Does compromise need to come from BOTH sides?

[fhbnfghnbfgbsnbg]

I have seen people complain how the religious are so unfair, close-minded, the like.
How they are prejudicial against atheists and those not of their religion.

However...
If the religious and the non-religious are to "get along", does it require compromise from both sides?

If persons are going to go about making comments such as:
"Yes. I think they have schizophrenia or some other disorder." (In regards to "What about all those people who claim that they can feel God's presence?")

"No, I think they should have gone to more therapy as a child."

Even the new movie coming out soon, Religulous. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB8fPJ6zds cool

I've seen it stated by atheists that the religious are moronic sheep blindly following the carrot placed in their face.

So, various persons complain. But does people really expect the religious to go "Oh, hey, I love you, man. ♥♥♥" if one sits around mocking their faith?

And thus, I come to my point:

If the "non-religious" and the "religious" expect to get along, who should do the tolerating? The religious? or the non-religious?  

[Sanguvixen]

The only way to get true tolerance is for both sides to work at it. That does require non-believers to tolerate believers, and believer to tolerate non-believers.

However such a thing is rather unrealistic because due to the nature of majority monotheistic religions, they cannot really tolerate those who don't believe or have different views.

That is an inherent flaw in most monotheistic religions, you are taught that only one way is right....and when you believe that it clashes with tolerating difference.  

[Edi Gammon]

So what are you saying Kuro, that people should not be so direct and harsh in voicing their opinions? Are you saying that if we don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all... because we might offend someone? Should we sugar coat everything we say? Double check every thought before it comes out as words to see if it fits the agenda of 'getting along' and 'tolerance for all'?

Rubbish.

This is thinly veiled censorship.
If we are to have a society in which we are free to speak, then it's denizens must have the strength to endure it.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. "
- George Washington  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

KuroFur

If persons are going to go about making comments such as:
"Yes. I think they have schizophrenia or some other disorder." (In regards to "What about all those people who claim that they can feel God's presence?")

"No, I think they should have gone to more therapy as a child."

...

I've seen it stated by atheists that the religious are moronic sheep blindly following the carrot placed in their face.

If that's what someone honestly thinks about them, why should that person be censored and not allowed to express his true feelings?

And quite honestly, I don't think anyone expects the religious to sit around and go "durr I love you man" but we do expect them to stop trying to shove their religion down our throats and into our legal system.

People should be intelligent about the comments they make in that they should watch what they say and where they say it. I would not go up to a respectful religious person who isn't bothering me at all and start denouncing their beliefs as "stupid" (an intolerant, rude bigot might be a different story). If a religious person is respectful and tolerant of my ideas then I will be respectful and tolerant of theirs.

When I am around other atheists, however, nobody should expect me to pander to the religious and censor myself. Groups of atheists ARE the proper place for joking about how silly or farfetched some religious beliefs are, and how many religious practices/ideas/etc very well MAY come from deep-rooted psychological problems.

It's the same as any other idea anyone might have... it's all about being smart about it and choosing your battles.

 

[fhbnfghnbfgbsnbg]

Edi Gammon

So what are you saying Kuro, that people should not be so direct and harsh in voicing their opinions? Are you saying that if we don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all... because we might offend someone? Should we sugar coat everything we say? Double check every thought before it comes out as words to see if it fits the agenda of 'getting along' and 'tolerance for all'?

Rubbish.

This is thinly veiled censorship.
If we are to have a society in which we are free to speak, then it's denizens must have the strength to endure it.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. "
- George Washington

You're very good at reading into things that aren't there, buddy.
My single statement which was veiled behind all of the pretty words and secretly voiced in the title, was "Does compromise need to come from both sides?"
Here people complain about how mean the "other side" is.
But do the atheists need to work on it a little too?
Do the atheists need to think "Well, maybe I could be wrong." instead of going on about how those religious folk are so close minded and moronic?  

[Edi Gammon]

YBT
grats

But seriously...

All of the differences between theists and non-theists aren't going to be solved by some sort of give and take arbitration. It's not like there's some sort of divorce court for truth where the two sides argue over what gets to be accepted as fact.

Theists - "We want the transubstantiation to be true."
Atheists - "Alright, only if it applies exclusively to radioactive material decaying into other elements."
Theists - "That's not fair! It has to be crackers and wine turning into flesh and blood!"

See it doesn't work.
Either there is a god or not.
But I'd be willing to compromise with theists if they kept every trace of religion to themselves and out of the government. If they did that, I'd promise to never to complain about them again.

As far as considering that we might be wrong.... That's called DOUBT...
And it's the reason most of us are here.

I consider that I could be wrong many times a day. Then I consider why I might be wrong. I think "What's the argument? Is there evidence against it? For it? Is it even a valid argument?" Most of the time I've overlooked some kind of fallacy, which is easy to do (had many years of practice), or there's just a tiny little example that I forgot about that knocks the argument out cold. But occasionally, I'll stay stumped, and in this state of "I really don't know! Maybe I'm agnostic *gasp*!" for a few hours. That's when I go do some serious research, and pool my resources. If I can't find an answer to satisfy my doubt at that point, it's obvious that I have to change my view to fit what I have found (or not found).

I think that's the very definition of open mindedness.... It requires reflection, doubt, and testing.

Doubt is like a dirty word to theists... Everyone doubts, they may say. They may even say it's good to doubt. But there's always the subtext, as long as you come back. ...because they know where doubt will take you if you follow it to it's logical conclusion.

Jesus isn't around anymore to take Thomas's fingers and place them in his wounds.  

[[The Looney Bin]]

Well.
If the rate of growth of Atheism/Agnosticism continues at what it is now then we really won't have to learn to love each other; the religious will simply convert/die out over time~

It's just a matter of waiting it out.  

[SkeletonPhoenix]

All I have to say is NEVER.  

[[-Erik-]]

Toleration must come from both sides.

Beacuse like you said, you can't just sit and say "I love you man <3" while the other is mocking your beliefs. Have you got no self steem or what? >:c

 

[Missuhs Bunneh]

I believe compromise must come from both sides, and it's really hard to try to compromise and be civil to some *v*  

[ElenaMason]

Both sides need to give. And I DO mean "need". Its like people arguing over vanilla or chocolate being better. Its a no win situation, and people need to agree to disagree.

If it was two Christians arguing over the translation of a verse etc etc then thats one thing....but two completely opposite point of views arguing? sure....uh huh

And I"m sorry but the whole "...I have the freedom to say what I want because its free..." that's bull s**t. Okay so you have a right to an opinion. That's completely good to go. You want to voice your opinion in a civil manner with, hopefully, legitimate reasons for what you believe "such and such". That's also perfectly okay.

But if one is simply to sit there and mock others for their beliefs with no real reason or rhyme to do so, simply for the fact that talk is free? ******** that. Unless they honestly don't give a rats a** about how their words affect others, I don't see why they can't hold some "modesty" and at least try to respect the other side, IF, and if being the key word here, the other side is respecting back. I mean is it really so hard? And I'm really....really not trying to pick a fight here, but to simply sit there and say "I can be a d**k because speech is free...." I mean come on...again I'm not pointing fingers or what not, but this particular view was posted and I've heard it SO many times before and it just....gets me easily pissed at the idea sweatdrop Words can cut just as deeply as a knife into butter. Even the bible warns of how the tongue acts as a two edged sword.  

[[-Erik-]]

Chyeah, some people forget about giving respect sometimes on puropse.

 

[Athena_Ritashe]

Seriously, I am totally for people believing in whatever they want as long as long as they aren't hurting other people and letting me believe whatever I want to believe. I don't know what the truth is so I cannot tell them what to believe, but I can tell them why their beliefs are flawed or nonsensical.

The problem with the modern condition is there are many religious people out there that won't grant me the same respect as I will grant them. This is why a secular society is necessary, so that everyone is given the same freedom. However the religious want to push their agenda into secular society and will do whatever it takes to get the job done. This is why there cannot be tolerance, I will not tolerate someone who is trying to deny my rights. This is why it is absolutely necessary for Atheists to be outspoken to the level of mocking religion if necessary. If we sit idly by the Christians and other theistic religions will win and we will be forced to conform to their ideals.

For the necessity of tolerance we must be intolerant.  

[Paraldehyde Kool-Aid]

There is a lot to be said for the philosophy embodied in the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do what ye will." Your right to swing your fist ends where the next fellow's nose begins. Personally, as long as nobody tries to save me from my atheism, I won't feel the need to try and save them from their God. Turnabout's fair play. I do make exceptions, such as, if I'm at work. When the one evangelist who's left in the office tried her stuff, I simply let her take all the flak in the wake of the attempt, and I didn't try to turn any tables on her. They turned well enough on their own, and my a** remained safe and sound without giving her a taste of her own medicine. Turned out much better that way. Only one person at work even knows I'm an atheist. I'm still assessing the dangers of "coming out" so to speak to the rest. It shouldn't matter, in all honesty, but we're still a red-headed stepchild of a minority, so, not a particularly tolerated or even well-liked one. A Muslim has a significantly better chance of becoming President than an atheist, and that poll was taken AFTER 9/11, when anti-Muslim sentiment really soared. Nearly half the people in this country, if the sample was a scientific one, consider an atheist as one of the absolute worst things a person can be, and nothing scored as a worse thing to as many people.

It's pretty ugly out there. The sad thing is, we don't even have to publicly poke fun at the theists for us to be considered a problem. All we have to do is exist for people to be bothered by us, because the fact that we do exist, particularly in a country where communication and association are so free-flowing, is enough to call theist philosophy into question. Question is the death of faith, because faith is the answer that must never be questioned.

Is compromise possible? Perhaps. But it seems to me that it's not a matter of meeting halfway, because things are already far too lopsided at the moment for that to be a useful meeting point. An awful lot of theists are going to have to get a lot more mature about themselves first - enough that they even have the strength to be okay with others disagreeing with them. All we really need to do is be civil and respectful. We don't have to do anything but let them exist. We're free as long as they are. The day it becomes OK for them to be taken out because they believe is the day it becomes OK for us to be taken out for failing to believe.

It works well enough amongst my friends. They don't try to save me and I don't try to save them. Privately, I hope they'll eventually come to their senses, but simply agreeing to disagree is the more civilized approach, rather than risk being forceful about the matter. That wouldn't accomplish anything. There is a little underlying tension there, but there is also enough mutual respect that it doesn't become an issue. If they do come to their senses, it won't be because I've handed them pamphlets and talked to them about changing their ways. That would make me no better a person than the evangelists I already can't stand. I'd much rather be able to look myself in the mirror and not be ashamed of the person I see there. It's been suggested that we (humans as a whole, not just atheists) become the change we wish to see in the world. The idea may have come from a theist, but there's a lot of sense in those words.