Christians and Atheists are 99.99% in agreement

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Atheists reject 100% of the gods that have ever been posited.  Christians reject 99.99% of the gods that have ever been posited, retaining only the 1 god they believe in.  Agreeing on 99.99% of anything is almost unheard of.  Christians and Atheists should be able to get along.  We are more like each other than humans and chimps.  With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.

[xSilverPhinx]

There isn't even that level of agreement between the various denominational branches of Christianity ???

Also, what's that to say? I care little for such numbers  

[Sandra Craft]

With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.

As long as its completely secular, I'm in.

[KingPhilip]

The issue is that 0.01% just so happens to be one of the biggest points of debate we've ever seen on this earth. The fact that people get angry, spiteful, personally insulted and more whenever the fact that many others do not agree on that point comes to surface.

Now were that 0.01% over whether or not bananas were, in fact, the most beautiful fruit, I highly doubt there would be nearly as much of an issue between Christians and Atheists.

[Tank]

Atheists reject 100% of the gods that have ever been posited.  Christians reject 99.99% of the gods that have ever been posited, retaining only the 1 god they believe in.  Agreeing on 99.99% of anything is almost unheard of.  Christians and Atheists should be able to get along.  We are more like each other than humans and chimps.  With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.

But that 0.01% is absolutly crucial as it could equally be said that Muslims (or any follower of an institutionalised superstition) and atheists are 99.99% in agreement. Now the fact is that the theist brings their dogma to the table and that's the bit that many atheists get fed up with. So if you leave your dogma at home when you come out to play then fine. If not, then be prepared to get asked difficult questions about why somebody who bases their world view on fairy stories is fit to govern.

[Tank]

With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.

As long as its completely secular, I'm in.

In an ideal world I would agree with this. In the UK, where admitting a strong theistic leaning is generally political suicide, it functions adequately at the moment.

[Asmodean]

With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.

Not really. It's not the myriad things you do agree on that prevent you from forming a coalition - it is that one issue you disagree on. And I, for one, would not form government with representatives from the Christian People's Party or whatever it is they call themselves.

It comes down to whether or not the issue being disagreed on is considered important by either or both parties. If not, they can work together. If yes, they can try, but may well fail. If vital, there will be no cooperation.

[Stevil]

With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.

The problem is that a government needs to be inclusive of everyone in society, not an exclusive group like Christians.

[Tank]

Ecurb Noselrub

This thread appears to be about minimising the importance of your faith in your world view to make you appear more attractive to atheists, that reads as slightly disingenuous to me. You are a pastor and as such I can't imagine that your faith doesn't pervade every aspect of your world view all the time. Thus everything you say and do are informed by your faith. It's that situation that I feel would make it impossible for atheists to form a coalition with you, or anybody like you, as I don't believe you can truly separate your faith from your day-to-day opinions; how could you?

What would you say if asked your opinion on abortion? Would it be informed from a completely dogma free opinion? I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.

[Siz]

Ecurb, I like the sentiment, but we are idealogically immiscible.

Possibly a more productive way forward is for you to seek to ally with all other religions. Then you could work together for the common aim of bringing peace to the world. That is god's will, right?

Once you have worked out amongst yourselves what the stumbling blocks might be to this coalition and then mitigated them out to a workable agreement, then approach me and ask if I want to join.

Until then, I'm out.

[Tank]

Scissorlegs raises a good point that while there is still more than one institutionalised superstition (religion) each has to rely on special pleading to assert its preeminence. If all theists and deists could agree on one definition of the supernatural, how that supernatural realm interacts with the natural realm and offer evidence that it does so then I would start to consider the arguments. Until then the arguments of any one person or group are meaningless as more people disagree with any one view than agree with it. 

[hismikeness]

Now were that 0.01% over whether or not bananas were, in fact, the most beautiful fruit, I highly doubt there would be nearly as much of an issue between Christians and Atheists.

F that dude, the peach is way perrtier. 

[xSilverPhinx]

The problem with the way that Ecurb Noselrub put it is that it doesn't matter if you're in agreement that at least 99,99% of the gods ever posited don't exist, I don't see how basing ideology-driven actions on what you don't believe makes any sense. ???

Even atheists aren't a group that are in 100% agreement.

[Stevil]

What I don't understand is that Christians have reasons that they use to not believe in 99.99% of the gods and, although these same reasons apply equally to their god of choice, they still decide to believe in their god.

This irrational logic cannot be trusted, and certainly must not be allowed to taint government decisions.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I disagree, I don't think it is just 0.01% difference. Religion, or lack of religion, is a worldview. A worldview can cover a lot of other "issues".

-traditional gender roles
- the age of the planet
- evolution
- the basis of morality
- the role of logic/reason when it comes to an argument/position
-miracles
-faith
-humankind's "purpose"
-what will cause the "end of the world"
-genetic engineering
- euthanasia
-contraceptives/fertility treatments
- sexuality (homosexuality, pre-martial sex, sex education, etc) 


The list goes on and on.

Now, I'm not saying that every christian takes the same stance on every one of these issues and every atheist takes a different stance, but these are issues that I would say have fairly strong ties to a worldview based on an atheist or theist position. I would argue that that "one little thing" shapes a whole lot about how we feel about a lot of other, often very politicized, "things".