How to diminish religious correctness and religious privilege

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Being logical is far superior in argument than being emotional because emotion can compromise clear thinking
But the only one who can change their thinking is themselves so it actually has to come from within not without
This is true of all and is why I always try as much as possible to be open minded about things less than absolute

That's true. It's also important to be able to recognize when you're discussing it with an attention whore i.e. martyr, and just don't. When people get emotional, saying things that obviously make them feel great saying, that's when I'm done. Don't feed it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I believe it is important to determine and understand why these fundamentalist Christians act and behave as they do regarding this subject. It's traceable to their religious dogma. First, they are taught not to question their religion's precepts and tenets. Second, they are taught that non-believers will persecute them for their beliefs. Third, their ability to use these together and you get their reaction to skepticism, criticism and challenges.

As far as influencing them, change and awareness comes from inside and requires internal intellectual honesty, integrity and humility. Good luck with instilling that into these diseased minds.

My experience with religion has taught me that religion is a form of supremacism. Lutherans, for example, believe they are better than non-Lutherans, and that's why they are Lutheran - for whatever reason. So you're essentially dealing with a supremacist, or more accurately, the degree to which that supremacism is being manifest in behavior. You're talking to a bigot. You're only after a draw because that's a victory for you. A draw would be their admitting their personal religious beliefs do not make them a better person than you.

 

[WAB]

When watching and observing conservative and fundamentalist Christians go into spiels about the various culture wars we are in, one extremely disturbing behavior that they engage in is to supremely exaggerate and misunderstand what it is we nontheists are actually doing. Specifically, they interpret any mere criticism of the doctrines of their religion as "attacking" or even "persecuting" them. Ed Brayton on the Freethought Blogs gives a couple examples in a couple posts of his today:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc...-crucifying-and-persecuting-christians-again/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc...upports-woman-who-destroyed-satanist-display/


Not only do they so flagrantly misread verbal disagreement with their beliefs as a kind of persecution on them, but they go even further than that and seem to want to be persecuted. Being persecuted for their beliefs validates their beliefs in their minds. They are doing it right in the eyes of their god then, if they perceive the world as acting against them. They will also get rewarded in the afterlife as well.

Obviously that is true with many Muslims in particular also (namely those that are terrorists), but I will just admit that I have less familiarity with Islamic doctrines and little to no interaction with Muslims, so it is the fundamentalist Christian theists ones that disturb me more personally, and they are the ones that I have had these sorts of encounters with.


What is the best way to combat this completely messed-up mentality? What can we as atheists do? Obviously being out-of-the-closet as atheists and being willing to disagree publicly with religious beliefs is crucial (Sam Harris had a huge impact on me with his "End of Faith" book on this topic several years ago), but it just seems like it is an extremely slow process, and would just take enormous time, namely decades, for those kinds of sentiments to become more widespread and accepted in society to the point where we will be able to obtain equal civil rights with theists, and "religious correctness" and "religious privilege" will become non-issues. Is there any way we can speed it up?

The desire for religious fundamentalists to be persecuted for their beliefs, and then to exaggerate such (perceived) occurrences to an enormous degree, is so deeply ingrained to them though that it becomes so difficult to have any kind of meaningful talk with them about any religious beliefs.

Notably, as disturbing as the behaviors of these fundamentalists are, I still try to have some compassion and sympathy for them as well. They are largely oblivious to this harmful mindset that they are enveloped in, and are not trying to harm others (for the most part), but just have a hugely mistaken idea that their beliefs and behaviors are helping, when they are really not. So I hope others can express some kindness as well, as difficult as that can be.

Brian

I believe it is important to determine and understand why these fundamentalist Christians act and behave as they do regarding this subject. It's traceable to their religious dogma. First, they are taught not to question their religion's precepts and tenets. Second, they are taught that non-believers will persecute them for their beliefs. Third, their ability to use these together and you get their reaction to skepticism, criticism and challenges.

As far as influencing them, change and awareness comes from inside and requires internal intellectual honesty, integrity and humility. Good luck with instilling that into these diseased minds.

I think you're far too comfortable in your beliefs about what other people think and the reasons for their behavior.

 

[Underseer]

What a douchey post. You got the atheist whine down pat, and that little bit of veiled condescension at the end was so fragrantly cheesy you've achieved a whine and cheese pairing that's to die for.

Veiled condescension?

The phrase "psychological projection" means nothing to you, does it?

If we ask Christians to stop mistreating homosexuals, they whine that they are being "persecuted."

If we ask Christians to stop mistreating women, they whine that they are being "persecuted."

If we ask Christians to stop using the government to mistreat other religions, they whine that they are being "persecuted."

And if we atheists get so uppity as to point out that this is happening, we are "douchey" and engaging in an "atheist whine" and being "condescending." Why? Because only douchey condescending whiners would dare ask Christians to be less evil. I swear, it's getting harder and harder to tell Christians and Muslims apart.

They too claim that they're being persecuted every time someone asks them to stop mistreating another group.

They too claim that they're being "persecuted" when people ask them to stop mistreating homosexuals.

They too claim that they're being "persecuted" when people ask them to stop mistreating women.

They too claim that they're being "persecuted" when people ask them to stop mistreating religious minorities.

Why? Because only a very bad person would ask them to be less evil. Only a very arrogant person would dare ask them to be less evil.

 

[Kharakov]

The phrase "psychological projection" means nothing to you, does it?

If you need me to explain projection to you, I will, although you should probably ask someone with a wetter  Whit.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think you're far too comfortable in your beliefs about what other people think and the reasons for their behavior.

Maybe you are right, as no one is clairvoyant. Behavior, however, IS the best determinant as to how to judge a person. All else is academic at best.

 

[One]

Is there any way we can speed it up?

Yes. By being normal, decent people.

The failing of secular activism is that it becomes just as emotionally charged as the opponents. No one will convince a fundamentalist theist that the secular community is not dangerous via debate or legal action. They become convinced by the atheists they know that behave better than their religious brethren.

The desire for religious fundamentalists to be persecuted for their beliefs, and then to exaggerate such (perceived) occurrences to an enormous degree, is so deeply ingrained to them though that it becomes so difficult to have any kind of meaningful talk with them about any religious beliefs.

It is because the so-called "persecution" complex within theistic paradigms is not fully understood by the secular community. To them, this is a religious war and they are prepared to suffer to keep hold to their beliefs. The stakes are the fate of humanity and mortal souls. Many of them fight because they honestly believe that doing so will help. They resist because they have been told they will be tested by God in their faith.

What I say to these types of people is simple, "By their fruits ye shall know them. If you see any bad behavior of mine or ill fruit, then your opinion is me is justified. If it is not, perhaps you should consult the lesson of 'judge not lest ye be judged.' Because it is not up to you to bring me to account for my life, now is it?"

And for the record, I have seen persecution complexes within the secular community, too. People making mountains out of molehills. I was in Rhode Island and this person became so incensed at the fact that the word God was on a public building - a historic building at that. So removing the word caused a ruckus with the town historic preservation society, which this person said was merely backing up religious bigotry. Um no - removing the plaque actually is a violation of the historic preservation codes of the town. It wasn't like it was put there months before to establish this as a "God-fearing nation" or something by religious nuts. That kind of thing isn't doing the secular world any favors either.

Well maybe we can just try and drop this line of rhetorical conversation altogether, and get on the topic of how we can reduce the influence of religion in our world (and particularly, the martyr complexes that are so prevalent in it). It is such an enormously powerful force on how so many people think and interpret the world around them, and it is so extremely unhealthy, both on an individual basis and for the future of our world even.

This is another example of something the secular doesn't understand about the theistic world. What I bolded is akin to saying you are in the league with Satan. Your language is enough to frighten anyone with an ounce of religious faith to steer well clear of you, not because you don't make sense. But because you are speaking "the language of the devil."

That is what Scripture warns about - the dismantling of the gospel and the turning away from the spiritual for the world of the material. And that is just what the secular with all of it's logic and science talk about: a material world with neither a creator nor a spiritual direction. To them, this equates to living in a soulless void without a moral code. Absolute darkness. And this is why they believe the secular is both arrogant and blasphemous, which leads them to shut out everything you've said.

If you'd said, "Well maybe we can just try and drop this line of rhetorical conversation altogether and get on the topic of how we can all lively harmoniously in our world (particularly with extremists views that are so prevalent in it)....."

That opens up a better line of conversation with everyone, not just the people that agree with your viewpoint. Because there are nutty secular people, too. I've met and interviewed them. Their extremism is no better. Their numbers are just smaller.

 

[Underseer]

Disagreeing with a Christian or Muslim is a form of persecution.

They believe in things that are false. If they have to get into a real debate about whether or not their truth claims are actually true, they will be forced to admit that their truth claims are unjustified. Since only a very evil person would dare suggest that they could be wrong about anything, criticizing them is a form of persecution. Christians and Muslims must be immune to all criticism, or else they are being persecuted.

 

[Kharakov]

Disagreeing with a Christian or Muslim is a form of persecution.

Yup. The OP was asking how to combat a belief system that incorporates persecution as part of its reinforcing structure.

Eliminate peer review, and we'll see how far Christianity goes too.

 

[Brian63]

Olivia, have you ever read Sam Harris's book "The End of Faith" which was quite popular several years ago when it came out? I read it back then and it significantly changed my views on this general topic from something similar to what you are saying, to views more in line with what Harris was saying (though I admit to a poor memory and forget many specifics of his book at the present time). Basically, he called for an end to "religious correctness" where we treat religion with kid gloves and just play nice with religious people who are (often unwittingly) taking away our freedoms. We can be civil and respectful with the religious people themselves, while still being very critical of the bad beliefs that they hold. Every person is some mixture of valid and invalid beliefs, and religions tend to instill the latter in people to a much greater degree, and many of those beliefs are far more dangerous as well. I have read much on the subject since having read Harris's book several years ago, so I may be inadvertently mixing together different authors on the subject. I would still recommend reading "End of Faith" though if you have not yet.

Cheers,

Brian

 

[Underseer]

Olivia, have you ever read Sam Harris's book "The End of Faith" which was quite popular several years ago when it came out? I read it back then and it significantly changed my views on this general topic from something similar to what you are saying, to views more in line with what Harris was saying (though I admit to a poor memory and forget many specifics of his book at the present time). Basically, he called for an end to "religious correctness" where we treat religion with kid gloves and just play nice with religious people who are (often unwittingly) taking away our freedoms. We can be civil and respectful with the religious people themselves, while still being very critical of the bad beliefs that they hold. Every person is some mixture of valid and invalid beliefs, and religions tend to instill the latter in people to a much greater degree, and many of those beliefs are far more dangerous as well. I have read much on the subject since having read Harris's book several years ago, so I may be inadvertently mixing together different authors on the subject. I would still recommend reading "End of Faith" though if you have not yet.

Cheers,

Brian

I strongly disagree with the New Atheists on proselytizing atheism as a goal, but they are absolutely correct in pointing out that religion is shielded from all criticism, and that this has terrible consequences.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Disagreeing with a Christian or Muslim is a form of persecution.

They believe in things that are false. If they have to get into a real debate about whether or not their truth claims are actually true, they will be forced to admit that their truth claims are unjustified. Since only a very evil person would dare suggest that they could be wrong about anything, criticizing them is a form of persecution. Christians and Muslims must be immune to all criticism, or else they are being persecuted.

Religion is not an intellectual pursuit. At best it is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit. Getting into a discussion with a person who has already decided the earth and universe is 6000 years old, decided to go to a Christian college, never took a course in biology or evolution or geology and is an engineer today isn't going to be fruitful. It's best to stay away from what is "false" and "true" scientifically. You'll get more traction by avoiding these topics and trying to discover said person's personal motivations, upbringing and interests.

 

[Underseer]

Disagreeing with a Christian or Muslim is a form of persecution.

They believe in things that are false. If they have to get into a real debate about whether or not their truth claims are actually true, they will be forced to admit that their truth claims are unjustified. Since only a very evil person would dare suggest that they could be wrong about anything, criticizing them is a form of persecution. Christians and Muslims must be immune to all criticism, or else they are being persecuted.

Religion is not an intellectual pursuit. At best it is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit. Getting into a discussion with a person who has already decided the earth and universe is 6000 years old, decided to go to a Christian college, never took a course in biology or evolution or geology and is an engineer today isn't going to be fruitful. It's best to stay away from what is "false" and "true" scientifically. You'll get more traction by avoiding these topics and trying to discover said person's personal motivations, upbringing and interests.

And in so doing, you preserve their expectation that their beliefs must be immune to criticism and that only very bad people would dare ever criticize their beliefs. I think that's about as wrong as wrong can be. I know my chances of changing anyone's mind is slim to none, but if nothing else, I want them to get used to having their beliefs challenged.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Religion is not an intellectual pursuit. At best it is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit. Getting into a discussion with a person who has already decided the earth and universe is 6000 years old, decided to go to a Christian college, never took a course in biology or evolution or geology and is an engineer today isn't going to be fruitful. It's best to stay away from what is "false" and "true" scientifically. You'll get more traction by avoiding these topics and trying to discover said person's personal motivations, upbringing and interests.

And in so doing, you preserve their expectation that their beliefs must be immune to criticism and that only very bad people would dare ever criticize their beliefs. I think that's about as wrong as wrong can be. I know my chances of changing anyone's mind is slim to none, but if nothing else, I want them to get used to having their beliefs challenged.

I guess that 's a good start.

 

[Brian63]

I know my chances of changing anyone's mind is slim to none, but if nothing else, I want them to get used to having their beliefs challenged.

Yeah, that, and it is helpful for them to consciously be aware of what our responses to their arguments will be, even if they still agree with their original argument. For instance, someone may cite as a sound argument for believing in God that it is a safer bet to to so, because there is everything to gain with nothing to lose by doing so, and nothing to gain with everything to lose by being an atheist. They think of that as a sound reason, and it will stump any atheist who hears it. We had just never thought about that, right?

It is helpful for us nontheists if they are aware that their argument is nothing new to the topic, that it has been around for a long time historically, it even has a name (Pascal's Wager), and that we in the militant atheist community are already well aware of it, and are aware of a variety of flaws with it, both in its (bad) logic and (bad) ethics. So we can even point out some of the (very many) flaws in it too. So the next time they hear someone else cite the argument, or even cite it themselves, they may still agree with the conclusion, but at least they will be aware that we nontheists have thought up some disagreements too, so they will have at least a little more understanding of our position. Just having a correct understanding of our position will help us a lot, rather than their strawmen misunderstandings of it.

Brian

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Stephen Fry says it all

Byrne asks Fry what he would say if God “confronted” him upon his death. Fry responds, “I think I’d say, ‘Bone cancer in children?’ What’s that about? How dare you. How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain?’ That’s what I would say.”

When the host suggests Fry may not get into heaven with that attitude, Fry answers, “But I wouldn’t want to. I wouldn’t want to get in on his terms. They’re wrong.” He goes on to praise the mythological gods of Greece for not presenting themselves as “all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent.”

 

[Trodon]

What a douchey post. You got the atheist whine down pat, and that little bit of veiled condescension at the end was so fragrantly cheesy you've achieved a whine and cheese pairing that's to die for.