I was reminded of this video after having a conversation with an atheist at work. He was critical of Christians for their relentless faith without evidence, and because they see miracles where there are only statistics. I try not to let on what religious label describes me when I'm at work, but what he was saying was correct in my book, so I was happy to find common ground there.
I think there was a time when I might have been more defensive by that kind of discussion, or about the kind of video above. I may have felt compelled to rationalize for why the atheists criticism is wrong, or to explain why the atheist's criticism doesn't apply to me. Of course as a theist, I don't think that the criticism applies to me, but I don't feel the urge to bring that up. I think that's because it would be a subject change that only makes sense if I'm trying to protect my theist flag rather than evaluate propositions. We're talking about the evangelical strand of fideists who mistake statistics for miracles. What I believe about God has nothing to do with that.
There was another interaction at work with someone different. I joked about how entertaining it was listening to two of our workers who always argue about whether homosexuality is wrong. He felt the need to tell me which side he fell on and why. But I wasn't talking about who was right. My tone was light, but his was serious, which made for an abrupt transition conversationally. That makes sense if he was protecting his flag, it doesn't make sense if he were trying to have a conversation.
