"It's entirely in line with what Mendax and Oscar have said, that they gravitate towards people who aren't theistic"

Saying "I gravitate towards X kind of people" is different from saying "I avoid Y kind of people, and only tolerate them as much as I need to in order to get by."

"Trust, not ideological agreement, is the bedrock of a good friendship."

Trust? A page or so ago you were talking about how you have no problem fraudulently praying to a god you don't believe in. That's not trust.

""I gravitate towards X kind of people" is different from saying "I avoid Y kind of people, "

It is not different. It's about as different as saying I am moving to the left vs I am not moving to the right.

"LOL. Google Abbas's dissertation. Abbas is no nationalist, anyway. He's the Palestinian equivalent of a bantustan chief."

OK, I didn't know that. Yeah, that'd piss me off, and pisses me off that he said that (though he oddly then said this year the Holocaust was "most heinous crime in the modern era," so...political backtracking at its best, lol.)

But while outright Holocaust denial WOULD make me pretty angry, I stand by what I said:

Don't take a "Kill all Jews" stance, and allow for an Israel AND Palestine, and I'll at least listen to you as a Palestinian, and we can have an actual conversation, and build something and maybe even a friendship from there.

Doesn't mean I won't still be extremely offended by arguing what Abbas apparently did, and Abbas is winning out here pretty much just because Hamas is the slightly more heinous of the two, but at least we can talk.

That's pretty fair and not, as you suggested, me severely limiting the options on that front...those are pretty reasonable requests.

"Trust? A page or so ago you were talking about how you have no problem fraudulently praying to a god you don't believe in. That's not trust."

It is when my friend knows I'm doing it just to appease them, and I know they're asking for it as part of tradition and not to actually convert me...

Knowing and TRUSTING both of those things to be true is an example of trust.

I even gave an example of what I'd consider a violation of trust in this context, ie, my from the start pretending and fooling a girl into thinking I was Catholic so I could date her, only to reveal later I'd been full of shit.

If you're upfront with it, and go through the motions to make a friend happy, and the friend knows that, and you know they're not trying to convert you, then all the cards are on the table, no harm done, and that's grounds for trust.

Conversely, actively fooling someone who believes I believe one thing just to further my own ends *would* be a violation of trust.

"It's not like we're talking about people of different sports fan affiliations being friends; sports being what they are, you can realistically set that aside and still have a lot of common ground. To anyone who's thought their fundamental principles through to their logical conclusion, though, people who claim substantially opposed/different religious and/or political philosophies are going to have a more difficult time with building a strong friendship, because those things should manifest in a lot of normal day-to-day interactions. It's certainly not insurmountable by any means, because a lot more normal day-to-day interactions don't tie back to those beliefs per se, or don't do so in a way that requires significant disagreement. But it does make it more difficult. I'd even go so far as to suggest that most people deriding the thought process here either unconsciously selected their friends for political and/or religious philosophical closeness (and so haven't encountered these difficulties, on account of not having friends of opposite affiliations), or simply don't think especially deeply about the matter in the first place (and so haven't encountered these difficulties, on account of not answering the question)."

I mean this is completely false. I don't know if this is the result of PE growing up in Louisiana, but do you people actually mean to tell me that you can't have a friendship with people with a different faith than you? Are you serious.

Not only do I reject PE's comment about the sports teams, I contend it is about the same damn thing. I reject Putin's baseless remark that people of faith talk about their faith a lot. That is a generalization and often false.

This is blowing my mind

In order for me to confide in someone, or have beers with someone, or be the best man at a guy's wedding, I in no way have to share his faith. Faith rarely has to come up, and often when it does it does jokingly. You can easily accept a friend's differences. I don't understand how this is even a discussion. Very few of my close friends are Jewish. Most are actually Catholic.

Honestly I think what we have here are two athiest's who can't comprehend people of faith as being anything other than Jesus zombies. Perhaps also due to the communities you were brought up in? Honestly I am flabbergasted by PE and Putin's stance here.

"It is when my friend knows I'm doing it just to appease them,"

This is precisely the kind of inauthetic, fraudulent behavior that Putin and I were both saying makes a friendship difficult...

"and I know they're asking for it as part of tradition and not to actually convert me..."

...and this is the kind of behavior that implies that the people in your circle aren't following their beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Consider the following:
- Why should you HAVE to "appease" a friend? Why do you feel the need to put on a fake display to make them feel happy, and why do they need you to put on such a fake display to be happy? The use of the word "appease" belies an unrecognized agreement with our argument.
- If your friend well and truly believes that you're going to an existence of eternal torment after your physical death, and the only way for you to escape is conversion, why aren't they trying to get you to convert? Not necessarily overtly, because that can often drive people away, but if their belief is genuine and they care about you then that subtext should always be present. In fact it'd be alarming if it weren't, because that would imply that you're not worth the effort to save.

I know that if I were your Christian friend, I would rather you not fake participation in a prayer; it doesn't do anything for me and it just forces you into some fraudulent display to accommodate me, which is silly. And I also know that I'd feel like I'm insulting a Christian friend of mine if I pretended to participate in their prayer ritual despite very unambiguously not believing in their god. Obviously not everyone is me, but this just seems bizarre; I truly can't conceive of any good reason why either side would feel obligated to put on such a display, when neither side gets anything out of it.

PE's logic is flawed

1. It assumes that all religions teach that non believers will burn in hellfire
2. It assumes that people follow (the most extreme) dogma, and aren't influenced by the liberal ideals of our society and their experience.

"Honestly I think what we have here are two athiest's who can't comprehend people of faith as being anything other than Jesus zombies. Perhaps also due to the communities you were brought up in? Honestly I am flabbergasted by PE and Putin's stance here."

Then you aren't reading very carefully, because neither of us have said anything of the sort. The argument we've both put forth is that it's significantly more difficult to have such a friendship compared to one in which both people have more philosophical common ground, because having fundamentally different principles, which in theory inform most of your decision-making, creates many more opportunities for tension. Neither one of us has said it's impossible or can't be done, and we've each explicitly clarified this at least once.

I mean Christ Santa, in the very thing you quoted and summarized as "PE doesn't think it's possible for people of different religions to be friends," I outright said "[this difference] is certainly not insurmountable by any means [...]. But it does make it more difficult." Which I'd (still) argue is true.

As for personal experiences, I've talked about it on the forums a while back, and yeah, it's no secret that I haven't had the best interactions with religious people either. But I don't think this has any bearing on my argument, which has nothing to do with my personal experiences.

"1. It assumes that all religions teach that non believers will burn in hellfire"

I'm going off of what obi himself has said about his situation, which was the basis of the comment to which you're replying.

"2. It assumes that people follow (the most extreme) dogma, and aren't influenced by the liberal ideals of our society and their experience."

No, it doesn't. Where did I do that?

So, basically, people with things in common are more likely to be friends. You guys are geniuses. I see a joint authored book and possibly a nobel prize in your future.

"So, basically, people with things in common are more likely to be friends. You guys are geniuses. I see a joint authored book and possibly a nobel prize in your future."

We have people, like obi, in the thread arguing that these differences don't affect anything. Taking the position that they do, obvious or not to you, is a significant enough divergence to warrant discussion. If all you're going to do is shit on it by misattributing arguments due to careless reading and make snarky comments, you can save us all the time and leave.

Id agree then, but I'd put the caveat that it's quite easy to focus on other things you have in common, and as long as one of you isn't a fundamentalist, holding a friendship is quite easy.

Putin quite clearly was saying what i responded to (went so far to say a friendship i have must not be authentic), your opening statement of your paragraph made it seem like you completely agree. Sorry if I bruised your feelings. I still think this stance is either wrong or so banal (people sharing things in common are more likely to be friends) that it hardly warrants any mention at all.

obiwan: "I disagree. You're NOT going to burn in Hell for all eternity, all the evidence says we're not, so...why does it matter if they think that in the back of their head, or even if they voice that concern to you? I really don't see what the problem is..."

They not only belief that I will burn in hell for all eternity. They also belief that I deserve it. The fact that I don't believe in hell does not change the fact that they belief I deserve such torture. I prefer friends that belief I deserve better eternal agony.

"But while outright Holocaust denial WOULD make me pretty angry"

But the Holocaust DID happen, all the evidence says it did, so... why does it matter if they think that in the back of their head, or even if they voice that denial to you? I really don't see what the problem is...

Yes, obiwan, you are a bloody hypocrite.

*better than eternal agony*

Interesting discussion.

A fairly large majority of my close friends are Christian, so I appreciate the advantages of that, but I do think Putin and PE are somewhat overstating the case -- although that's not to deny that the negatives they mention can occur (or that I've experienced them). I have quite a few friends, including very close ones, who are unbelievers. It obviously adds a different spin when we discuss that topic, which we do, but they are wonderful friendships nonetheless, and I would feel greatly impoverished if I didn't have them.

These false assumptions also completely leave out the possibility that people find their friends differences interesting. That someone brought up catholic and who attended catholic school is fascinated by Judaism/Islam/Hinduism, and although they keep their own faith, they want to learn about their friend's world view and the friends have interesting conversations regarding the similarities and differences of their faiths, leading both to appreciate their own better. Honestly, this is common as well.

"But the Holocaust DID happen, all the evidence says it did, so... why does it matter if they think that in the back of their head, or even if they voice that denial to you? I really don't see what the problem is..."

Because my denying Hell is real changes nothing, harms nothing.

Someone denying the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide--ANY genocide occurred...that's not just intellectually insulting, but dangerous in the practical sense.

"They not only belief that I will burn in hell for all eternity. They also belief that I deserve it. The fact that I don't believe in hell does not change the fact that they belief I deserve such torture. I prefer friends that belief I deserve better than eternal agony."

I don't know what kind of Christian friends you have, but the Christians friends I have tend to believe I DON'T deserve eternal agony--which shows their terrible judgment, of course, thinking so kindly of me. :p

But in seriousness, they tend to think yeah, I'm a nice guy, I don't deserve torment, and THAT is why they'd want me to believe in God and Jesus and all that, if they want me to believe at all. To them, it's somewhat like watching someone you love be an alcoholic--you wish they'd make another choice. So too do they wish I'd make another choice, but accept the ones I make.

And for me, that's fine. I know they say that with good intentions at heart, even if it comes off as condescending, and they know that I don't why I think it's all nonsense, even if they obviously disagree. I hear them out, they hear me out, we talk it out, and they accept me, my views and all, and I likewise.

That's respect. You don't dismiss someone you disagree with, or cut them out of your life and circle--you hear them out, and agree or disagree, you learn the how and why of what they think, find the positives in people, and try to build on that.

"I know that if I were your Christian friend, I would rather you not fake participation in a prayer; it doesn't do anything for me and it just forces you into some fraudulent display to accommodate me, which is silly."

And no Christian friend of mine HAS asked me to do so--I simply said I'd be OK with it if they'd ever asked, so long as they asked politely and it was me paying back their courtesy. I mean really, PE:

Suppose the impossible happened, and a girl wanted to go steady with me. ;)

Suppose she loved opera, Shakespeare, art, literature, San Francisco, wanted to travel to NYC, London, Amsterdam, Rome, all the places I'd want to see...say she was brilliant, a fantastic writer, incredibly independent, her own person and perfectly so--say she was anything anyone could ever want in a mate, and she made me feel better, just her being there, and for whatever reason, I made her as happy as she made me.

Now say she happened to Catholic.

Should I just terminate the relationship right then and there if she asked me to pray along with her family at a service? Not convert, not change my views, not do anything else but go through the motions and pray, so as to go along with her family, who are fine with me as a Jew and atheist, they just "think it'd be nice if the family prayed together," as it were?

Just asking me to do THAT...for the wonderful person I'd be able to love in return...

I should just throw that away, kick her to the curb, and cancel things, because two people of mixed intellectual backgrounds couldn't work?

Can we get back to something more substantive as a topic. Like Star Trek? Maybe the demonstrability of existence of penises in general, and that of bo_sox in particular? If you don't like that one, there's always Christian porn.

Well, not to start a holy war...

But Picard beats Kirk.

Tea, Earl Grey, hot...

Ah, but how does that relate to penises?

I don't actually know anything about Star Trek and never saw a single episode, but hey, it's a topic. What are the merits of Picard as opposed to Kirk? How does Spock relate to either?

Kirk essentially winged it whilst Spock desperately tried to fix his many cock-ups. Picard avoided making mistakes by letting everyone else do all the work whilst he sat in his quarters drinking tea and polishing his models.

Awesome. How does Spock relate to penises that may or may not exist? What position do Spock, Picard and Kirk take towards Christian porn, and masturbation? Which members of the crew would you ally with, which would you invade if you were playing diplomacy?

Kirk went in like a raging Murican, getting legions of red shirted men killed and getting it on with legions of scantily-clad aliens...because he was a male action lead in 1960s TV.

Picard surveyed the situation, picked the right people for the right task, instead of insisting he, his first officer, and drinking buddy doctor went on every single mission, and sipped tea while listening to classical music or quoting Shakespeare like a boss.

Also, he was played by Patrick Stewart who, as we all know, phil_a_s, has to have one of the most amazing cocks to match his sheer level of awesome (that, or he needed another big bald head.)

Right, but how do their personalities, and that of Spock translate to Diplomacy? Also, what if we include the potential Bo_sox penis? Which do you ally, which do you invade?

Kirk is the aggressive player who flukes a strong early position despite his press radiating smug and his game being plagued by miss orders. Spock is his care bear ally who should have stabbed Kirk long ago but seems content to play for a strong second.

Picard is the annoying tit who is very polite and loves to talk a lot, but doesn't actually seem to want to commit to anything more adventurous than bouncing the English Channel.

The only one worth allying with is the Spock from the mirror universe.