religion as a primary force in their lives.

In my case, my intuition always told me that there is more than what we see with our eyes. Additionally, I feel that something that's transcendent, blissful, and permanent is the only 'thing' that can give me complete satisfaction by knowing 'it.'

 

[mangalavara]

Personally, I see fixation on the atheist-theist debate as a negative emotional attachment, independent of whatever side you're on. Why care so much

It's a bit like a vegetarian-omnivore debate. As you said, 'Why care so much?'

 

[Vinayaka]

It's a bit like a vegetarian-omnivore debate. As you said, 'Why care so much?'

Sometimes I think people care so much because they simply haven't realised that they don't have to, or that they do have the ability to move their own awareness to topics bearing more fruit. But yes, that's a great example. OTOH, there wouldn't be much discussion at all if we all didn't care much about anything.

 

[Sirona]

Kind of like asking "assumed you marry the woman of your dreams one day, would you still be a bachelor?"

I don't think you. People may find a religion they like but may not practice it because they feel they can't filfill its rules, or because they want to remain atheist as a matter of principle. And I said "find", I didn't say "marry".

 

[Audie]

Again, because you are openminded

Are you?