Awkward Moment with Fundamentalist

[lazerus]

So, I was home schooled for purely academic reasons. In fact, while my family was happy to exploit lax home schooling laws in my home state so I could get a proper education, we largely dislike their origins -- namely, religious fundamentalists who want to keep their kids away from the "Evils of Government, Godless Education." While my education was superb, for the most part, homeschooling laws result in kids getting inferior, brainwashing-based educations.

So, now in college, I ran into another student who was homeschooled, and we got to talking about the academics of it and our grievances with public schooling. He was quite articulate and friendly, so we were having a very amicable conversation right up to his: "Of course, the biggest reasons was because of the lack of a...moral education in public school. I feel...that when you bring up a child to do everything in his life for the glory of god, you set up him for success and...a better life." I'm the leader of our schools student atheist association, and an outspoken advocate of not giving religion any of the respect it most certainly doesn't deserve, so naturally...I wussed out, muttered some noncommital affirmation about how my family wasn't religious but it gave my parents a chance to impart their own values, and scuttled out.

My own personal social cowardice aside, this got me thinking about the question of how assertive atheists and skeptics should be when dealing with believers. I maintain that in a public forum, an uncompromising stance is essential to prevent religion from defining the terms of the debate. In private, however, it seems more and more that you can't criticize or even disagree with someone's religious views without offending them and simply ending the conversation. In my example, any honest answer ("Actually, I think that's horrible and a particularly vicious form of child abuse.") no matter how diplomaticly phrased, would have ended the conversation on a hostile note. While a more intellectually dishonest "I'm not religious, but I can sortof see your point" permits disagreement without ending the discussion.

How do other people on this board deal with similar situations? Especially in face to face conversations with any religious personages you must deal with regularly.

[Kanastrous]

I apply different standards to a one-on-one conversation vs. a public-forum argument. If that's wussful, so be it.

[ray245]

So, I was home schooled for purely academic reasons. In fact, while my family was happy to exploit lax home schooling laws in my home state so I could get a proper education, we largely dislike their origins -- namely, religious fundamentalists who want to keep their kids away from the "Evils of Government, Godless Education." While my education was superb, for the most part, homeschooling laws result in kids getting inferior, brainwashing-based educations.

So, now in college, I ran into another student who was homeschooled, and we got to talking about the academics of it and our grievances with public schooling. He was quite articulate and friendly, so we were having a very amicable conversation right up to his: "Of course, the biggest reasons was because of the lack of a...moral education in public school. I feel...that when you bring up a child to do everything in his life for the glory of god, you set up him for success and...a better life." I'm the leader of our schools student atheist association, and an outspoken advocate of not giving religion any of the respect it most certainly doesn't deserve, so naturally...I wussed out, muttered some noncommital affirmation about how my family wasn't religious but it gave my parents a chance to impart their own values, and scuttled out.

My own personal social cowardice aside, this got me thinking about the question of how assertive atheists and skeptics should be when dealing with believers. I maintain that in a public forum, an uncompromising stance is essential to prevent religion from defining the terms of the debate. In private, however, it seems more and more that you can't criticize or even disagree with someone's religious views without offending them and simply ending the conversation. In my example, any honest answer ("Actually, I think that's horrible and a particularly vicious form of child abuse.") no matter how diplomaticly phrased, would have ended the conversation on a hostile note. While a more intellectually dishonest "I'm not religious, but I can sortof see your point" permits disagreement without ending the discussion.

How do other people on this board deal with similar situations? Especially in face to face conversations with any religious personages you must deal with regularly.

Screw their minds upside down, by asking them to think. Let them think too much until they want to avoid that topic while acting like a person who is very religious.

Since it is near impossible to convince them, just play around with them.

[Rye]

How do other people on this board deal with similar situations? Especially in face to face conversations with any religious personages you must deal with regularly.

I tell them that I think God is imaginary and religion is harmful to the world, being at best unnecessary for moral action and at worst prompting immoral actions. Even believers here usually admit that religion causes wars and unbelievers can be just as moral, and the disagreement over the existence of God is pretty minor, really. Despite the way that sounds (and the amount of invective I throw at religion online), it can all remain pleasant and easy-going, it can sound like a mere disagreement of opinion, even if I have a more valid case, it doesn't really need hounding unless someone's trying to justify something else based on religion.

[Lagmonster]

I maintain that in a public forum, an uncompromising stance is essential to prevent religion from defining the terms of the debate. In private, however, it seems more and more that you can't criticize or even disagree with someone's religious views without offending them and simply ending the conversation.

A certain note of caution is always called for, since with absolute fundamentalists, you never know where they draw the line between bible-thumping and bible-basher thumping. But if asked, and I can judge the company is not suitable for a confrontation, I'll honestly say that I disagree with their worldview, but would prefer not to discuss it since it's a contentious subject with very little chance of a civil conclusion.

This sometimes bothers me; I know that the religious feel not just compelled, but OBLIGATED to bring other people around to their way of thinking, sometimes even an urgent necessity to do so, even up to the risk of incarceration and violence. Very rarely have I encountered rationalists who feel they have a social obligation to battle ignorance wherever it stands, let alone a duty as urgent as religious conversion. Most consider a chance to try to correct ignorance in others as partway between an opportunity and a responsibility.

[General Zod]

So long as they're not being an obnoxious dildo about it, no big deal. Personally the only people I've ever really confronted were the in-your-face douchebags that just wouldn't shut the fuck up about their pet subject and I didn't have the option of walking away. I remember listening to one dipshit cluelessly ranting about how evolution was "just" a theory, and I got him to shut up by telling him that gravity was just a theory too, and he should go prove it wrong by jumping off the nearest high building. He just sort of sputtered and shut up after that, though obviously you have to be careful with your judgment in who you can confront or not with these types of things.

[Junghalli]

It depends on the circumstances. A religious skeptic should most definitely not be afraid to argue with religious people when the occassion calls for it, but at the same time there's definitely something to be said for knowing when to pick your battles. Constantly getting into an argument every time somebody says anything positive about religion strikes me as a great way to give yourself a lot of unnecessary stress and a reputation as a harridan who won't ever shut up about his pet issue.

When dealing with religious people in my life I usually just politely state my own skeptical positions and the reasoning behind them (Occams Razor suggests there probably is no God, homosexuality is not harmful so there's no rational to ban it etc.), and leave it at that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How do other people on this board deal with similar situations? Especially in face to face conversations with any religious personages you must deal with regularly.

Thankfully, I dont need to deal with religious people regularly. Bio departments are remarkably theist free...

Outside the university though, I tend to just be blunt and honest. I wont pursue an argument for the sake of it, but if something comes up like a policy discussion, or something with a functional significance, I give them what for.

[AMT]

I've always believed that if a person can proudly proclaim their love and belief in their religion, then I can proudly proclaim my love and belief in the absence of religion. Period. But I'm an argumentative bastard.

[PainRack]

Well....... other than a quiet assertion of my stance, that's about it. As long as the person isn't actively looking for a debate/argument, I see no point in trying to overtly change his mind. An exchange of ideas and discussions perhaps, your opinions, my opinions, but there isn't a driving need to devalue his opinion or prove my point.

Now, if the discussion had escalated to that of an argument, that's a whole different story. If you didn't want to hear what I think about religion, then you shouldn't had asked. If I had opened up with the topic, then I may give one strike in terms of the guy escalating it a tad, but once you go about trying to prove your point is right and superior to mine, that's no longer a frank exchange of opinions or a discussion, its a debate and well...... should be conducted like one.


To put it simply, a forum is "different" from conversation. We post here because we want discussions and debates, not one liner I agree. In real life, most people don't go around seeking social interaction for confrontation.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, if I don't see any serious social or professional consequences from doing so, I will let fly in situations like that. After all, he certainly isn't holding anything back; why should I stand there and bite my tongue while he unloads without any restraint whatsoever?

[TithonusSyndrome]

How do other people on this board deal with similar situations? Especially in face to face conversations with any religious personages you must deal with regularly.

I tell them that I think God is imaginary and religion is harmful to the world, being at best unnecessary for moral action and at worst prompting immoral actions. Even believers here usually admit that religion causes wars and unbelievers can be just as moral, and the disagreement over the existence of God is pretty minor, really. Despite the way that sounds (and the amount of invective I throw at religion online), it can all remain pleasant and easy-going, it can sound like a mere disagreement of opinion, even if I have a more valid case, it doesn't really need hounding unless someone's trying to justify something else based on religion.

My approach is similar to something like this, although I try to phrase it in the form of serious and well-founded alarm on my part that begs reasonably for assurance from the other party. I give 'em the old laaaaazy eye and say, "Well, you must understand that the belief in unproven things alarms me and makes me fear for society at large. How do you feel your beliefs meet these serious concerns that may one day have side-effects capable of harming my loved ones?"

What starts as me seeking the assurance of the other person will turn into an unavoidable exploration of the suitability of God as an idea fit for serious consideration, and with any luck, to maybe some critical thinking on their part.

[Erik von Nein]

Only when I feel particularly compelled. Otherwise I just treat them like some other fool ranting about some odd subject or the other. It works pretty well, usually. Or I just tell them I'm an atheist and not interested in what they have to say.

Though, one time an ex of mine derided me being an atheist by calling all atheists lazy, being people who just shrug their shoulders when it came to religion. Of course, she then went on to explain how she can't sleep because she sees demons in her peripheral vision and that they have more control over someone the less you believe in them, so I doubt anything I was saying was getting through.

[Oskuro]

Frankly, if I don't see any serious social or professional consequences from doing so, I will let fly in situations like that. After all, he certainly isn't holding anything back; why should I stand there and bite my tongue while he unloads without any restraint whatsoever?

Because then you're being intolerant of their beliefs. I've personally faced that rebuttal even from non-religious people. The need to respect religion (specifically Catholicism around here) is so imprinted on their subconscious, that even non-religious people come rushing to its defense when you get overly critical. In fact, I know very few people around here who would define themselves as atheists. Most seem to hold on to some shreds of mysticism, often arguing that "there must be a greater meaning to everything".

Of course, my reaction tends to be "fuck them", wich doesn't make me very popular.

[Darth Ruinus]

In fact, I know very few people around here who would define themselves as atheists. Most seem to hold on to some shreds of mysticism, often arguing that "there must be a greater meaning to everything".

By around here do you mean here on SD.net or around where you live?

By the way, what does "greater meaning to everything" actually mean? A greater meaning that everyone can reach (like, everyone should reach some sort of enlightenment) or a greater meaning to the universe itself (in which case, could we be irrelevant to that meaning?)

[Samurai Rafiki]

I think it depends on the demeanor of the fundamentalist. For instance, I have a really great friend who's Mormon. Mormonism, as many of you probably know, is one of the more demonstrably false heads of the Christian hydra. But I really never get into it with her about religion, mostly because she's such a nice person. Honestly, hanging out with her is the closest I've ever been to re-converting because she exhibits a lot of really admirable character traits, and by and large, so do the people at her church. They're most certainly fundamentalists, but because they're engaging in that "city on a hill" attraction to their branch of Christianity I'm not as put off as I would be in another situation.

On the other hand, I have hung out with people on campus who are really just trying to attract people to their incarnation of the Jesus Circle-Jerk. Those are the type that are approaching agnostics and atheists like we're just hearing about this "Bible" concept and they have all the answers to our lives. Nevermind that what they have is bullshit non-answers for questions we didn't ask, they're bringing the good news about Jesus Christ to the hordes of non-believers!

I've been to church with my mormon friend and we sat around and sang songs and listened to a vaguely interesting sermon with a humanist moral backed up by scripture torn from its context. I've also been to the Jesus Circle-Jerk churches, and those are the ones with the bands and the preacher showing a power point about going out into the community to convert non-believers. They showed videos of their 'events' where they go to other campuses, join up with those fundies and irritate people trying to get to class, and when the music played, they sang loudly and lifted their hands up as if they were catching something other than mass hysteria.

As I said, I don't argue with my Mormon friend. The other jackasses are just too annoying though, so had one of the latter made that comment about home-schooling I would have probably said something inflammatory. But I don't know my facts well enough, so that's why I'm here with you charming people.

[AMT]

Because then you're being intolerant of their beliefs. I've personally faced that rebuttal even from non-religious people.

To which you need to firmly and calmly rebut with :"If that is the case, then he is being intolerant of my beliefs, by procliaming his belief in God, if my proclaiming my disbelief in god is being intolerant of him."

Do not waver from it, do not back down. If your beliefs make you intolerant, then logically speaking, his do the same for you.

[Darth Wong]

The minute someone brings up that "people need religion to be moral" bullshit, they're basically accusing all atheists of being evil. Just how much more provocation am I supposed to wait for? Should I wait till he punches me in the face?

[aerius]

How do other people on this board deal with similar situations? Especially in face to face conversations with any religious personages you must deal with regularly.

If it's someone who can get me fired or make my life suck more than I can make his suck, then I'll probably hold back or mutter some platitudes to get him to shut up & change the subject. Otherwise, let him have it full bore, and maybe he'll learn to avoid the subject of religion in future conversations.

[Oskuro]

The minute someone brings up that "people need religion to be moral" bullshit, they're basically accusing all atheists of being evil. Just how much more provocation am I supposed to wait for? Should I wait till he punches me in the face?

I fully agree, my point was that people have that concept so ingrained in their subconscious, that they will instinctively jump to the defense of religion. Wich of course angers me to no end, specially because of how often they'll lock up and not listen to any reasoning.

As for my previous comment about "most people here not defining themselves as atheists" I meant here in Spain. There's a lot of non-practising Catholics, who blame the Church for the evils of religion, but that still cling to the faith itself, and will defend it zealously.

[General Zod]

As for my previous comment about "most people here not defining themselves as atheists" I meant here in Spain. There's a lot of non-practising Catholics, who blame the Church for the evils of religion, but that still cling to the faith itself, and will defend it zealously.

I'd suspect a lot of those people you know calling themselves atheist are really lapsed Catholics that translate atheism as "I don't go to Church on Sundays and I'm angry with God."

[madd0ct0r]

wrong away round. They're not calling themselves atheist and will still defend the faith, even though they don't actually believe anymore.

I was that way once.

[Dark Hellion]

people need religion to be moral

I wanted to pull this quote out of context because seeing it made me have a slight chuckle at the irony. If you take this via the interpretation; People need / Religion to be moral, it becomes oddly true. A lot of Christian religion has become exceedingly unhinged from rational definitions of morality. This is easily seen by the bigotry and intolerance often spouted. There is a very comical irony that one of the most common supports for religion from religious people can be turned around into a great weapon against them simply by changing the emphasis in the sentence.

Seems very fitting.

[Garlak]

Hhmmm... so does that mean if I was, say, a Buddhist, paganist, satanist, Scientologist, or a worshipper of the Norse, Greek, or Egyptian gods or Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that'd be enough to make me moral?

The phrase "people need religion to be moral" is interesting because it contains the unspoken word "my".

However, what I find very irritating about religious people is that, besides the fact that I suuuuck at summarizing, debating, or getting to the point, I can't seem to "pin down" the actions of religion. To wit; if I look for ammunition to throw at them in the "what kind of benevolent god would..." type, I'll probably screw up my wording and it can be brushed off as "that's not what our religion is about."

Anyway... if I don't feel like trying to seriously debating somebody, I'd simply stick to a few phrases I've come upon such as "If Atheism is a religion, why can't we get tax exemption?"

Man. I hope that my intention and tone wasn't distorted in the above post... It just... if I go looking for religion or am confronted with something of a religious nature, it tends to be of the negative kind because people pay attention to the squeaky wheel, and all that..




EDIT:

There is a very comical irony that one of the most common supports for religion from religious people can be turned around into a great weapon against them simply by changing the emphasis in the sentence.

Eh? Couldya elaborate for me please, because I poked fun at the phrase in a different way... I'm probably not seeing what you're seeing... how can that kind of arguement be turned against the people that use it?

[Samurai Rafiki]

Hhmmm... so does that mean if I was, say, a Buddhist, paganist, satanist, Scientologist, or a worshipper of the Norse, Greek, or Egyptian gods or Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that'd be enough to make me moral?

The phrase "people need religion to be moral" is interesting because it contains the unspoken word "my".

It's a measure of how deluded fundies are by their preachers. They've convinced themselves that atheists have never heard about the church or the bible or anything, and that if they just expose an atheist to Christ, they'll be converted. If they find a former Christian who converted to atheism, then they convince themselves that the Christian is just angry with god and trying to rebel, and a little Bible study will cure them. If they became atheists after being indoctrinated into another religion from birth, then the fundies figure that they knew there was something wrong with their first religion and they're just as primed for the word of god as the first group.

Either way, fundies see atheists as the market that might be buying their bullshit, whereas people in other religions are already spoken for, and they can wait until judgement day to see the error of their ways. It's like they're bike salesmen, and they see people in other religions riding around on their own bikes (the Taoists on their mopeds) and then they see someone walking and figure "hey! he wants a bike!" and no matter how many times you say "I'm just trying to get to the parking lot, I've got a car..." they can't be shaken from the idea that you want their bike. Until you make it to your car and run them over with the unforgiving tires of logic.