Improving communication with theists

[Brian37]

I treat people like people.  With some, we can discuss faith, or its absence, because we can agree to disagree.  With others, the topic isn't mentioned, because they cannot leave it at disagreement.

I personally don't care what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't affect my son or myself.

But it does affect you like it or not. People who have religious beliefs are in high offices of power some are dictators, and some live in the west and get elected. No matter their label these people have power over weapons. If you don't care about the planet you live on, that is you. But I am damned sure going to talk about it considering the only home I live on is at constant risk.

[GurrenLagann]

Yes and spewing vitriol is no way to change that situation. And even Hitchens certainly didn't do that, and he was considered one of the more "extreme" of the "New" Atheists.

I think what some of you are conflating is not-being-a-total-ass with not articulating criticism, which is a gross error. If I wanted to show a 4 year-old there was no monster under the bed, dammit you show them, not "Why the fuck would you think there is a monster under the bed?!"

It has nothing to do with their age why I wouldn't do this, but because if it's a genuine fear/belief that someone has, being an asshat does nothing if you're actually interested in changing someone's mindset. If you're not interested in trying to change their mind, then communication with them on this issue os stupid and you're being disingenuous by even having said communication.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I treat people like people.  With some, we can discuss faith, or its absence, because we can agree to disagree.  With others, the topic isn't mentioned, because they cannot leave it at disagreement.

I personally don't care what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't affect my son or myself.

But it does affect you like it or not. People who have religious beliefs are in high offices of power some are dictators, and some live in the west and get elected. No matter their label these people have power over weapons. If you don't care about the planet you live on, that is you. But I am damned sure going to talk about it considering the only home I live on is at constant risk.

Clearly you're equivocating public, political acts (such as voting, which I do [ahem] religiously) with private, personal behaviors, such as, you know, treating people like people.  You should read what is written, and quit filtering what you read through your own bias, which is plain.  Don't impute positions to me which I don't hold -- such as "you don't care about the planet you live on".  

In short, this post of yours is an appeal to emotion.  If you want a conversation, address what is actually written, rather than the strawmen you'd prefer to answer.

[Plu]

I personally don't care what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't affect my son or myself.

Like Brian says; what they think does affect you. Laws are made based on what people think. And laws heavily affect you and your children. And everyone else around you.

Unless I'm mistaken, Texas is still one of the states where being religious is required for being in office. I don't know about you, but I'd consider that something that seriously affects me.

[WitchSabrina]

Except what you just described isn't simply saying "there are no monsters," it's using a combination of love and reason to discuss the possibility of monsters, so as to help your grandson realize for himself that there are no monsters.

Because that's what you do with 4 yr olds.  Not adults.

I guess I didn't realize that you were a fundamentalist at one time.  That's gotta be a cross to bear.  (pun intended)  Although, I kinda thought finding free thought carried with it the freedom to make your own decisions.  If you feel a responsibility to those who once you were very much like doesn't that keep you tied to all of that - still?  When does freedom begin for you? When you've converted them all?

[Davka]

Except what you just described isn't simply saying "there are no monsters," it's using a combination of love and reason to discuss the possibility of monsters, so as to help your grandson realize for himself that there are no monsters.

Because that's what you do with 4 yr olds.  Not adults.

I guess I didn't realize that you were a fundamentalist at one time.  That's gotta be a cross to bear.  (pun intended)  Although, I kinda thought finding free thought carried with it the freedom to make your own decisions.  If you feel a responsibility to those who once you were very much like doesn't that keep you tied to all of that - still?  When does freedom begin for you? When you've converted them all?

We're all tied to one-another on this planet. However, feeling a level of responsibility towards other humans doesn't mean that I am tied to their belief systems. In the case of Evangelicals - and fundys in particular - I am in a position to understand their mindset more accurately than atheists from different backgrounds, and that means that I can probably communicate with them more effectively than someone who has no clue what's going on inside those heavily compartmentalized minds. Just as it would be "right" for me to help a Hebrew-speaker struggling to communicate in America (because I happen to speak both Hebrew and English), so, too, it would be "right" for me to help an Evangelical struggling to communicate in Freethinker-Land.

I feel a responsibility to the entire human race, to some degree or another. The basis of any rational moral code is the so-called "golden rule," which enjoins us to treat others the way we ourselves wish to be treated. This is dictated by the fact that Homo Sapiens is a social species, hardwired to need others and to function best in community. Freedom from responsibility to any and all members of the human race would mean death, as far as I can see. YMMV.

[Colanth]

I think what some of you are conflating is not-being-a-total-ass with not articulating criticism, which is a gross error. If I wanted to show a 4 year-old there was no monster under the bed, dammit you show them, not "Why the fuck would you think there is a monster under the bed?!"

And when the 4 year old's response is, "Yes there is, but it's the kind of monster you can't see - only I can", do you still offer rational discourse, or do you look for spackle to fix the head-sized hole in the wall?

Some (many, in my experience) theists take whatever argument you give them as proof of God.  Even when you give them the exact opposite argument.  If you're wrong, that proves that God exists.  And if you're right, that proves that God exists.  If you could give them absolute proof that God doesn't exist, they'd take it as proof that God exists.  You can't rationally criticize belief like that.  You can't be rational about it at all, since the argument you're faced with is totally irrational.

[Colanth]

Except what you just described isn't simply saying "there are no monsters," it's using a combination of love and reason to discuss the possibility of monsters, so as to help your grandson realize for himself that there are no monsters.

Because that's what you do with 4 yr olds.  Not adults.

Unfortunately, that's not how you can treat 4 year olds who are legally adults.  And since many of those 4 year olds make the laws, we're probably not going to see any change to that soon.

[WitchSabrina]

We're all tied to one-another on this planet. However, feeling a level of responsibility towards other humans doesn't mean that I am tied to their belief systems. In the case of Evangelicals - and fundys in particular - I am in a position to understand their mindset more accurately than atheists from different backgrounds, and that means that I can probably communicate with them more effectively than someone who has no clue what's going on inside those heavily compartmentalized minds. Just as it would be "right" for me to help a Hebrew-speaker struggling to communicate in America (because I happen to speak both Hebrew and English), so, too, it would be "right" for me to help an Evangelical struggling to communicate in Freethinker-Land.

I feel a responsibility to the entire human race, to some degree or another. The basis of any rational moral code is the so-called "golden rule," which enjoins us to treat others the way we ourselves wish to be treated. This is dictated by the fact that Homo Sapiens is a social species, hardwired to need others and to function best in community. Freedom from responsibility to any and all members of the human race would mean death, as far as I can see. YMMV.

I do agree that all people are tied together in a humanity-sort of way. And I've always liked the 'golden rule' - with one exception:  Those who'd force their beliefs on me. You're obviously prepared to offer a much wider berth on the selling of jesus than I am.
Now please take this the right way....... because I do Not mean this Mean towards you - but isn't it a bit arrogant of you to think it's your responsibility to change christians?  Why is it up to you to save them?  And I wasn't kidding when I typed up: "You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't REASON themselves into"  ??
(I can never remember who said that originally)
Also, if you, personally, wish to convert christians - fine - but when you extend YOUR ideals across the board towards other non believers - insisting that they, too, behave sweetly and packed with patience - that comes across as doubly arrogant (?)
It's the single biggest complaint I've had towards non believers since I found this site:
You don't believe in god but you wish to extend the same behavioral choices all the same (?)  And some of you (maybe not you in particular) tend to look down your noses at other non believers or Atheists when they carry a sharp attitude towards theists.  WTF?  It just seems so twisted to me.  Sounds like some have just found another outlet for their holier-than-thou methods.
If being a humanitarian truly lay at the heart of your doings - then the same wide berth you'd apply to fundies should apply to your fellow Atheists.  And yet many who believe in the nicey-nice approach condemn their fellow Atheists. WTF is that about?   The way I see it - you're either about Free Thought or your not.  And that's Free Thought Plus it's actual application.  The application is up to the end user.  
The way this all sounds - this "we should be nice to christians" - it's just more judgments.....same song....different day.

By the way - I have friends who are christians still.  We talk and we always reach an impasse - a place where we have to go our separate ways belief wise. Personally, I don't treat all christians hatefully.......just the ones who preach at me, try to sell me jesus or complete idiots. I do try to reserve my full venom for morons.

[Brian37]

Yes and spewing vitriol is no way to change that situation. And even Hitchens certainly didn't do that, and he was considered one of the more "extreme" of the "New" Atheists.

I think what some of you are conflating is not-being-a-total-ass with not articulating criticism, which is a gross error. If I wanted to show a 4 year-old there was no monster under the bed, dammit you show them, not "Why the fuck would you think there is a monster under the bed?!"

It has nothing to do with their age why I wouldn't do this, but because if it's a genuine fear/belief that someone has, being an asshat does nothing if you're actually interested in changing someone's mindset. If you're not interested in trying to change their mind, then communication with them on this issue os stupid and you're being disingenuous by even having said communication.

"Vitriol" is a slur used to attempt to silence criticism. And as far as Hitchens you are nuts trying to claim no one saw him as "vitriolic". "God Is Not Great, How Religion Poisons everything" the title alone, was and still is seen as bigoted and hateful, not because it is, but because no matter the arguments in it, people are going to ignorantly assume it no matter what.

For example I have no compunction or shame at all in saying "Any culture or religion that cannot or wont allow women to make their own life choices deserves nothing but scorn and contempt". Should I not say that because some LDS members, Amish, Hindus, and Muslims have "rolls" for women they expect to conform to?

THAT alone will be seen as "Vitriol", not because it isn't true, but because insecure people don't want to face the truth of the abuse and second class status they subject on women.

"Blasphemy laws are the first sign of tyranny" Lord Acton

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions " Thomas Jefferson.

So, when I say for example, "The Conclave is a joke and a farce" IT IS,  because it is merely a superstition and has no merits other than to serve the emotions of the people who partake in it.

Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.

That is not "Vitriol", that is simply being blunt and honest.

If you want to treat people like adults then part of that adulthood is the ability to not act like a child when you get offended. There are worse things in life than getting offended.

[Brian37]

Here is another example.

When I was 7 years old I went and saw a nature film on the big screen. I saw a fawn being born from a deer from a profile angle. Unfortunately because I knew nothing about biology I came to the wrong conclusion that babies come out of the ass.

So based on my misunderstanding on my next bus ride to school, I proudly announced my new found "Knowledge". All the kids and the bus driver laughed at me. When I obtusely insisted I knew, the bus driver who was a women, got mad at me and pointed at her crotch and tried to correct me.

Now, I was a kid, so it would be more understandable to be more careful, but when you are an adult, you fucking look like you wear a tin foil hat when you make absurd claims. I am 46, what would anyone think of me if at my age today, I still went around claiming babies came from the ass and not the vagina?

If someone went around today claiming the sun rotated around the earth, we rightfully would condemn that claim and call that person nuts. It was understandable in antiquity because people did not know better. But when you have better data you look like a fool clinging to debunked superstition.

So please, do not falsely paint hate of absurd claims and naked assertions and the blunt language used to make a point as being "vitriol". No, it is more like cold water on your face to wake you up.

[surly74]

Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.

no one is saying you need to coddle anyone. that's wasn't the point of the original poster. IF you want to participate in a debate with someone THEN you get better results a certain way.

You can certainly point out how you think they are full of shit and not really acheive anything.

[Brian37]

Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.

no one is saying you need to coddle anyone. that's wasn't the point of the original poster. IF you want to participate in a debate with someone THEN you get better results a certain way.

You can certainly point out how you think they are full of shit and not really acheive anything.

"A certain way" boy, if any phrase that comes out of any human mouth referring to any topic is a clusterfuck to humanity, that is.

You left out "context" and forget that that matters.

You also assume that all theists are thin skinned and cant handle the heat. I'd suggest you talk to the family members and friends and the people Hitchen's knew, not all of them were atheists.

Oh, and my Catholic mother is  great listener and when I tell her about this post, unlike you, she is going to listen and understand. Because unlike you, my CATHOLIC MOTHER understands the concept of context.

Point being, it depends where I am at and who I am dealing with will determine how I deal with that individual.

I despise tactics that include absolutes because life is fluid and what works in one situation may not work in another. And I do not assume because I am being blunt with someone that they automatically are going to cry like babies. And there will be others who no matter how nice you try to be, will still think what you say deserves hate and violence.

Treat situations as being contextual and treat individuals as such. But do not speak for me or pretend you know what is best for me or for theists for that matter.

[WitchSabrina]

Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.

no one is saying you need to coddle anyone. that's wasn't the point of the original poster. IF you want to participate in a debate with someone THEN you get better results a certain way.

You can certainly point out how you think they are full of shit and not really acheive anything.

"A certain way" boy, if any phrase that comes out of any human mouth referring to any topic is a clusterfuck to humanity, that is.

You left out "context" and forget that that matters.

You also assume that all theists are thin skinned and cant handle the heat. I'd suggest you talk to the family members and friends and the people Hitchen's knew, not all of them were atheists.

Oh, and my Catholic mother is  great listener and when I tell her about this post, unlike you, she is going to listen and understand. Because unlike you, my CATHOLIC MOTHER understands the concept of context.

Point being, it depends where I am at and who I am dealing with will determine how I deal with that individual.

I despise tactics that include absolutes because life is fluid and what works in one situation may not work in another. And I do not assume because I am being blunt with someone that they automatically are going to cry like babies. And there will be others who no matter how nice you try to be, will still think what you say deserves hate and violence.

Treat situations as being contextual and treat individuals as such. But do not speak for me or pretend you know what is best for me or for theists for that matter.

I very much Like this statement, Brian.  Like this Very much !!!  
Points 3 8-)

[surly74]

Why should I coddle the insecurities of others because they don't like my word choice? That does not make me hateful, it only means I hate the claim. It does not make me want to arrest them, or murder them. It does not mean I want to disown everyone who might make a claim that makes me want to pull my hair out. It merely means ON THAT CLAIM, I think they are full of shit.

no one is saying you need to coddle anyone. that's wasn't the point of the original poster. IF you want to participate in a debate with someone THEN you get better results a certain way.

You can certainly point out how you think they are full of shit and not really acheive anything.

"A certain way" boy, if any phrase that comes out of any human mouth referring to any topic is a clusterfuck to humanity, that is.

You left out "context" and forget that that matters.

You also assume that all theists are thin skinned and cant handle the heat. I'd suggest you talk to the family members and friends and the people Hitchen's knew, not all of them were atheists.

Oh, and my Catholic mother is  great listener and when I tell her about this post, unlike you, she is going to listen and understand. Because unlike you, my CATHOLIC MOTHER understands the concept of context.

Point being, it depends where I am at and who I am dealing with will determine how I deal with that individual.

I despise tactics that include absolutes because life is fluid and what works in one situation may not work in another. And I do not assume because I am being blunt with someone that they automatically are going to cry like babies. And there will be others who no matter how nice you try to be, will still think what you say deserves hate and violence.

Treat situations as being contextual and treat individuals as such. But do not speak for me or pretend you know what is best for me or for theists for that matter.

WTF? I'm not doing any of that.

you bitch to me about context, i haven't forgot it matters and I don't assume anything. You are the one making the assumptions, you are the one getting all pissy. Fine be pissy.

what absolutes? WTF are you even talking about? you know what? nevermind. forget I asked.