Clarice

Thanks, all. It does make me feel better to hear that he may be overreacting.

I think BioBeing and Zora have hit upon the crux of the issue - he thinks something like this is just something people say without thinking, and that it isn't important enough to address. Therefore he sees me as having a disproportionate reaction, which then makes the situation uncomfortable.

The funny thing is, he is universally feared at work because he is such a bastard about people thinking things through and not making illogical decisions. He has been known to chew a superior a new asshole during a conference call because said superior failed to act rationally. Lou Gerstner himself could announce a business plan, and my husband would say (if he thought it to be true), "No, that's stupid, and here are ten reasons why." Also, if someone says something racist/sexist/dangerously gullible in his presence, he will take them apart brick by brick. I guess our definitions of "dangerously gullible" differ, really.

Anyway, I appreciate the support, and I'm not going to start just nodding my head when friends extol homeopathy. However, I may preface any in-depth debunking with, "Do you really want to debate the validity of this?" and lay off (having voiced my bare opinion that the bunk doesn't work) if they say, "no."

Goliath

Clarice,

Personally, I see no need for you to change your debating tactics. If a casual acquaintance cannot tolerate your atheism and/or freethinking, then that casual acquaintance is not worth having in your life. Similarly, anyone that will not tolerate your atheism is not someone worth having in your life.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Opera Nut

That's why I speak to none of my in-laws and not at all to most of what few relatives I have that are left -- Christianity!!!

AJ113

Wow! What an eye-opener this thread is!
I thought it was only me who is prepared to question illogicality and bullshit beliefs. Now I realise that the forum is full of people just like me! Nice.

I can relate to so many of the comments that have been made, that I actually feel relieved about the way I am. I always felt guilty about my questioning way of life because it alienates so many people, but now I feel much more comfortable.

Jewel

It is nice to not feel alone, isn't it. Quite refreshing

Jackalope

There is a middle ground. Though granted, I seldom take it if I'm not being paid to smile at the clients. I'm a musician for morris dancers, which is a type of english folk dance. During the victorian era, it was classified as "ritual dance" by collectors who erroneously thought the dancing was a survival of pagan fertility rituals. Over the last five years, I've learned to bite my tongue when certain very earnest pagans start babbling about the "history" of the music and dance that I do (and they don't). The major incentive to learn to bite my tongue was getting paid to perform for such groups. I have learned to tell them more or less what they want to hear without telling any LIES. In fact, at our most recent gig, I managed to turn "we don't really know" and "here's where the collector got it wrong" into a running joke that the audience actually laughed at.

But it takes practice. And I still occasionaly have to just take a breath and think, "Does it really matter that this person believes something stupid and wrong? Is it worth my time to bother arguing?" I've found that being erudite but not argumentative means that people who actually do want to learn will come to me to ask questions. Perhaps it's just that I'm getting older. I turned 35 this year. I've been a working musician since I was 14 years old, so while I have had plenty of practice at stage manners, it took me much longer to learn how to talk to the "normal" folks in the audience after a show without sounding like a an arrogant twit. Some of that is growing up (most teenagers are arrogant twits, they haven't lived through enough to know better), and some of it was practice.

Most people hold unexamined beliefs that are variously stupid, unproven, debunked or just plain wrong. It's just more socially acceptable to say certain classes of stupidity out loud. Here in California, all manner of stupidity is allowed, and it's considered "rude" to contradict someone when they're expounding on their latest adventure into gullability*. It's invalidating their beliefs after all, even if their beliefs are completely unfounded and contrary to reality as the rest of us know it. So at least for classes of public stupidity, I've made the decision that I don't really care what this person might think of me. Then they're fair game. But if I atttempted to counter every stupid statement made around here in Berkeley, I'd never have time for anything else. So I pick my battles, and let the rest go (back to the "is it worth bothering?").

*edit: reminds me, I meant to write up some of the stupider departures from reality I've come across in an article called "Gullible's Travels." If I ever manage to find time.

Luckily, I married another rational person (the theists in his family are all Quakers, so the idea of sitting down and rationally discussing things was built in from the start). Most of his family are highly educated, with quite a few scientists in the bunch. So when old wives' tales are discussed, they're never actually believed. And no one thinks it's a terrible crime to disagree. I can't say that about my family, who are all from the south, and mostly baptists and methodists. Or the irish community that at least for my teenage years caught me up in the catholic net. Though at least the irish liked a good argument!

There seems to be something about southern WASP culture that abjures honest disagreement. Some of it seems to have something to do with maintaining appearances, and some with the idea that one must be "nice" all the time, even if that means lying through one's teeth. I've never gotten it, any more than I ever understood the idea of acting "lady-like." It's just too irrational for me to comprehend fully. Best I can do is treat it as an ethnography, even though I grew up in that environment.