Religion
Related: About this forumTo yell or to talk
The diversity of dialoge within the Atheist community
HARMON MOON
Published on February 9, 2012
About a year ago, there was a large debate among different atheist blogs about how atheists should deal with others. Every time I look at it, I have to cringe a bit. Not because its embarrassing, or because it dug up some mean spirited aspects of the movement, or even because there were bad arguments on either side. Rather, its because somehow the terminology managed to land on the most awkward and inconvenient terms for the two sides that I could possibly imagine: confrontationism and accomodationism. These are not terms that are well known, in this context, outside the Atheist community; yet, knowing them can help one understand the nuances within the Atheist community.
To illustrate the two sides, lets take two imaginary atheists: Mark and Sally. Sally is our typical confrontationist and she certainly has much to be angry about: honour killings, child molestation, terrorism, evolution not being taught in schools, et cetera. Sallys not going to let this stand shell scream the crimes of religion from the rooftops if she has to. In her opinion, every person that turns away from belief in a god-figure makes the world a better place.
Mark, as an accomodationist, has a slightly more laid-back view when it comes to dealing with religious individuals. He also believes numerous problems are perpetrated in the name of religion. Yet, he believes that, in debates regarding religion, one attracts more flies with honey than with vinegar. It does more good to work together with religious groups, and to give no more than a slight push towards the idea of there being no God. In Marks view, theres room for compromise.
There are good arguments for both sides here. In the face of the outrages committed daily in the name of religion, its hard to simply sit back and claim that we need to be respectful. When religious individuals demonize same-sex relationships and drive queer identifying people to commit suicide, one should be angry. We should also be upset when one cannot publicly draw a picture of the prophet Mohammed without being subject to threats and attacks on ones life. Those that defend such actions as just being done by a fringe religious group simply enable the problem by refusing to acknowledge that holy texts can be used to support both positions, and the radicals have just chosen to ignore different parts than the moderates.
http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2012/02/to-yell-or-to-talk/
One Less God is a twice-monthly column on atheist communities and philosophy. Harmon Moon is a U2 History student and VP External of the McGill Freethought Association. He can be reached at onelessgod@mcgilldaily.com.
Silent3
(15,265 posts)In a DU group like this one, I definitely tend to be a bit confrontational. As far as I'm concerned this is a place where issues should be confronted, in plain words, with only so much diplomacy as can be applied without blunting the actually meaning of what one wishes to say.
Even in the context of being confrontational, however, I find hyperbole just as bad, and more offensive, than excessive diplomacy. Some people with strong anti-religious sentiments need to temper their rants against religion with an understanding that many acts of violence blamed on religion, and societal prejudices blamed on religion, would still occur without religion. One of my big beefs with religion is not that it exclusively causes these bad things, but that it can facilitate them and cloak them in false respectability. Religion is not unique in this capability either, as some political movements and personality cults are equally capable of producing similar results, becoming quasi-religious in their unquestioning worship of certain ideas and people.
Out in the "real world" the kinds of things discussed here on DU seldom come up. When they do, it's most often when I'm talking to like-minded people. I'm much more accommodating in other circumstances, and I certainly don't go around trying to pick fights.
I'm not so accommodating that I'm ever going to pretend that I think religion is a good thing, that I'm going to celebrate religion as some cherished form of diversity. I'm accommodating to the point that I'm not needlessly antagonizing anyone with my hope that religion will slowly fade in popularity and intensity, that the whole world will become more like much of Europe currently is in regard to religion, and even more so some day.
I will certainly be confrontational in any circumstances where my own rights are being challenged.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)When you take such a position, I can listen to you and really hear you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Atheists have been exclusively accommodationist for most of history, and where did it get them? It's only in the last few decades, when atheists have no longer been willing to shut up for fear of offending religionists, or looking "strident" that atheism has come to be regarded with any seriousness. It will be a long time before we're liked and respected the way brunettes and dog owners are, but we won't be ignored.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or theists.
To me, having a discussion with a confrontationist on just about any topic is an exercise in futility and frustration. If someone believes stringently that their way is the only way, what is the point of talking to them at all? Every "movement" needs it's confrontationists to push the issues and make sure that they are heard, but I don't really want to spend much time with them.
OTOH, accommodating seems to imply weakness and subservience and doesn't interest me either.
There is a lot of room in the middle, it seems to me.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"stringently" that accepting nothing less than full, equal rights for blacks was the "only way", would you have said "there's no point in talking to you"?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)confrontationalist per this article.
Every movement needs it's confrontationalists to keep the issues on the front burners.
In terms of MLK, although I would have loved to have a conversation with him, his confrontationalist position would not have been an issue for me as we were definitely on the same side.
However, if the Grand Wizard of the KKK wanted to have a conversation, there would be no point in talking to me (nor me to him, I strongly suspect).
The difference to me is that there is clearly a right and wrong where civil rights are concerned. With religion or lack thereof, there is no right or wrong. Anyone trying to shove their individuals beliefs or lack of beliefs down my throat is not going to get very far.
And if this conversation becomes confrontational, I will exercise my right to not participate.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Please clarify.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)there is no wrong answer.
That is wrong, of course, as is demonstrated here frequently through stories of religious belief causing serious harm to others.
So what I wanted to know was, did you mean that there was no such thing a "wrong" religious belief, or did you mean something else?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)right or wrong answer. If someone believes that there is a right answer, and that they have it, and I am wrong for thinking otherwise, then they are dogmatic and we have little to discuss (when it comes to religion, philosophy, etc).
OTOH, if someone is genuinely interested in what I may or may not hold to be true, curious as to how I arrived at that and interested in sharing their own thoughts, then we may have much to discuss.
There are believers and non-believers who fall into the first group. And there are those that fall into the second.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)There are religious beliefs that are just wrong. There is no other way to describe them. I'm talking about religious beliefs that harm others, like:
-FGM
-Prayer in lieu of medical treatment for a truly sick child.
-Prevention of a blood transfusion for a truly sick child.
-Honor killings
Of course these are just a few examples, but I think we can all agree on a progressive board that if a religious belief brings true and lasting harm to another, it's wrong.
Note that I'm not saying that there IS a "right answer", but like pornography I think we all know a "wrong answer" when we see it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)bring true and lasting progress or other positive outcomes, it's a good thing.
But, alas, not all of us think that.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)that such a thing has happened. I see religious beliefs changing to reflect progress made in society and science, but I do not see religious beliefs bringing true and lasting progress.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you have looked and asked and haven't seen anything, then I doubt very much that you ever will.
It was nice having this exchange with you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)where such a thing HAS happened, in an attempt to enlighten and convince someone, you simply dismiss the whole matter? Do you not even get that when someone says "I have yet to see.." that it's a sign of a mind open to new evidence, not one closed forever?
You really can't get your brain around the whole "evidence" thing, can you? Or get comfortable with the idea that some things are just wrong, or less likely to be right than others, and that you have to elicit and weigh evidence in order to decide which is which. You'd rather just walk away than get involved in a genuine disagreement, even if it might lead to greater understanding.
This seems to be a huge blind spot with you, though I have no trouble guessing where you got it.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)it really doesn't matter what reality is. They'll condescend and walk away with a smile on their face, laughing at what they think is your ignorance.
I've seen it from too many evangelists to do anything but let them walk away. They're too ready to talk, and not ready to listen.
tama
(9,137 posts)your post very carefully and listening at the reactions it is causing in this body-mind. I can't communicate the whole of those reactions by wrapping it in words, but they have their effect. That pearl of you and yours is being listened by other pearls, and we are all swines too.
tama
(9,137 posts)of a kind, experience of how these discussions tend to go and how to avoid avenues and lines of questioning that, based on previous experience are less preferable than others, perhaps yet untried. Preferences are of course partly subjective and emotional evidence based on experience.
And yes of course there are signs of minds open to new evidence/experience, not one closed forever. But getting just a brain around some evidence can keep mind closed to other evidence.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)but I do so for a very different reason than you do.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)How is THAT tactic conducive to mutual understanding? The question is quite valid, yet you choose to label the one who asked it as someone who has "looked and asked and haven't seen anything, then I doubt very much that you ever will. "