Why the defensiveness?

[BurtWorm]

I'm noticing in another thread in which I am genuinely looking for philosophical dialogue about the nature of Christianity a certain defensiveness and hostility coming from Christians who seem to think, because I'm an atheist, I just want to mock them, I suppose. I actually don't really know what the defensiveness is about, nor do I understand why, if someone claims they don't want to share their views about their religion with me they take the trouble to share that they don't want to share their views with me.

I suspect people do want to have a dialogue. I know I do. But trust is very low here. I've noticed this for many years of course. I know it has to do with the way these conversations between atheists (like myself) and believers frequently play out in various subthreads.

Of course we have fundamental disagreements about faith and reason, about the effect of religion on society and history (not to mention the individual). Of course we sometimes come to this forum annoyed with the other side. Sometimes we're impolitic in our word choice, insensitive to each other's sensibilities. But we ought to remember that we have one thing in common, which is why we come to this particular forum: we are interested in religion and theology.

Yes, believers, nonbelievers can be interested in religion and theology. Nonbelievers can have genuine curiosity about belief. I'm loaded with it, myself. I have an unending stream of questions about why people are religious and about the perspective of religious/spiritual/believing people on questions about religion I approach from a nonbelieving perspective.

There really is no need to be defensive about your beliefs. Or is there? I genuinely want to know.

[Marrah_G]

1. Because of past discussions in here.

Of course people are defensive now.

it's been nearly impossible to have civil discussion in here for a long time. People are wary of anyone saying they have genuine interest.

Adding on Edit: You will rarely see me talk about the details of my faith here. I know the reaction it will get from most. I realize to most it is the very definition of woo-woo and I am okay with that. That still doesn't mean I will set myself up for ridicule.

[tangent90]

2. Short answer

[rug]

24. Don't take offense now.

[BeFree]

3. I know

Seems some people think God is so weak God must be defended by us weaklings.

But what is GOD?

Generation
Organization of
Dirt.

That's it: GOD is the generation and the organization of dirt into things that eat, grow and crap.

And you don't believe it?

[Why Syzygy]

4. I wonder the same

about why Atheists frequent a forum on something they claim to have no reliance upon? Why must they insert their unbelief into a forum titled for belief?

ETA: Upon reflection, could it be that the Atheist feels so impotent IRL that they find a gathering of online believers where it is considered safe to ridicule? I have a hard time imagining some of the scenarios that go on here actually happening to a real live human. In fact, many claim they would never have conversations with believers IRL. Yet, anonymity gives them free reign to vent their hostilities.

[Meshuga]

6. This is a Religion and Theology forum

Not a belief forum. I don't see anything abnormal with atheists and theists (or whatever else people label themselves or like to label others) come here to discuss the different topics.

The topics are relevant as long as they touch on religion and theology. Atheists have an opinion because religion matters. For example, religion and certain theologies decide who should or should not run for office, whether you can or cannot get an abortion, whether a homosexual couple can or cannot enjoy the priveleges that heterosexual couples enjoy from the state, whether your kid is going to be demonized in school for not joining a prayer group, and the list goes on.

[Why Syzygy]

7. I find it highly abnormal to be ridiculed in a public setting.

I am not afraid to hear alternate views. But, what we find here goes way beyond, and any honest person will admit that.

"Religion" and "Theology" suggest at least an academic interest, and again, we often fail to find that from the Atheists on board. DU has forums for candidates, GLBT, Education, etc. A desire to discuss those topics fails to explain the attraction of non-believers in a forum created for discussions of belief.

The more likely explanation is the venting of hostility exactly because it is 'abnormal' to do so in community.

[Meshuga]

8. This forum was not created solely for discussions of belief

People can discuss belief, obviously. But this is a forum for anybody with a position on religion and theology. Atheists have a position thus the reason for the questioning. The problem is that the questioning makes some people uncomfortable.

There is a forum for belief in DU (the "Christian Liberals/Progressive People of Faith Group") which is respected by atheists (they don't go there to disturb). Likewise, there is a group for non-belief which is their safe haven. But R/T is for all who have an opinion on religion and theology be that their personal perception and feelings about the topic or something academic. Trying to shut people up by disqualifying opinion from the forum is pretty ugly. Even uglier than the explicit hostility, IMO.

As far as the hostility, no one can deny that there is hostility by a few people here from either side. But sometimes one would have to question what "hostility" really is because, like the OP is trying to express, some people may find an innocent question to be hostile. And he obviously has a point given the defensiveness. And the fact that there are people who are hostile for the sake of being hostile does not disprove his point.

Just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

[Why Syzygy]

10. A curiosity.

Yes. I've seen that too. It has never been polite to point and whisper. And, not many will volunteer to be the sport.

The CL/PPFG is for congregationalists (members of a denomination) only. You see, even believers have their differences. The thread to which the OP refers was quite reassuring for me to find we have other solo believers in our midst.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. How are you defining "congregationalists"?

Seriously? I'm not a Congregationalist, I'm Episcopalian. As are others posting at CL/PPFG. That's never been any sort of issue whatsoever. So your comments leave me confused.

[Why Syzygy]

15. That's not really the word I wanted to use.

But, it was suggested by spell checker when I typed "denominationalist". Members of a denomination.
Sorry for the confusion.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Gotcha...

I think.

Are you speaking then of the newer sort of groups that call themselves non-denominationalist? Or are you speaking of non-welcome for someone outside a recognized denomination - who doesn't belong to any particular church or denomination?

[Why Syzygy]

20. Outside of. nt

[Goblinmonger]

19. I thought the problem people had

was that others WEREN'T whispering? They were being very vocal about their criticism.

[JerseygirlCT]

12. There are definitely "venters" here

who lash out, because they can.

But there are also some really interesting and thoughtful non-believers (and believers!). They're the ones who make for some good conversation.

[Goblinmonger]

18. You really need to get out more.

And I don't mean that in an insulting way. Go elsewhere on the internet and find a discussion board about religion. Post there the same things that are posted here and you will find that what happens here is pretty dang tame. Personally, doesn't bother me; I can give and have no problem taking. But what goes on here is, comparatively, a walk in the park.

[Why Syzygy]

22. Now why would I take an insulting

cliche' as an insult?

You're concern for my browsing experience is underwhelming.
Oh! But, look at me. I'm being defensive.

:sarcasm:

[Goblinmonger]

30. So you going to actually address what I said?

Have you or have you not participated in said forums? Because if you have, you would know that they are far more brutal than what is said on here. That was my only point. God forbid I try to explain that in my post, though. Fine, whatever, keep thinking that this is a place for the ultimate disrespect for religion and that I am an asshole. Whatever gets you though the day.

[cosmik debris]

29. "highly abnormal" ???

I believe that would include your saying that people who don't hate pharmaceutical companies and believe in god are "unbalanced" and "shallow".

If you are going to ridicule people in a public setting, you really shouldn't complain when others follow your example.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Yup

And comments about disincluding atheists are just the flip side of atheists using the forum just to attack and ridicule, without adding much of value to the conversation.

Over the years, here and elsewhere, I've had some really great conversations - with people whose beliefs differ from my own - whether they are atheists or hold some pretty different religious points of view. Exclusion is the enemy of that sort of discourse. But hit and run namecalling and stereotyping sure doesn't help it any.

[Meshuga]

35. I second that

And I think the name calling and stereotyping can always be ignored. At least I found it easier to take that approach. There are a lot of good discussion here to read and participate that makes this approach even easier. Overall, we have a pretty good group of regulars here with opposing opinions who post interesting threads and keep me learning and thinking of stuff I would otherwise not really think about.

I agree with Goblinmonger as far as this place being pretty tame in comparison to other message boards about religion. We actually have people with opposing views here who get along and appreciate each other. At least that is my perception. :-)

[Why Syzygy]

45. You know.

I don't think I "disincluded" anyone. I admitted a wonderment that atheists are so drawn to a religion forum. Several viable reasons have come forth. Preloaded hostility is one which may not be so valid, in this setting. Other reasons less offensive and more interesting have been mentioned. There are potentials for valuable discovery, given willing participants. All are not equally willing. Since I've been using "hide thread" and "Ignore" more liberally, I'm able to set aside much irritation.

My uncle has always been an atheist in a family of believers, and I promise, he NEVER has wanted to discuss any of it for any reason.
I left the faith for eight years. During that time, I agreed to discuss with my son sometimes because he likes to debate me, and even though I wasn't a "believer", I still knew a good deal about the Book. There were times when I told him, "We're just going to have a nice dinner now, so turn the debate off". But, for the most part, I wasn't interested in discussing my decision with believers. So, you see, we all color our world through our own lenses to some degree.

If DU didn't have a written policy:
With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. ...
I wouldn't even make an attempt. I don't troll freeper public, or sites like it. I'm not interested in duking it out with nitwits, or being a voyeur on circle jerks.

There is one thing I refuse to abide, however, in this setting or any other. And that is bigotry. When someone comes into a common sphere with preconceived notions about skin color, gender, race, economic class, etc., I opt to have as little to do with that one as possible (unless gentle prodding produces evidence of more open thinking). I find it just as insulting when I am (or others are) considered mentally inferior by no other standard than the beliefs I (we) have chosen. I don't expect anyone to agree with my set. They would be hard pressed to do so, because they are molded on a daily basis. I have no stone tablets. So, when one assumes that I can be labeled with a dirty little slur it is indication to me the labeler has the deficiency.

Until I got to a more advanced age, NO ONE in real life EVER confused me with someone who can't think straight or not in possession of adequate mental faculties. Our society seems to be programmed to assume one's brain falls out soon after 50, unless you happen to be a politician, doctor or scientist. I was guilty of that too. Until I saw the other side. I'll save that rant for another time.

I admire and respect great intellect. But, I guarantee that I've never met a brilliant person who prejudges and uses slur words.
And, they aren't so inclined to act out a Limbaugh-esqe brain strut, either. Can you imagine our brilliant President doing something like that? Not in a million years.

But what do I know.

[JerseygirlCT]

49. Those who come to vent

and lash out certainly exist here. But it's unfair to the others to lump everyone on one side of this or another together. As unfair as it is to lump me in with some rabid fundamentalist.

Ignore the lashers - there's rarely anything to glean from their comments anyway - and talk to the others, from whom there is lots to learn.

I totally get you about the misinformation and the bigotry. And I've certainly waded into my share of arguments because of it. But often, too often, those end up in dead-end conversations with people who are only interested in putting down someone else. In my estimation, not worth continuing, you know?

[Solomon]

5. Religious believers are defensive because exposing holes in

the things they believe in is extremely threatening and that's understandable. Atheists enjoy participating in religious discussions because we are fascinated with the "rationalizations" that religious people use.

Most debate would immediately end if religious people admitted that their beliefs are just that: "beliefs". For some reason, that's very hard for them to admit so they attempt to rationalize something that is just not rational. Religious people don't like to admit that their worldview is a "belief" because then it becomes harder to impose it on other people.

I won't say that I'm completely atheist, but I'm certainly way beyond believing the conventional myths that underlie religions.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. You probably don't even realize it

(or maybe you do). But to a believer, your post dripped with superiority and condescension. Had a believer posted with the same attitude, he or she would have been raked over the coals for it.

Your position is the same as mine - neither of us can know without a shadow of doubt that we are right. We choose to believe (or not) because we've given it great thought and because it resonates in some way with who we are, how we've been raised - all the things that have gone into making us "us".

Your atheism grants you no intellectual or moral superiority, and neither does my belief. We'd all do a great deal better leaving that stuff outside the forum, frankly.

[Why Syzygy]

17. There you go.

Exactly. Those are the kind of comments I ignore. They are the ones describing us as intellectually defective and uninterested in divergent points of view. It is a very simple matter to ascertain contempt.

[Solomon]

31. No. ]You posit that we can't know one way or the other.

I disagree with that. I know for certain, that the current religious dogma is a lie because it is not rational. I will absolutely claim intellectual superiority over fairy tales. I don't see anywhere in my post anything about MORAL superiority. That's your projection. I will wholeheartedly admit to the intellectual superiority though. I see the current religious dogma as no different than the Santa Claus story and I definitely know that there is no Santa Claus.

Sorry to disagree with you, but all religious people have to do is admit that their's is a belief. They don't do that. They try to rationalize something that can't be rationalized. Sorry if you don't like that, but there it is. I stand by my statement.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. You cannot prove the non-existence of God

Period. You can assert what you will, you can make as many claims to intellectual superiority as you like, but it won't change that.

You have made one decision, I have made another.

And apparently, beyond that, there's not much more to be said to you - except you are presenting almost exactly the type of response that shuts off conversation. So, enjoy.

[Odin2005]

37. You can't disprove the existance of magical invisible pink unicorns on the far side of the moon.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim, not the negative one. The negative statement is merely a statement of skepticism.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Not when the "claiment" is not

attempting to prove something.

I was pretty clear, I thought: these things are beyond and outside of proof. I have no need, no desire and no obligation to "prove" my beliefs to anyone.

[Dorian Gray]

47. Ditto

I think that's very important to be said.

I have no interest in proving anything to anybody.

[heidler1]

44. When someone dreams up some mystic claim of supernatural truth. The burden of proof is their's.

The notion that anyone else has to prove the non existence of supernatural ideas or data is silly. If you chose to believe in something supernatural, just say so, but you have no right to expect others to agree or even take the time to dig out the why it is silly.

Sure if you happen to be king and get to kill off any who disagree it might look like your conversions are going great, but that too is a sign of gullibility.

[Dorian Gray]

48. Who is asking

anyone to prove the non-existence of a deity.

I think the devolution of this conversation actually answers why some believers get their backs up when questioned by non-believers. The discussion always turns into this instead of a frank and honest discussion of our beliefs.

[JerseygirlCT]

50. I can choose to believe whatever I want

and as I'm making no claims of proof, I have no obligations to prove my beliefs - to you or to anyone.

The other poster, however, was making such claims. Which leaves it up to that person to back up such assertions. And yes, the idea that such can be proved is ridiculous. You've made my point, thanks.

[Odin2005]

38. If you are offended by us pointing things out that is YOUR problem, not ours.

Maybe it's just my Asperger's-based "tactlessness" showing, but I reject this notion that religious people should not have their beliefs questioned because it may cause offense. If people are offended to facts and logic that is not my problem.

[JerseygirlCT]

40. I think you should re-read what I said

I'm certainly not taking offense at anyone questioning my beliefs. Go to. No skin off my nose, because I'm not making any attempt at persuading anyone to my POV.

We were asked about defensiveness. I pointed out the gratuitous (not to mention unearned) sense of condescension and intellectual superiority that the poster was exhibiting as an example of what will often receive a defensive response.

It's not the questioning that's offensive; it's the obnoxiousness in the attitude. As I said, had I exhibited the same when putting forth my views: "Of course, I'm right, and if you were only smart enough, you'd know that!" I'd be rightly met with a good deal of outrage.

[endersdragon34]

57. Hey I am AS too

Please don't lump me with you, I find it highly insulting.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Oh, please. You should be so lucky.

Trust me, no one who knows Odin would EVER "lump" him in with you.

That would be like comparing a Vulcan to a Farangi.

[Dorian Gray]

46. My beliefs are just that....

beliefs.

No scientific proof.

GASP! Did my world come crashing down?

Jersey Girl is right.... your post is condescending.

Lots of believers aren't delusional idiots. We are able to hold onto our faith and still respect scientific achievements.

[JerseygirlCT]

9. I think there's enough ridicule to make people wary

And I agree with you - I think the sort of civil discourse you describe is quite interesting - for believer and non-believer alike.

I know as a believer what I'm not interested in is being asked to defend my belief - with the supposition that I'm on trial. Responses like that do tend to move one toward a defensive position! If someone is genuinely interested, that's one thing. (And I do not mean interested in a proselytizing sense - just in an intellectual sense).

There are plenty of atheists here with whom believers can have really interesting back and forths. Then there are some who seem to be here only to work out some anger over religion in general - usually with ridicule and broad brush swipes at any believer who comes along. I'm learning who they are, and try to just avoid them, frankly.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view. To be honest, my point of view is not fixed - it is ever evolving, and I rather doubt anyone else holds precisely the same POV, lol. I'm not here to sell anything. But I do like thought-provoking conversation. So I try not to assume anything about someone's position or motivations until I have a pretty good sense of them as a poster.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Why are atheists defensive when it comes to religious people?

Once ridiculed, twice shy.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. Succinctly put.

And yes, it only makes sense that it goes both ways.

[BurtWorm]

25. What do you think atheists are defensive about?

[JerseygirlCT]

26. I think many bring their experiences with intolerant people

not here at DU to the forum. And begin with a defensive posture because of it. I haven't noticed too many believers chastising non-believers for their position, but it seems the conversation often starts well before people arrive at the forum.

[Occam Bandage]

27. Religious people. Just said so.

Now, not all atheists are defensive when it comes to the religious. Most probably aren't. By the same token, not all religious people are defensive when it comes to atheists. Most probably aren't.

But generally speaking, any time someone has been ridiculed, mocked, attacked, or insulted for their faith or lack thereof, they're likely to be wary of future denigration along similar lines.

[BurtWorm]

32. I don't see this defensiveness you're talking about.

I don't see atheists getting all bristly when anyone tries to attack atheism. Most attacks on atheism are extremely weak and wobbly. Not much to defend against. Besides, I don't think atheists tend to feel like they have a personal stake in atheism the way religious people seem to have a stake in their beliefs.

[Marrah_G]

33. We often see things only from our points of view.

Myself included.

[Occam Bandage]

43. And I'm quite certain that most religious people don't see themselves as defensive either.

Me, I'm a karma chameleon. I come and go. I come and go.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Thanks

Now THAT'S stuck in my head.

[Igel]

53. I'll step in.

I've seen more than one atheist bristle at the mention of religion, almost as if the assertion of a personal belief is the same as a claim over the atheist's conscience.

I think it's silly, but I think a lot of things are silly. For example, the way I tip-toe around saying what my beliefs are when I'm around people I know disagree with them. It's a response to assumed peer pressure--peer pressure that's not even there yet, and which seldom materializes.

Sometime's there's a kind of arrogance--people just can't let utterances they disagree with go by unchallenged, even if they're not challenged in the least by what's said. It's almost as if it's their job to ensure the ideological and scientific purity of the human species--when there are so many far more pressing examples of lunacy and ignorance to be dealt with. It's the same as when I heard a presumably educated person tell a third person that she'd never use a microwave--that the microwaves go into the food and when you digest it they're released and cook your stomach ... I just couldn't let that go by ("presumably educated" because she's now tenure-track at a well-known research university). I understand that kind of arrogance (and I also think it's silly).

[MedleyMisty]

28. Reposting a post I wrote in another thread

about discussions between atheists and theists. Heh - and this thread even has the same graphic that I mention.



Reading James Fowler's book The Stages of Faith is really helping me. Here's a link.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm

For instance, I also never understood why people identified with their beliefs so much that they took criticism of those beliefs personally. I compared it to how I react when people criticize my beliefs. Like, hmm - I like the idea of democratic socialism. When someone criticizes it, I don't go all "Oh noes how can you insult and belittle me like that?!" I can get emotional and upset depending on the language and ideas used in criticizing it, but I don't take it personally and I can't imagine why I would take it personally. Random posters on a message board online aren't even really aware that I exist and certainly don't know anything about me.

Apparently some people take it personally because they're still in a cognitive/ego stage where they can't really think about their beliefs as something outside of themselves. They don't have an identity that's separate from their social group identity. And their social group identity includes beliefs - and they did not independently choose those beliefs, which is the hardest bit for me to understand. I tend to see people as responsible for their own beliefs and actions that are the result of those beliefs. In Fowler's theory, they'd be in stage 3 - which is where a lot of people stop developing and stay for their whole lives.

So I think it's a conflict between cognitive structures of identity. Those of us who locate our identity in a set of beliefs and views that we have taken responsibility for tend to not understand those who locate their identity in participating in a social group with shared and unquestioned beliefs. We see them as a threat to our freedom and autonomy and individuality, and they see us as a threat to their ego and worldview, both of which are based in their social identity.

Also, Fowler says that people in stage 3 aren't really aware of the power structure in society between different groups and they'll quite innocently say "Some of my best friends are x." and won't know how prejudiced they sound. They see society in terms of people that they interact with face to face (or keyboard to keyboard) and so don't really understand the meaning behind the graphic showing that they are a majority and have the power and that it's silly for them to say they're oppressed.

Exposure to different viewpoints is one of the major driving forces behind growing out of stage 3, and not everyone is ready to grow. I want to say that if you're not ready it's your responsibility to use the hide thread and ignore poster features to protect yourself from different viewpoints, but like I said stage three people have trouble taking responsibility.

Oh, and although I'm sure I'll get accused of being elitist and saying that some people are better than others - it's not people's fault if they're in stage 3. Hell, it's where most people have stopped and spent their lives in the last several centuries. It's what works for them in their life and it suits their external circumstances.

But things are changing. Like Fowler wrote the book back when I was a baby (note - I looked at it again since writing this and actually I think it was published when I was a fetus), and he says that most people who move to stage 4 do it when they go to college or move somewhere else or join the military - essentially, when they are exposed to views other than those of their socioeconomic group.

Most people I know my age and younger are at least stage four now and I think it's because for many Americans, you no longer have to leave home to be exposed to different views. *pets her cable modem*

I have noticed a sort of generation gap on here, and maybe that's part of it too - people who didn't grow up with the net and who spent most of their lives surrounded by people who looked like them and thought like them experience a culture shock when they get online. And Fowler says that when that happens later in life, it's more of a struggle and causes more stress than when it's in your late teens/early twenties.

I highly recommend the book - it's much better and more in-depth than internet sites that just list the basics of his idea.

End of copypasta.

[knitter4democracy]

36. It's hard to have a dialogue when there's no trust or respect.

Do a bit of searching. You can easily find posters calling believers of all stripes (though usually Christians, considering we're the majority) stupid, crazy, mentally ill, you name it. It's hard to have a dialogue when someone immediately resorts to name-calling and disgust.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Yup

And I suspect, below all that, is a desire not for conversation or dialogue, but simply for lashing out at any available target.

I've got better things to do than serve as someone's punching bag for that.

[K8-EEE]

54. Not understanding

Why you would take it out on Person A if "a search" would find that Person B had insulted you.

[ZombieHorde]

42. One reason is because...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDHFAsY6rSA&feature=channel">we post funny little videos.

[Jim__]

52. Since you're question stems from responses in a particular thread ...

... it would help if you would link to the thread and some examples of defensive replies. That would give some context. People could decide whether the examples you cite indicate an unreasonable defensiveness, or if the answers are to posts that are less than purely philosophical.

[K8-EEE]

55. Yep!

If you react to unfair comments, that's fine -- if you project them on everybody else, that's being defensive.

[Dogmudgeon]

56. Because I'M RIGHT and you're MENTALLY ILL!

--d!