Empathy is the best tool

[Forever Sophist]

Logic and reason is how many of us de-converted, but I think an even greater tool than that is empathy.

The stereotype of atheist is someone loud, proud, arrogant, not willing to listen, etc. When you feel you have been lied to your whole life, and uncover a truth (i.e., the Christian bible not being historically accurate, the resurrection of Christ not being written about for decades after, the paradoxical nature of what a god entials, the moral abhorrence of things this alleged all-good god does, etc.), of course you want to be bold and bring it to everybody's attention.

However, what I find has been a more effective tool getting people to listen, if they ever would, is to be empathetic to their position.

The average bloke trying to buy a car, for example, when they meet three different salespeople, will not buy the most logically-sound car. They will buy from the person that has established the best rapport with them, makes them feel heard, makes them feel they are in their best interest.

The great thing about our position is that it stems from intellectual honesty. So, we do not need any conversion quota, any divine duress, or any ulterior motives to simply be able to want to speak to people about understanding themselves and being introspective.

When I originally deconverted, it was by talking on online forums in both Christian and atheist places. It was not the hoards of atheists rebutting me and talking down about my beliefs that lead me to atheism, but a Christian who responded to me by saying "if you are lost in your faith and in darkness, explore that darkness." He was being intellectually sincere and empathetic to my situation. Now, ironically, it led me to losing religion, but I was more likely to listen to the person who understood my position better.

If you are a secular person I would argue that means you have no grounding for how you ought work with other people, except from a humanist perspective, or a utilitarian perspective. It is not effective to bark at people with rebuttals or arguments when you get into a chat with them, but it is effective to get them to listen to you by letting them understand you are empathetic to your position.

If you were a theistic person once, then you should be able to walk in their shoes.

Forever Sophist

[Rhythmcs]

It's crazy how few of the stereotypical atheist we find for it being stereotypical. It's almost like that's just a thing god botherers say...and I bet you they'd say it, and shit like it, no matter what you did. So I say go for broke. Read their religion for the filth it is. Agree that the world would be better off if it just disappeared. Whatever horrible batshit thing they say about The Atheist - confirm it.

Or, I guess, be a used car salesman trying to empathetically tease out the greater fool.

[Paleophyte]

Logic and reason is how many of us de-converted...

I'm not sure how much logic or reason had to do with it. It certainly helps that my worldview isn't directly opposed to basic reason, but I suspect that I could have been a liberal Christian without breaking my head much. I was raised in a liberal Christian household and deconverted round about the age of eight because my faith simply never matured. God went the way of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I feel like the rational arguments all came later.

[SYZ]

The stereotype of atheist is someone loud, proud, arrogant, not willing to listen, etc...

I have to disagree with this claim.  There's no evidence for
making a rash generalisation like this.  I'd be interested in
you giving us a few personal examples of these purported
offensive atheists.

Ironically, the archetypal person you're describing is far more
likely to describe a theist.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The stereotype of atheist is someone loud, proud, arrogant, not willing to listen, etc...

I have to disagree with this claim.  There's no evidence for
making a rash generalisation like this.  I'd be interested in
you giving us a few personal examples of these purported
offensive atheists.

Ironically, the archetypal person you're describing is far more
likely to describe a theist.

He's not writing that he agrees with the stereotype. He's reporting it.

[brewerb]

It's a two way street. Each situation/encounter will determine how I interact with theists.

[mordant]

If you were a theistic person once, then you should be able to walk in their shoes.

I was a believer, and I went that route for a few years, but one gets tired of talking to brick walls.

Fundamentalist religion, at least, is anti-intellect, utterly counterfactual, and I've come to see that it is inherently bigoted, hateful, and will stoop to any vulgar tactic to achieve its ends.

In particular, they have over recent decades abandoned even the pretense of every high, noble aspirational goal they claimed to have.

Just this week we had the spectacle of the Baptists and their fractious annual conference, where they fought about most everything except that they unanimously agreed to crusade to rescind marriage rights to gay people and strategized how to go about it.

Your average pew-warmer has a carefully cultivated personal self-image as a kind, patient, generous, loving person that they will defend to the death, and yet they approve of all sorts of execrable ideas and persons and causes. And they are willing to sell their souls for temporal power; not least, they are much of the wind beneath the wings of our current fascist regime.

Finally, when has a True Believer™ ever cut an atheist slack? We are universally panned as agents of Satan, god-haters, Christian-haters ... don't get me wrong, I can admit when I encounter the very rare counterexample to all the above. But I am not in a charitable mood toward my former comrades these days, sorry.

[Alan V]

If you were a theistic person once, then you should be able to walk in their shoes.

It seems that the older I get, the less I understand the theistic mindset.  And since I'm not a mind-reader, I can't anticipate how theists might react to whatever I say.

So I just try to be honest and accurate, and let people react however they want.

[SYZ]

...However, what I find has been a more effective tool getting people to listen, if they ever would, is to be empathetic to their position.

I'm not sure what you mean by getting Christians "to listen"?

Listen to what?  Atheists attempting to de-convert Christians, or
maybe harangue them about why their religious faith sucks?  How
patronising is that.

BTW, ignostics (like me) do not have a "position".     Only theists
have something that could be described as a position.  I've said
elsewhere that I don't hold a disbelief in God or gods—as an ignostic.

And for your info...

Ignosticism, is also known as "theological noncognitivism" and is
the view that the question of God's existence is meaningless without
a clear and coherent definition of "God". Ignostics argue that because
there's no universally agreed-upon definition of "God," the question
of God's existence cannot be meaningfully addressed. It's not a position
on whether God exists, but rather a stance that the question itself is
ill-defined and requires a clear definition before it can be considered.

And here's a little task for you...

Prove to me that unicorns don't exist—or never have—despite
being recorded by the ancient Egyptian's hieroglyphics.



They show up along side other horned animals. This argues
strongly that the Egyptians thought of the unicorn as both
real but nothing special.

This little aside of course is meant to prove the point that it's
impossible for atheists to prove that God or gods don't exist.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you were a theistic person once, then you should be able to walk in their shoes.

I was a believer, and I went that route for a few years, but one gets tired of talking to brick walls.

Fundamentalist religion, at least, is anti-intellect, utterly counterfactual, and I've come to see that it is inherently bigoted, hateful, and will stoop to any vulgar tactic to achieve its ends.

In particular, they have over recent decades abandoned even the pretense of every high, noble aspirational goal they claimed to have.

Just this week we had the spectacle of the Baptists and their fractious annual conference, where they fought about most everything except that they unanimously agreed to crusade to rescind marriage rights to gay people and strategized how to go about it.

Your average pew-warmer has a carefully cultivated personal self-image as a kind, patient, generous, loving person that they will defend to the death, and yet they approve of all sorts of execrable ideas and persons and causes. And they are willing to sell their souls for temporal power; not least, they are much of the wind beneath the wings of our current fascist regime.

Finally, when has a True Believer™ ever cut an atheist slack? We are universally panned as agents of Satan, god-haters, Christian-haters ... don't get me wrong, I can admit when I encounter the very rare counterexample to all the above. But I am not in a charitable mood toward my former comrades these days, sorry.

I've met, known, and liked or loved many believers who were indeed charitable and generous of thought. Hardcore fundamentalists may shout the loudest, but that doesn't mean they're the most representative, any more than Dawkins et al speak for atheists at large.

[JoeSeppe]

...However, what I find has been a more effective tool getting people to listen, if they ever would, is to be empathetic to their position.

I'm not sure what you mean by getting Christians "to listen"?

Listen to what?  Atheists attempting to de-convert Christians, or
maybe harangue them about why their religious faith sucks?  How
patronising is that.

BTW, ignostics (like me) do not have a "position".     Only theists
have something that could be described as a position.  I've said
elsewhere that I don't hold a disbelief in God or gods—as an ignostic.

And for your info...

Ignosticism, is also known as "theological noncognitivism" and is
the view that the question of God's existence is meaningless without
a clear and coherent definition of "God". Ignostics argue that because
there's no universally agreed-upon definition of "God," the question
of God's existence cannot be meaningfully addressed. It's not a position
on whether God exists, but rather a stance that the question itself is
ill-defined and requires a clear definition before it can be considered.

And here's a little task for you...

Prove to me that unicorns don't exist—or never have—despite
being recorded by the ancient Egyptian's hieroglyphics.



They show up along side other horned animals. This argues
strongly that the Egyptians thought of the unicorn as both
real but nothing special.

This little aside of course is meant to prove the point that it's
impossible for atheists to prove that God or gods don't exist.

Why is 'disbelief' not a position? In this instance isn't a 'position' defined as a  'point of view'? 

I would disagree about a clear and coherent definition of God not being available. I would venture that the definition of most God's is as clear and coherent as any other definition of someone or something that is worshipped or in power. Those who don't believe in that God may not accept that definition, however I would think most who believe would feel there was clear enough definition.  

Its not only atheists who CANNOT prove that God or gods don't exist. Its impossible for anyone to prove that ANYTHING does not exist.  No one can prove that Unicorns don't exist and no one can prove that a flying toaster does not exist. I believe its well accepted that non-existence cannot be proven.

[mordant]

I've met, known, and liked or loved many believers who were indeed charitable and generous of thought. Hardcore fundamentalists may shout the loudest, but that doesn't mean they're the most representative, any more than Dawkins et al speak for atheists at large.

Which is why I applied my statements to "fundamentalist religion", while admitting that counterexamples exist even in that realm.

Fundamentalists are 25 to 33% of the US depending on who you believe or how old the survey is / was.  Which is about twice the prevalence worldwide. I regard it something like a critical mass of nuclear material, the "radiation" from which, in the form of magical thinking, spreads to produce ... whatever THIS is.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've met, known, and liked or loved many believers who were indeed charitable and generous of thought. Hardcore fundamentalists may shout the loudest, but that doesn't mean they're the most representative, any more than Dawkins et al speak for atheists at large.

Which is why I applied my statements to "fundamentalist religion", while admitting that counterexamples exist even in that realm.

Fundamentalists are 25 to 33% of the US depending on who you believe or how old the survey is / was.  Which is about twice the prevalence worldwide. I regard it something like a critical mass of nuclear material, the "radiation" from which, in the form of magical thinking, spreads to produce ... whatever THIS is.

Fundamentalists cherry-pick. Moderate cherry-pick. Are fundamentalists assholes because they're purist in their interpretation, or is it because they cherry-pick the parts that satisfy their angers and frustrations?

You wrote of "your average pew-warmer" in the post I quoted. I was responding to that. If you meant instead fire-breathing fundamentalist, maybe don't mention "your average pew-warmer" as if the two are one and the same? Because they're not.

[SYZ]

I'm not sure what you mean by getting Christians "to listen"?

Listen to what?  Atheists attempting to de-convert Christians, or
maybe harangue them about why their religious faith sucks?  How
patronising is that.

BTW, ignostics (like me) do not have a "position".     Only theists
have something that could be described as a position.  I've said
elsewhere that I don't hold a disbelief in God or gods—as an ignostic...

I would disagree about a clear and coherent definition of God not being available. I would venture that the definition of most God's is as clear and coherent as any other definition of someone or something that is worshipped or in power. Those who don't believe in that God may not accept that definition, however I would think most who believe would feel there was clear enough definition.  

Its not only atheists who CANNOT prove that God or gods don't exist. Its impossible for anyone to prove that ANYTHING does not exist.  No one can prove that Unicorns don't exist and no one can prove that a flying toaster does not exist. I believe its well accepted that non-existence cannot be proven.

(my bold)

In that case, please give me your "clear and coherent"
definition of God.

My little unicorn assignation is to illustrate that while many
theists claim that their god exists, and challenge me to prove
it doesn't, knowing that I cannot of course—they then claim
by extension that their god does exist.     Which is of
course absurd. 

Which is why I can then legitimately ask them to prove that
unicorns (like gods) simply don't exist—which they don't.  
Could I then say to them, oh, okay, so unicorns do exist.  

It'd be nonsensical, but it's a similar argument that they often
mount in order to put atheists on the back foot. 

At least you agree that the existence of God or gods can't be proven.   

[Rhythmcs]

Why is 'disbelief' not a position? In this instance isn't a 'position' defined as a  'point of view'? 

For the same reason that bald isn't a hair color, as the popular saying goes.  Thing is, there are people (myself included) who have a positive disbelief in the sense that you're asking about here.  In my experience, no one cares.  A theist will spend pages and pages arguing that an agnostic - the vast majority of atheists and theists alike...is making a knowledge claim.....but there's no there, there.  Nothing further than an attempt to shift some burden.      

I would disagree about a clear and coherent definition of God not being available. I would venture that the definition of most God's is as clear and coherent as any other definition of someone or something that is worshipped or in power. Those who don't believe in that God may not accept that definition, however I would think most who believe would feel there was clear enough definition.  

I agree.  

Its not only atheists who CANNOT prove that God or gods don't exist. Its impossible for anyone to prove that ANYTHING does not exist.  No one can prove that Unicorns don't exist and no one can prove that a flying toaster does not exist. I believe its well accepted that non-existence cannot be proven.

I disagree.  Gods do not exist.  Not this one or that one doesn't exist.  None of them.  In fact they cannot exist.  From my pov as a person who does fi the type of position you referring to at the outset, it's not an open question, impenetrable to the human mind.  It's a settled matter of human cultural development.  There are no tooth fairies either.  A claim no one seems to think is equally impervious.....

[mordant]

Which is why I applied my statements to "fundamentalist religion", while admitting that counterexamples exist even in that realm.

Fundamentalists are 25 to 33% of the US depending on who you believe or how old the survey is / was.  Which is about twice the prevalence worldwide. I regard it something like a critical mass of nuclear material, the "radiation" from which, in the form of magical thinking, spreads to produce ... whatever THIS is.

Fundamentalists cherry-pick. Moderate cherry-pick. Are fundamentalists assholes because they're purist in their interpretation, or is it because they cherry-pick the parts that satisfy their angers and frustrations?

You wrote of "your average pew-warmer" in the post I quoted. I was responding to that. If you meant instead fire-breathing fundamentalist, maybe don't mention "your average pew-warmer" as if the two are one and the same? Because they're not.

I am sorry I wasn't clear about the context of "pew warmer" being a fundamentalist one.

I cannot agree with your both-sides-ing on this. Yes everyone can legitimately be accused of cherry picking at times. You could argue that a liberal Christian cherry-picks the meek and mild version of Jesus and ignores the wrathful deity aspect. We both know which cherry picking is the more harmful.

The truth is that we have authoritarian Christians producing / justifying / promoting authoritarian politics. Very successfully. Yesterday fundamentalist Mike Huckabee, currently US ambassador to Israel, was more than obliquely suggesting that Trump had the unique opportunity to nuke Tehran and that he should listen to the voices in his head that would surely tell him what needs doing.

The tattered remains of our democracy is on a knife edge. If we do not address their perfidy now it will be a long time before it implodes of its own inherent non-viability. Already, it will be a generational project (at the least) to heal from it.

[Dānu]

Fundamentalists cherry-pick. Moderate cherry-pick. Are fundamentalists assholes because they're purist in their interpretation, or is it because they cherry-pick the parts that satisfy their angers and frustrations?

You wrote of "your average pew-warmer" in the post I quoted. I was responding to that. If you meant instead fire-breathing fundamentalist, maybe don't mention "your average pew-warmer" as if the two are one and the same? Because they're not.

I am sorry I wasn't clear about the context of "pew warmer" being a fundamentalist one.

I cannot agree with your both-sides-ing on this. Yes everyone can legitimately be accused of cherry picking at times. You could argue that a liberal Christian cherry-picks the meek and mild version of Jesus and ignores the wrathful deity aspect. We both know which cherry picking is the more harmful.

The truth is that we have authoritarian Christians producing / justifying / promoting authoritarian politics. Very successfully. Yesterday fundamentalist Mike Huckabee, currently US ambassador to Israel, was more than obliquely suggesting that Trump had the unique opportunity to nuke Tehran and that he should listen to the voices in his head that would surely tell him what needs doing.

The tattered remains of our democracy is on a knife edge. If we do not address their perfidy now it will be a long time before it implodes of its own inherent non-viability. Already, it will be a generational project (at the least) to heal from it.

I'm reminded of Sam Harris' point that it is the views of the moderates, who also lean conservative, that carves out a space in which the extremists can thrive.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I cannot agree with your both-sides-ing on this. Yes everyone can legitimately be accused of cherry picking at times. You could argue that a liberal Christian cherry-picks the meek and mild version of Jesus and ignores the wrathful deity aspect. We both know which cherry picking is the more harmful.

I'm not bothsiding it. I am simply acknowledging the fact that not all Christians are fundamentalist cunts, and in fact here in America, most probably aren't. Don't straw-man my point simply because I've pointed out your rather obvious broad-brush. Your verbiage of "the average pew-warmer" then being coupled with "... the context of "pew warmer" being a fundamentalist one [...]" tells me that you're still trying to conflate the two.

A fundamentalist is not your average Christian. You know that and I do too. Stop bullshitting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm reminded of Sam Harris' point that it is the views of the moderates, who also lean conservative, that carves out a space in which the extremists can thrive.

This is much more apt than this strawman crap @mordant is throwing. That the moderates enable the fundamentalists, I won't argue at all.

[mordant]

A fundamentalist is not your average Christian. You know that and I do too. Stop bullshitting.

That isn't my claim.

My claim is that fundamentalists are 25 to 33% of this country depending on metrics and their political influence has long been outsized relative to that. They are currently ascendant in political power. And that's a problem.

I would not argue that eliminating Christianity fixes that problem, or even gets at root causes. I would argue that fundamentalist epistemology, ideology and dogma facilitate bigotry and hatred, and I don't see liberal Christianity as any sort of effective antidote for it, so I do not include them in what you allege is my "broad brush bullshit" but I therefore also see them as irrelevant to either the problem or its solution. With a few interesting exceptions, like Pope Leo's championing support for the disadvantaged and oppressed, with actions and not just words, I don't see liberal Christianity as anything but a dazed bystander. Maybe they will eventually step up; I'm not holding my breath.

Beyond that, I believe that now that fundamentalism is divorced from even the pretense of actual virtue, the glorification of ideological violence and a full-on assault on reason and science now have a life of their own. I lay much (not all) of the genesis of this at the feet of fundamentalism; but it has now gotten away from them and while they are still a catalyst / accelerator for authoritarian politics, I'm not sure they could stop it now if they tried.

[mordant]

I'm reminded of Sam Harris' point that it is the views of the moderates, who also lean conservative, that carves out a space in which the extremists can thrive.

ISTR that MLK had similar arguments, both generally and about white Christians.

There's plenty of blame to go around. We can argue about whether the more authoritarian Christians could have achieved what they have without the enabling of religious and political moderates with their constant admonitions to not Rock the Boat, and therefore which of those groups is the more guilty / culpable for ... whatever THIS is.

But since I was born to fundamentalism, and know it best -- both its aspirations and its foibles -- I'm focusing on their role in this. As Jesus is supposed to have said, "there must needs be offense in the world, but woe to he by which it comes."

[Thumpalumpacus]

A fundamentalist is not your average Christian. You know that and I do too. Stop bullshitting.

That isn't my claim.

My claim is that fundamentalists are 25 to 33% of this country depending on metrics and their political influence has long been outsized relative to that. They are currently ascendant in political power. And that's a problem.

I would not argue that eliminating Christianity fixes that problem, or even gets at root causes. I would argue that fundamentalist epistemology, ideology and dogma facilitate bigotry and hatred, and I don't see liberal Christianity as any sort of effective antidote for it, so I do not include them in what you allege is my "broad brush bullshit" but I therefore also see them as irrelevant to either the problem or its solution. With a few interesting exceptions, like Pope Leo's championing support for the disadvantaged and oppressed, with actions and not just words, I don't see liberal Christianity as anything but a dazed bystander. Maybe they will eventually step up; I'm not holding my breath.

Beyond that, I believe that now that fundamentalism is divorced from even the pretense of actual virtue, the glorification of ideological violence and a full-on assault on reason and science now have a life of their own. I lay much (not all) of the genesis of this at the feet of fundamentalism; but it has now gotten away from them and while they are still a catalyst / accelerator for authoritarian politics, I'm not sure they could stop it now if they tried.

I read what you wrote originally. You started your post with "fundamentalist religion", pivoted to "your average pew-warmer", and never noted any difference, which clearly conflates the two without any sort of disclaimer. I'm reading you backpedaling right here. Your words came out wrong? Okay. Give your words a little more thought next time, jeez. It's not that hard.

[pattylt]

The problem with moderate/liberal Christianity is that they are gasping their last breath…most have become atheist, agnostic or just cultural Christian’s. They fear losing the few remaining faithful they have left. Fundamentalism has pulled in more die hard Christian’s that got tired of wishy washy members. It’s the only direction they had left to go to. Liberal Christian’s aren’t going to moderate any fundamentalist bullshit…they’re silent because they’re irrelevant and are just now realizing it.

It’s a shame because the mainstream religions used to capture most Christian’s and could keep their members somewhat in line. That’s out the window. Unless there becomes a liberal Christian revival, and that’s unlikely, they’ll stay silent and on the sidelines. Future battles will likely be between fundamentalism and Nones…and by the way, they’ll stay silent Nones are currently winning but very slowly and nothing is assured.

[mordant]

The problem with moderate/liberal Christianity is that they are gasping their last breath…most have become atheist, agnostic or just cultural Christian’s. They fear losing the few remaining faithful they have left.  Fundamentalism has pulled in more die hard Christian’s that got tired of wishy washy members.  It’s the only direction they had left to go to.  Liberal Christian’s aren’t going to moderate any fundamentalist bullshit…they’re silent because they’re irrelevant and are just now realizing it.

It’s a shame because the mainstream religions used to capture most Christian’s and could keep their members somewhat in line.  That’s out the window.  Unless there becomes a liberal Christian revival, and that’s unlikely, they’ll stay silent and on the sidelines.  Future battles will likely be between fundamentalism and Nones…and by the way, they’ll stay silent Nones are currently winning but very slowly and nothing is assured.

There's a good essay in The Bulwark today on this very topic.

The author points out that a prominent rabbi wrote a book entitled the Bible Belt is America's Safety Belt: Why the Holocaust Couldn't Happen Here. His thesis was that Christianity's teachings -- love of neighbor, humility, etc -- made self-government possible. But then the Bulwark continues:

But large parts of American Christianity have been going through some things in the decades since, with certain Evangelicals in particular demonstrating a new coolness toward brotherly love.

If you read Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Evangelical Christianity’s ever-present undercurrents surfaced in the Trump era. Christianity Today editor Russell Moore has heard from pastors who’ve been reproached by parishioners for mentioning the beatitudes in their sermons. “Where are you getting this woke stuff about ‘Blessed are the meek?’” they demand.

Put another way, fundamentalism has become a rubber stamp for bigotry and intolerance and cruelty, and its adherents aren't necessarily all that "Biblically literate". The ideals that I grew up with in that movement, which valued systematic and thorough study and mastery of the Bible, despite it already having cherry picking aspects to it, at least insisted that we were well-versed (pun slightly intended). At least in terms of our particular interpretive framework (our hermeneutic). Clearly, there's been a big shift.

The article does mention that "many" (I'd say "some") evangelicals retain their faith "unsullied by ugly politics", and that trad Catholics are no less awful than Protestant MAGAs. Just that evangelicalism is suffering from politicization more than other denominations or movements. And they are radicalized by this Presidency and by both houses of Congress.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-growing...vangelical

(Link may be paywalled but it works, so far as I can tell)

[Rhythmcs]

It's not so much that the nasty shits in the flock are less biblical or more political. Magic book is a horror show, christ as described a monster, and the christian religion makes many claims about how life and authority ought to be arranged. It's more that...while the axial religions were all progressive for their time, that time was thousands of years ago, and the contemporary christian right is regressive.

In the early seventies, mission focused evangelical christianity split between liberal and conservative variants, with the liberal end drifting toward secular humanism and the conservative end into religious nationalism. Many of todays magats once travelled to central america to help people, a far cry from demanding that we empty our prisons onto their streets. If we really wanted to needle in on it - maga is full to bursting with disillusioned white christian libs. That's why the victimization narrative of white supremacy has been so productive for the politicians using them. It's also why empathy is a wasted effort on them, because the thing they want empathy for, that they won't shut up about, that they've organized the entire movement around, is a goddamned fever dream. Unless a person is willing to live on earth b, governed by that singular fantasy, then one cannot be empathetic in any way that would seem meaningful to maga. Worse, if your empathy extends beyond them and their fantasy, that is exactly the problem as they see it.