Who would you have . . .

[realthinker]

Neighborhoods, communities, towns, states, countries, are built upon the cooperative and trustworthy contributions of their people. It's easy to see in the US national political news that religion is not a facet of society that contributes to trust and cooperation. I think many of us can find examples where religion has caused divisions at every level of social structure, even within a family. With such examples so readily available, here's the question:

Who, in the interest of building a strong community, would you have as your neighbors, atheist or the theist? Why?

[daedalus 2.0]

I said atheists but it's obviously more complicated than that. Obviously, in the end you want someone who honors Humanity and is Reasonable.

[Zzyzx]

.

Who, in the interest of building a strong community, would you have as your neighbors, atheist or the theist? Why?

In choosing neighbors I would be concerned about the qualities and quality of the person NOT about their opinions regarding supernaturalism. I know many high quality people who have very diverse opinions on all matters -- including the insignificant matter of supernaturalism. If a person defines himself or herself by their religious belief (or "wears it on their forehead") they are, in my opinion, unduly focused on a matter that is of no consequence in real life situations.

I would prefer to have as neighbors Cnorman, Cathar, Jester, McCulloch, Confused, Bernee, Goat, Tselem, Realthinker, Greatest I Am, Vanguard, Beto, Cmass, Micatala, FalibleOne, OnceConvinced, MagusYanam and other thinking people who conduct themselves honorably – interesting people who earn respect by using reason and logic in their conversations – and who appear to “walk the talk� (regardless of their opinions).

I decidedly would NOT want as neighbors those who are convinced that their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) set them apart from and above others – or people who are obsessed with narrow views or who are intolerant of those who are “different�. I would not want as neighbors those who think that they know “the truth� and that everyone who differs is wrong (or inferior). I refuse to regard as neighbors or friends those who attempt to push their religious views on others.

A strong sense of community can be developed by people of very diverse interests and opinions provided that each respects the others right to think and act in accordance with their personal decisions and in respect of the rights of others. “Group-think� or conformity are not required nor desirable, in my opinion – and religion is of no consequence provided that it is not a divisive or disruptive factor (as it commonly is).

[JoeyKnothead]

As said above there is more to it than a simple response, but here's mine...

Staying strictly within the confines of the poll, I picked atheists. Here in the Bible Belt there can be repercussions for the atheist, and I would wish to reduce the probability of having a theist neighbor who would do me harm, or try to isolate me socially. And to make sure its mentioned, there's good and bad in all, so it would be nice to screen individually.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I would put many many things ahead of religion, when it comes to determining who I want as my neighbors. If it came down to it though, I would prefer a mix of both.

[realthinker]

The reason I post such a seemingly narrow-minded poll is to look at a particular aspect of theism. A "good" theist is one who is strong in their beliefs. Those beliefs will necessarily have them at odds with others of differing but similarly strong belief.

Looking for leadership, one would generally like to have one of conviction, of consistent belief and strength of belief. A leader who is inconsistent will not be well followed.

So, a not-so-good theist is not a good leadership candidate. However, a good theist will be divisive in a mixed community, which most are.

An atheist of conviction, however, does not have a necessarily divisive belief, and those beliefs are likely to be based on an easily portrayed logical position rather than a religious position, which we've about proven here can't be argued, merely accepted.

This is a brief description of the argument, meant to stir debate. I know there are holes in what I've outlined here. I want others' ideas on the topic.