To yell or to talk

[rug]

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 it’s embarrassing, or because it dug up some mean spirited aspects of the movement, or even because there were bad arguments on either side. Rather, it’s 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, let’s 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. Sally’s not going to let this stand – she’ll 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 Mark’s view, there’s room for compromise.

There are good arguments for both sides here. In the face of the outrages committed daily in the name of religion, it’s 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 one’s 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 [e-mail].

[Silent3]

1. I don't think either label fits me well

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]

4. This is the kind of middle position that makes a lot of sense.

When you take such a position, I can listen to you and really hear you.

[skepticscott]

2. Mark is wrong

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]

3. I much prefer to have discussions with people somewhere in the middle, whether they be atheists

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]

5. And if Martin Luther King had believed

"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]

6. That's a good point, and I would agree that he would be categorized as a

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]

7. "With religion or lack thereof, there is no right or wrong."

Please clarify.

[cbayer]

8. Before I do that, will you tell me whether you think there is a right and wrong?

[darkstar3]

9. The statement is too broad as it stands. I see it saying that, when it comes to religious belief,

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]

10. I mean that when it comes to one's individual beliefs or lack of beliefs, there is no

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]

11. And I still find myself put off by your statement.

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]

12. I think we should also be able to agree that if religious beliefs

bring true and lasting progress or other positive outcomes, it's a good thing.

But, alas, not all of us think that.

[darkstar3]

13. Oh I would agree with you, I just have yet to see evidence

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]

14. Well, there you have it. No point in discussing it further.

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]

15. So instead of offering examples

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]

17. When they think you're swine and they're throwing pearls,

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]

20. I'm reading

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]

19. Experience is evidence

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]

16. I doubt it too,

but I do so for a very different reason than you do.

[cleanhippie]

18. When the questions get to tough for you to deal with, you cry "confrontationalist" and run away.

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. "