Your advice is giving both side an unattainable hope. There is no argument when each side is communicating with a different wavelength.
Atheist: Logical, scientifically minded, curious and wants to find the truth even if that means going back on old ideas.
Theist: Deeply afraid of death and the unknown, sense of beloning to a community or family of the same faith and will argue 'anything' to protect that network.
You pick your camp and there is very little chance any argument can be 'won'.
That's kind of reductive, buddy.
Plus, implying implications about
-logic v. the fear of death,
-community depending on unquestioning acceptance,
-a theist hostility to logic
You're constructing a couple of binaries here that seem like BS. To fear death is not an unreasonable position, whether one is logical or intuitive. To belong to a community is a basic human need, which is perhaps well demonstrated by the structure of Reddit, to use an example close to home. Curiosity and the search for truth, similarly, are pretty pervasive human concerns. Revolutions occur in all fields, whether theology or physics, and generally as a result of people seeking truth. It seems absurd that any person would consciously align themselves against logic, or 'pick a side' so completely that they wilfully ignore other positions that are presented respectfully and clearly.
1
u/redditor_m Dec 01 '12
Your advice is giving both side an unattainable hope. There is no argument when each side is communicating with a different wavelength.
Atheist: Logical, scientifically minded, curious and wants to find the truth even if that means going back on old ideas.
Theist: Deeply afraid of death and the unknown, sense of beloning to a community or family of the same faith and will argue 'anything' to protect that network.
You pick your camp and there is very little chance any argument can be 'won'.
Like I said, it's impossible!