Infinity Lover

One bit of critisism I've often heard about Christianity here, is the way it's followers often lay guilttrips on others to enforce Christian dogma. I agree that's unfortunately often the case, and I'm by no means a fan of moral blackmail.

But I also don't make exceptions there, and I do think I sometimes encounter instances of atheists doing something similar, which I personally find equally lame. Don't get me wrong; questioning religious creeds, church policy, claims about the supernatural, and such... no objections there. But making someone feel bad about themselves for being religious... if someone openly expresses their beliefs, or the love for the god they believe in... and then fire mockery or obnoxious provocations at them, or shove everything any religious person has ever done wrong throughout history or in their lives on that persons plate... basicly laying a guilttrip on the ones we're prone to accuse of resorting to that very same behaviour...

...I'm not going to get burned claiming I've never done that myself, maybe I have, maybe one sometimes ends up doing so without giving it proper thought, (maybe some don't give a shit) and perhaps I've become extra cautious about it because I'm in love with Amie, who's a believer.
The thing is, to wrap this up before it becomes the kind of long assed post I tend to skip, that I'm curious whether I'm alone in noticing this 'laying guilttrips on theists' thing, and if not whether someone has an opinion on the matter.

dangin

I think that theists can live here and be accepted. Helen, and the very rare Pelvidar are excellent examples. Anyone coming here in evangelical mode gets what they deserve IMO.

Talulah

In a way, we are worse then liberal Christians, who believe that there is a 'universal' truth, that we are all headed for the same place, or that no one knows the anwsers to lifes questions. That, to me is the highest form of acceptance, when you think you don't know the anwsers, and for all you know, no one or everyone might be right.

However, us atheists, like fundamentalists, believe we have found the Truth(tm), and think we are right. Just like fundy Christians, we have a lot at stake with our beliefs. We aren't going to say 'well, we could be wrong. We aren't big on 'I'm ok, You're ok' because we see the harmful effects of Christianity on society and in our own lives, or past. This breeds the issues you are talking about, with the guilt trips on Christians.

To avoid this, we need to have respect for other's beliefs and consciously remind ourselves that all people are worthy of respect, despite what we think of their convictions.

brighid

Can someone be made to feel guilty without there being actual provocation for the bad feelings he/she might have? I don’t think it is correct to condemn a theist because their particular brand of theism has historically committed heinous crimes. I think each individual person should be judged on the merits of their own behavior. But I do think it is valid to question theists about things that have happened in the past because of the claims theism, particularly Christianity makes about its God. I also think it is valid to challenge that thinking because very often those questions about the actual morality of Christianity and its God goes completely unchallenged in Christian circles – for some very obvious reasons. If the omnipotent, omniscient, perfect deity IS in fact leading the Church please explain x, y, z and please do not employ logical fallacies, give the cookie cutter “goddidit” response, but rationally defend your belief system is an argument that makes many theists uncomfortable.

Is it ever okay to ridicule someone’s beliefs? I would say there are instances where I personally find it appropriate. I do not think it should be the modus operandi of any argument, but at times the absolute ridiculousness of any given belief almost demands an eye roll or two (such as the Virgin Mary showing herself in a fence post.)

Is it morally wrong to present an argument, or challenge the beliefs of another if it is reasonable to conclude that said person’s feelings might be hurt? I feel it isn’t morally wrong, but it is best to be careful with the emotions of others. It might very well be painful for someone to come to grips with their racist, sexist, elitist, or even homophobic beliefs but the discomfort or emotional pain does not mitigate the fact that their beliefs are harmful, or even patently false.

I try, but sometimes fail, to tread gently on the feelings of others. Should reality and honestly be compromised because someone might have his/her feelings ruffled? Discomfort can be a sign that something is a miss and needs to be addressed. Why does it make a theist uncomfortable to have their God belief rationally challenged? Should others not challenge their beliefs because thinking about a potentially genocidal God, a Church with a history of murder, rape, theft and other moral bankrupt acts, etc. will likely make said theist uncomfortable and even possibly feel “guilty?” Absolutely not. If a belief system, any belief system (personal or communal) cannot withstand ridicule, questioning or challenge then it is a weak system of belief and needs to be closely examined.

That being said I do not think ad homs, strawmen, red herrings, et al should be employed when having a discussion with a theist. I also do not feel I am responsible for how a person may or may not react when reasonable questions are asked, or beliefs are challenged in a respectful way.

I cannot be made to feel guilty or inferior in any way, unless of course I consent to feeling this way and therefore my feelings are my responsibility. I think that extended respect to people should be my modus operandi, but there are certain belief systems (say that of the KKK, the God Hates Fags groups, etc.) that deserve not a single ounce of my respect. I will respect those people as human beings, but I certainly won’t respect their belief system or allow it to go unchallenged. In my experience most theists are not able to separate themselves from their God belief and if their God belief is rightfully challenged it is taken as a personal attack when it is not. In most cases I feel the problem exists with the person taking a non-personal issue (challenging a belief system) as a personal character attack.

Brighid

Infinity Lover

If you can find the time, I would appreciate it if you could explain what you would (or wouldn't) classify as "coming in here in evangelical mode". Considering you deem it reason enough to 'deserve whatever you get', I am rather curious where things would get 'that objectable', or 'intolerable'.

Infinity Lover

Though that also means, they can't honestly agree with people who have a more rigid stance when it comes to that. Besides the point I'm adressing here, but where the 'acceptence' would kind of end nonetheless.

At the same time, we're also talking about people who are convinced one should rely on logic and reason, taking heed of empirical evidence and scientific knowledge. You'd asume that includes taking notice of how approaching theists with a certain attitude can be most counterproductive (and try to figure out why somewhat), or realizing it could very well discourage believers to interact with atheists alltogether. Heck; lots of them used to be theists themselves.

I'll definately give that one a :notworthy

Infinity Lover

Oy... long assed post.

Agreed. I think institutions, nations, groups, etc. that have grown big and strong throughout time, without abusing or harming others in the process, are few and far between.

Obviously (the word belief says it all) there will always be always be a level of acceptence there, in spite of a "lack of reason". I think that if someone, with supposedly a good head on their shoulders, and to whom you'd hardly have to spell out what "belief" implies, deliberately keeps on forcing the issue in a "well- you're- an- ignorant- hazzard- to- society- for- thinking- that- way" kinda tone, they're resorting to the last bastion of someone who's frustrated by not being met with the amount of agreement they desire... playing the moral blackmail card.
Besides that, generalizations such as "Christianity" or "the x-ian God" don't allways apply to individuals and their personal beliefs. Some atheists sling ugly biblequotes at theists, whithout knowing if they're even dealing with a biblical literists, or make false assertions about what someone else supposedly beliefs, as if one person is responsible for what others believe.

I.m.o. sometimes you gotta home in, sometimes it's better to back up. If you want someone to grow, you also need to offer them room to grow. You can lead a horse to water but... etc. etc.

I'm sure that happens too, but in the o.p. I'm referring to the opposite: occasions where an individual believer basicly gets blamed for the whole of a religious creed (he/she may very well not fully agree with or belief in) or a religion's history... the non-personal being turned into a personal attack.

By the way, thx for the responses Talulah, Dangin and Brighid. Three moderators in a row; does that mean I've won something?

Gurdur

By your own OP argument, Infinity Lover, the entire Humour forum would have to be abolished --- or at least all jokes pertaining to religion.

This site exists with a mission: to challenge religions.
Anyone entering this site is aware of that.

Moreover, challenging the personal foundations of a person's religious beliefs is part and parcel of the whole.
The most you can insist upon is personal civilty; but have you been doing that yourself ?

The next thing is to insist upon attacking the argument, rather than the person; but again have you been doin that yourself ?

And finally, there's the issue of avoiding dumbing-down the board; an insistance upon attacking the argument rather than the person goes together well along with a promotion of good arguments and a recognition of what are poor arguments; but that is something you've taken exception to before.

Infinity Lover

Wrong!! Quatch!! Jokes that don't adress or ridicule a specific poster, snugly secluded in a seperate forum, have nothing to do with this. Besides that I wasn't laying out an argument, but making an observation, asking for people's opinions.



Irellevant! This isn't about challenging personal foundations, nothing wrong with that, but about playing with people's emotions without a proper challenge of said foundations in sight.

Oh, and

Didn't I say "...I'm not going to get burned claiming I've never done that myself" in the o.p.?

Thanks for your comments. And rest asured I wasn't under the impression I'm infallible.

Okay one more for the road...

Gurdur

I think your post above, Infinity Lover, displays exactly what is wrong with your whole approach.

All you've done is try laying guilt trips of your own; your own conduct over the past month or so has simply been to flame people without reason, and your main impetus seems to be to try protecting Amie against pertinent probing of her beliefs ---- correct me if I'm wrong.

But isn't your conduct rather hypocritical in view of your stated aims ?
And you have failed to make any convincing argument as to why this board should accomodate your rather confused wishes.