For a couple years now I've never had trouble with the idea that religion could be correct, or the idea that atheism could be correct and I'm am perfectly happy finding middle ground that makes me feel comfortable while accepting different possibilities (of course, without being wishy-washy or a total push-over).

But why do SO many people have to go so extreme? I just don't understand. On both sides of the spectrum at almost any age. I've seen plenty of atheists who think "This is the only way and anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant, mindless, or bigoted" and I see so many religious people who think "If you don't believe my religion you're doomed or you're an ignorant and immoral a-hole". I also hear comments such as (literal quote) "I just can't wrap my head around the idea that [my perfect idea of life and god] isn't the way it is" (while their idea was riddled with misconceptions and contradictions) and an atheist person who, when proven incorrect on a subject that they related to why atheism is correct, literally said "That is irrelevant".

Why is it so hard to be relaxed and open to different ideas? Why is it nearly impossible for some people to just say "Oh, I was wrong, I should fix that problematic line of thinking"?

I just had this conversation with someone else. I was pointing out that every human has feelings and emotions. Those can be taken to an extreme either way. You can say that your emotions justify a religion, you can also discount ALL emotions because they can't be scientifically proven. Either way, I still have feelings and emotions and that's probably why I stay in the middle like you do. I don't think it's just about being relaxed and open to different ideas. But if you recognize that you have feelings and emotions, it opens up things that others may not see. Having feelings and emotions doesn't have to equal "God" or a belief in "God" they just are.

Exactly! And I think simply some sort of a higher power is a nice idea for a lot of people's personalities. But a lot of people have trouble understanding emotions, and it takes a lot of thinking and sometimes difficult experiences to start understanding them.

some people just can't separate feelings and emotion from religion. But they are indeed, very separate things.

Same reason footballers start riots in England.

It has everything to do with ego, and nothing to do with fact.

This is exactly why I like Eckhart Tolle's (et al) philosophy. Essentially, the goal is to become an observer of one's ego, to "step outside". It has had an interesting effect on conflict situations which I have always greatly disliked. Suddenly, one realizes how tense one's body is. You start relaxing it, breathe deeper, relax the tense muscles (the I didn't previously even realize were tense as the result of an argument), and the other party's angry retort suddenly becomes in some way disengaged, or at least one's own mind disengages from the argument. I can still answer, but no longer reactively.

And I'm only in the very beginning of this quest. :)

+1 your name suits you well

I'd bet you also believe that you can learn new things everyday. That your beliefs don't override the possibility to be challenged. That your ego doesn't override your brain. I wish more people were "middle of the road".

Even though I have been a member of the LDS Church most of my life, I've always been a middle of the road sort of guy...religion to me has been pretty inherently personal...I graduated from BYU but never had a desire to serve a mission...wasn't into the idea of trying to convert anyone...I'm just now entertaining the idea that there are serious, serious issues with the foundation of the Church (can you say BOA?)...I'm not necessarily angry at the Church though...I don't have as much emotionally invested in it...there is more to my life besides the Church...always been that way

Guess I've never been truly converted

consider yourself lucky then!

"But why do SO many people have to go so extreme? I just don't understand. On both sides of the spectrum at almost any age. I've seen plenty of atheists who think "This is the only way and anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant, mindless, or bigoted" and I see so many religious people who think "If you don't believe my religion you're doomed or you're an ignorant and immoral a-hole". I also hear comments such as (literal quote) "I just can't wrap my head around the idea that [my perfect idea of life and god] isn't the way it is" (while their idea was riddled with misconceptions and contradictions) and an atheist person who, when proven incorrect on a subject that they related to why atheism is correct, literally said "That is irrelevant"."


I really hate to do this to you, but can you give a specific example of what the atheist said was irrelevant when she was proven incorrect?

An atheist (guy for identification purposes) and a religious (girl) friend of mine were discussing the beginning of the universe. The atheist friend said everything started from a molecule (he is a fan of the big bang theory and he also is an atheists that finds religion silly and thinks the idea of God always existing is stupid) and she asked “Where did that molecule come from?” He said “That is irrelevant.” So she said “Why is it crazy then that I think that God always existed?” And he stuck with his “That is irrelevant” statement.

I’m not saying that she is correct or that he didn’t know what he was talking about, but it emphasizes the point that he didn’t care to come up with a reason when she clearly had a point, which is just as silly as a religious person who has similar reactions when faced with facts.

"while their idea was riddled with misconceptions and contradictions) and an atheist person who, when proven incorrect on a subject that they related to why atheism is correct, literally said "That is irrelevant"."

I guess my question is the same as before. Can you give a specific example of what the atheist said was irrelevant when she was proven incorrect?

(You provided an example of someone asking a question that someone could not answer and the atheist said its irrelevant that I can't answer your question. However, your post originally said the atheist says "that's irrelevant" when proven incorrect.)

I meant incorrect in his line of thinking. Like his way was just as illogical as he thought her way was. I worded it poorly and I can’t edit it now unfortunately.

Carrots Tomatoes and Radishes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Why is it so hard to be relaxed and open to
> different ideas? Why is it nearly impossible for
> some people to just say "Oh, I was wrong, I should
> fix that problematic line of thinking"?

Well think on it for a minute.

We are "wired" as tribal animals - designed to work in groups of
10-20 optimally (repeated over and over - how many on a football team, infantry platoon, aircraft in a squadron etc - why this number?)

So we are "wired" to belong to a group: god, country, football team, political philosophy, etc.
"Belonging to" / identifying with something is the default position.
It is a way one builds the ego/self conceptually:
"I may be pretty insignificant, but my Team is #1."
This is why the sports violence - the very ego, and existence, is threatened.

So to be open requires an uncommon degree of self-confidence and a choice to NOT simply follow the biological wiring - NOT align with some group/belief as a means to further strengthen the ego, the self.

Being open is to reject the safety in numbers wiring.
It is lonely, but also freeing.


P.S. - being in the middle of the road,
watch for traffic going both ways....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2014 07:02PM by zenjamin.

I think the correct position is to believe nothing. Simply assign various levels of certainty to things. Be willing to change upon receiving new evidence. Feelings are not a dependable path to truth, only facts are.

The middle-of-the-road way IS the one true way. ;-) Yay us!

I'm a middle-of-the-road person, too, but some people may need more structure and surety to function effectively or to keep anxiety at bay. I'm not sure how feeling superior about being open and flexible in the middle is any different than feeling superior about "extreme" positions.

p.s. Not implying that you are acting superior, OP, but I have seen these types of discussions devolve into ego-slugfests with middle-of-the-roaders taking as many swings as the extremists.

I think for some people it's a phase. I felt imposed upon by Mormonism for decades, so when I finally thought my way out and was able to say of one mind that I'm an atheist, it felt so great I wanted to fight a cause.

Now that I've been out awhile, I'm able to see that belief systems that I don't accept at all have a certain logic and beauty to them, so long as they're not being forced on me. Life's short, and it's all good.

I think you'll find that religion & atheism is a false dichotomy.

Atheism is, by definition, the "middle ground" because it's the default position on the question of the existence of god. It's lack of belief, not belief that no gods exist.

There's a big difference there and it's worth thinking about...