Can Believers and Atheists Work Together?

From a base position I really have to agree here. Religion insists that reality is an opinion, and that anyone’s is as good as another. That can’t ever work.

At every turn they distort scientific research (need I point out the gay “reparative” therapy scandal of late?) to support their claims when the very papers they’re waving around say the exact opposite. The sad thing is, the general public is too lazy or uneducated to follow up on their claims. They take them at face value, and they depend on this ambivalence to continue their work. I think we all have had our fill with the so called “intelligent” design idiocy and the constant misinformation campaign they run for it. They lie constantly, either from ignorance or malice, and you expect me to play nice? Not likely.

So that’s where I am before listening to this recording. Thought it might be interesting to register my opinion before and after hearing it. Have to make a run to the store, hear it out, and I’ll follow up with what I think after the fact. Ya know, for science and all that =)

I volunteer for a homeless shelter.

Down on the street, when I’m feeding people in a soup kitchen, trying to distribute clean needles to addicts and convincing them to go to the hospital for the festering wound on their leg, and translating for the immigrant who can’t speak Engllish but whose son just fell off a bluff and landed on his head, if you are beside me I don’t care what you believe as long as you help. 

Just saying.

It’s a response like this that really reminds me that my belief on this issue (see above) isn’t so black and white.  You’ve got a great point.  

I’ve spent a week in Haiti years ago working on a medical trip.  There were a few doctors, a bunch of nurses, and a few of us grunt people helping out with everyday things.  I painted a few churches and helped with two surgeries.  In general, I think people’s lives were made better by what we did, even though our trip was organized by a Catholic church. 

But as much as these warm fuzzy memories make me happy, where do we draw the line?  So my trip did no harm (that I know of), but could we have done more good?  People spent a few hours in church services and a few more hours praying.  Couldn’t that time have been better spent on something actually beneficial?  

I’ve also worked in a needle exchange, mine funded with city, state, and government monies and in no way associated with religion or spirituality.  I appreciate the efforts of anyone working with such a difficult and needy population, but I would still rather that work and effort come with a realistic basis, not a hope that god is facilitating the healing. 

The entire argument is summed up at around 50:30ish (didn’t get the exact timestamp) where they say people can believe whatever ridiculous things they want so long as they don’t impose them on anyone else. That is the very issue. They impose.

Everything from the recent Amendment One in North Carolina to the boycott they’re trying to do to GAP clothing because they have gay men on a billboard, to blocking improvements on healthcare for EVERYONE because they can’t get members of their own church to stop using condoms. Every chance they get, they demand we play along with their fantasy. They do not keep it to themselves, and we do not have to tolerate that behavior.

At 56:51 Chris invoked Carl Sagan, but if Sagan were alive today I think he would have different thoughts on the matter. It’s gotten worse since his time because we did try to ignore it and hope it would go away.

But the most telling thing of that whole recording? They mentioned at the beginning that there were a lot of religious people present. And at 47:12 Leslie starts talking about religiously themed breakfast get-togethers among politicians. Then she says that they’re starting to happen in Australia. At 47:43 one person in the audience starts to applaud, but stops after 2 very enthusiastic and close together claps after their brain had time to kick in. They were happy about what everyone else in the room saw as a threat to freedom, and they didn’t have the common sense to realize that until they noticed very quickly that no one else was clapping. Actually, I don’t even give them that much credit, I think the person next to them stopped them.

If anything, I’m more steadfast in my earlier opinion after listening to this.

“Soppy interfaith wanker” indeed.

Working with anyone in any capacity or position can be achived as long as there is one thing in place and that is respect.If it is a work enviroment then there is nothing to say, your there to do a job then go home.If that was all your day consisted of it would be for me a boring,horrible place to work.Whats wrong with people talking about what they do on the weekend without people being offended,from my expirience christians sharing their faith is like pulling teeth. After the reason rally if someone asked what you did on the weekend and you told them and why you went and they said STFU,they would be total tools right,same in reverse.I guess the other issue is when people are working in a volenteer capacity,if its for a christian organization there would probably be protocols that would need to be respected just like if you went to Saudi Arabia you wouldnt wear a G-string on the beach,and if i asked an atheist why they didnt belive in God and he said he didnt want to talk about it the same would apply,respect!

That’s nice.

You might want to look at http://reformsection5.org.uk which makes a big thing that both religious groups and the national secularist society are supporting their calls for free speech.

Everybody except most Labour MPs in fact.

I find PZ so obnoxious that I don’t like to listen to any debate he’s involved in. Chris Stedman is a decent sort so I might make an exception. In my experience  once normal balanced people living in modern civilised societies don’t make a big deal out of what they do or don’t believe problems rarely arise. It’s those who are ‘passionate’ on either side that create tension and disharmony but fortunately in Ireland I don’t come across those too often these days – at least not south of the Border. 

Dawkins himself works well with normal religious people. He seems very friendly with some of the hierarchy in the COE. It’s the fundies that are the problem and for them the approach must be education, education, education. I’ve always thought that if the Americans positioned a communications satellite over the Middle East instead of military satellites and dropped Iphones/Ipads instead of bombs they’d make serious progress in promoting civilisation through education instead of always going for the ‘bomb them back to the stone age’ approach.

Stedman comes off as an awkward adolescent, not an adult.  I think people of his perspective are helpful, but let’s get a better spokesman. P. Z. didn’t help by focussing too much time on the incident of having the previous event held in a church.

I have someone in my life who equates what she believes with who she is and I find your response/approach quite helpful.  A day without reading one of your comments is like a day without sunshine.

I have worked for a couple non-profits. I would have to say the answer is yes, we can work together, providing there is an atmosphere of mutual respect and that people’s private religious beliefs do not overtly invade the work space. The fact is, atheists work with believers all the time, we just don’t always know that is what we are doing. Common goals and common values matter much more to me personally than a person’s private thoughts regarding deities.

Then again, I am not one who automatically equates religious with fundie. I wait a few minutes and see what pops out of someone’s head before placing them in that category, same as when I find out they’re vegan, or conservative, I wait to see if they’re the everybody-who-eats-meat-is-the-enemy kind or the liberals-are-the-source-of-all-ebil kind before I decide if we can  share space.

Yes we can, and yes we should, assuming that it is something that both agree should be done and they can agree on how things are presented to the press and those that they are helping.  For example, we can help feed the hungry, but must also agree not to promote religion, offer a prayer before the food is handed out, etc.  This may make it less likely that we can work with the theists on areas of common ground, but on the other hand Atheist efforts shouldn’t be used to promote religious delusions.

It sounds reasonable to focus on the aspects of religion that impose upon others and leave the rest alone.  Let all the voices be heard. The problem I have with that is that religion manifests as inherent to it’s core the ideology and need to impose the belief on others. The belief is imposition – you can’t separate the result from the process – because the process (the belief) is to impose.  

I think the problem for me (and yes, I listened to the whole talk) is exactly what was brought up at some point, this label of interfaith. I think it’s stupid, absolutely stupid, and I don’t see the point of it. If a group of people share a common goal, say separation of church and state or legalizing gay marriage, then what on earth should religious affiliation/identification have anything to do with it? As many others have said, I don’t necessarily mind being grouped together with people who happen to belong to a religion, but I don’t want to be connected to their religion via a group affiliation. Interfaith suggests two levels of identity: 1) the goal(s) of a group, and 2) the idea of people from multiple/different religious backgrounds working together towards that/those goal(s). I understand #1; that’s the point of having some sort of advocacy or activist group, to make a positive change. But what does #2 have to do with it? I just don’t see the point of invoking any sort of religious identity. You want civil rights? Okay, form a group of people who believe in and want to work toward civil rights. Why should religious affiliation play any role? I think this idea, intentionally bringing religion into specific issues/problems that are not necessarily religious, is the thing that bothers me about the whole idea of interfaith. If there’s a cause or a goal, I am far more comfortable supporting or working with an organization that simply doesn’t make any mention of religion or religious identity, and just focuses on the goal. If religious individuals really care about certain goals, why should they need to invoke their religious identities? I think at least part of the problem is that certain religious individuals don’t want to recognize the idea that we (human beings) have the capacity to be (or do) good without god (maybe this isn’t it at all, but it’s just a thought). Like I said, if people really cared about world hunger, then they should form a group to do something about it. Why should religion and religious identity play any role? At best it’s a minor waste of time (and a muddling of the message). I think it’s because at least for some religious people, doing good and being religious is connected, and so when they’re doing something that they think is good, they connect that to their faith. That’s fine (not really, but it’s fine in terms of helping fix problems in the world), but again, why take that extra step and identify it as such, why this label, why do we have to talk about or mention religion? If your motivation for doing good is your religion, sure, fine, whatever, we can work together for progress, like I said, I certainly don’t mind that, so long as you don’t feel the need to talk about, to publicize that you’re doing good because of/in connection to your religion. Do you see the problem, Hemant? Am I being unreasonable here? 

I’m commenting as a guest as to avoid any personalization to this request. I do comment on ‘Friendly Atheist’ from time to time. Mostly I enjoy reading all of your points of view.
I have a friend who is in dire need. This friend is a Christian and I am atheist. She’s a loving, caring, non-“fundy” type who has never once damned me to hell. (Otherwise I’d not call her a friend.)
I asked Hemant’s permission before adding this comment/link, and appreciate his approval.
I have contacted several religious organizations, including Catholic Charities, in her area and have not even received a response from any of them, much to my dismay.
I thought posting her donation site to this forum might achieve better results than the other attempts I’ve made to try to get her and her husband some much needed assistance. Any little amount any of you could spare would be a wonderful example of the religious and atheists working together, though admittedly the religious have been zero help thus far.
If  you are not interested or can not afford to help with a donation, any ideas for ways of finding physical aide (volunteers for cleaning, running errands, etc.) for my friend would be much appreciated. They reside in the Tampa area. Here is a link to their story and the donation site that has been set up:
http://www.gofundme.com/lxga0
Thank you for your time and in advance, any help you might be willing to provide… and as always, thank you, Hemant for all you do.

 I agree. The less religiously obnoxious a person is, the more lenience I have in being tolerant of their religious notions.
However, the knowledge that a good many Christians choose to accept and even worship a deity whom they fully believe will send me to burn eternally for my mere “crime” of not accepting the irrational tales of the bible tends to put a damper on my being able to work alongside them, even if they are not outwardly vocal about these beliefs, they still adhere to them and I find that disturbing. Sure I can ignore it in order to accomplish something good, but I’d rather I didn’t have to.

Again, I disagree with your assertion that it is a majority doing the trouble-making. The problem is a disproportionately powerful and vocal minority being enabled by a passive and silent majority…who could go either way with the proper motivation and/or leadership. Most people just want to get through the day in one piece and keep a roof over their head and food on the table. This is what really motivates the rank and file.
Not all Germans were Nazis during WW2. Not all Russians were members of the Communist Party during the Cold War.
I’m in no way minimizing the problem. I just think it would be more effective and helpful to have a better understanding of the dynamics at work here.

1:24:10

Cannold (and Myers gives way to this to a certain
extent) appears to be saying that one
needs a special reason to state publicly that a certain religious belief
is probably false – a special reason other than that you think it is
probably false. This is unacceptable. If I hear any claim, and I think
it is probably false, I will say so. No other reason is needed.

 Point well taken. I was out of line and you have my very public apologies.