Atheists vs Christians a reflection on some comments

I'm used to having one or maybe two comments at the most to each post I put up. So It was a bit of a surprise to go away for Christmas and come back to find 15 comments on my last post. I originally intended on going through all of the comments on my last post and give my two cents to what I thought about some of the comments. I started writing about...

• the parallels between scientific skepticism and post modern doubt. That post modernism didn't occur in a vacuum, but cam e out of modernism and maybe we're too close to them both to see the similarities.
• the authority of status compared to the authority of content. This is quite important to the debate so I'll write about this eventually.
• the complexity and simplicity of the idea of "love God and love others" and that because Jesus was often counter cultural leading not always simple black and white responses it makes loving often gray & difficult
• that initially I chose to follow Jesus because of my morality/ethics rather than following and then getting ethics. Which is not to say that I don't learn from Jesus.
  
• there are a few ways to answer every moral dilemma, utilitarianism for example isn't always applicable, so there is something over and above this more simple formulas.
• the problem of much of Jesus' teaching is how to apply it. It is not always easy to know what Jesus would do.
  

As I churned through some of the lengthy comments from Paul and Arthur (thanks heaps for reading and commenting, I do appreciate it) I realised i was only up comment five of fifteen comments and it already started to look like a small novel so i stopped. And all from saying "I'm wondering if in fact doubt feeds compassion". I'll make sure I don't start sentences with "I am sure that...".

Anyway, I stared thinking what comes out of a debate like the one Paul and Arthur had? My guess is just two frustrated debaters who walk away not unconvinced of what they originally believed but, at best just unconvinced how to express what they believe to make it is as clear as possible to the other. It's perhaps even worth asking "Why Argue with a Xn / Atheist?" or ask "why would I have such a debate?" and "What are we trying to achieve?" Winning a debate doesn't necessarily mean the other person is wrong (they may just be a poor debater). Proving one aspect or way of getting to some conclusion doesn't necessarily dismiss that conclusion. For example, proving creationism wrong doesn't show God doesn't exist.

None the less, I think It's worth admitting that we all bring baggage to debates like this, including myself of course. We all have ideas of what a Xn or Atheist is like or believes before we talk to one, often because have been unfairly burnt in the past. I bet that rarely does anyone ever convince the other person or bystanders with opposite beliefs in these debates. There are debates to be had I think if they are best when about, specific issues like creationism or chaplains in schools. These more focused debates can be won and lost. The problem with a Nazi is not that they identify as a Nazi per se but that they deny the holocaust, hate foreigners etc... The same is true for Xns and Atheists. People end up not liking Nazis because they disagree with everything they stand for.

This quick reflection is not in anyway meant to be a chastisement of Paul and Arthur I do sincerely appreciate their contribution, and that they both realised the debate was going in circles before getting to grubby name calling. It is just a reflection on a trap Xns and Atheists alike often find ourselves in. The one thing that Xns and Atheists have in common is that we care how we live and we care how we treat each other. That I think is worth remembering if not even worth celebrating.