Robert Tulip wrote:
This is what is so strange to me (but Mr President gave a very good text by Halle which explains about the brain's reluctance to stretch itself
I have no difficulty imagining and living the situation of an atheist speaking to/ living with believers, and vice-versa, because this is part of life.
We talk about life, politics, society...
But the idea that the conversation is often about the other's beliefs or lack thereof, and especially that the dialogue is undertaken with the ultimate aim of persuading the other to stop/ start believing
is bewildering to me.
I can't see the point of trying to persuage. Do people change their religious beliefs because of of arguments based on reason?
Instead of dividing the world between atheists and Christians, we could say we're Hindus and Moslems. Would we argue to convert each other?
I suppose the comparison isn't quite right. If tolerant, the Muslim would see/think that the Hindu is right in believing in a God/ Gods, and respect him for it, and would leave it at that (and vice versa).
If they're intolerant, they would wish to use other means than persuasion to convert each other.