Political Correctness or pisstake?

[Glob]

Originally Posted by wearestardust

I'll push back on people intruding into my space at about the same level of pushiness, or slightly less, than they are pushing at me. Generally I don't go looking for opportunities for confrontation.

^ This.

However, my response could change depending on my location. For example, my response may change if I am in a country where the laws do not protect one's right to freedom of religion/speech (all other things being equal).

[Praxis]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

Well, I'm a shy retiring sort of chap, and so I always just smile politely and agree with everything they say.

A golden Goldenmane take on the thread title

Originally Posted by Medeyer

Then there are some elderly people I know who have been religious all their lives, and though I may disagree with them, I try not to bash on then too much.

This. My Nanna, at 94, has been waiting to die since 1987 when Grandad went. In that time she's lost two sons and two grandsons and I know her Catholic faith and belief have wavered substantially to the point where she once confessed to me that she probably "didn't really believe but I've believed it so long I'll probably just keep on believing it", which is probably as close to an atheist admission I'll ever get from an elderly Scottish Catholic. I don't get into atheist discussions with her because I don't want to upset her. I suppose you could say I don't want to force her to think, which technically is correct, but it's a bit more nuanced than that.

Anyway, I agree with most above - I tailor my responses to suit the situation. These responses range from ignoring, to mild "I don't agree with that", to openly scoffing and mocking (ie. the idiot bloke at the Caribbean Gardens market with the Creotard stall), to taking a nibble from Catholic in-laws during dinner parties .

Anyway, I like this cartoon which neatly sums it up (for me, anyway):

[melbmatt]

Originally Posted by Penny Shipton

How do all you guys deal with theists? I know alot of atheists who insist of the quietly quietly approach and modeling of warm and fuzziness to help the bible bashers see that we are actually very ethical and intelligent human beings......BUT I find taking the piss works better, questioning their 'faith' and posting outrageous and ruthless facebook posts. What do you guys think. Does your approach change for different situations/people, eg family, collegues? I would appreciate your thoughts.

As with the other comments I think it largely depends on the situation. However from experience I have found that whatever the approach taken, a theist will undoubtedly construe it as a personal attack on them (“you're attacking my beliefs, therefore you're attacking me”). For this reason I think if any true progress is to be made with theists, it would only result from very long and patient discussions. Although having they're ideas questioned by showing them they hold ludicrous beliefs, could have an impact on them beginning to questions themselves, if never done so before.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by melbmatt

As with the other comments I think it largely depends on the situation. However from experience I have found that whatever the approach taken, a theist will undoubtedly construe it as a personal attack on them (“you're attacking my beliefs, therefore you're attacking me”). For this reason I think if any true progress is to be made with theists, it would only result from very long and patient discussions. Although having they're ideas questioned by showing them they hold ludicrous beliefs, could have an impact on them beginning to questions themselves, if never done so before.

My bold.

This is not my experience. It may be common, but it isn't always the case. Back when I was a believer (or trying to be), I never once thought someone disagreeing with me was attacking me personally, and I know some believers even now with whom it is entirely possible to have a discussion on the questions of religion/theology/other bullshit without them being personally offended.

It's dangerous, methinks, to share tarring-brushes.

[melbmatt]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

This is not my experience. It may be common, but it isn't always the case. Back when I was a believer (or trying to be), I never once thought someone disagreeing with me was attacking me personally, and I know some believers even now with whom it is entirely possible to have a discussion on the questions of religion/theology/other bullshit without them being personally offended.

You mentioned disagreeing; however I was meaning to refer to actually attacking the beliefs. eg. ‘You must change your beliefs as they are dangerous not to go to hospital and only rely on faith healing’. It was in this context, as opposed to ‘I simply disagree’, that I have found theists to get on the back foot and felt personally attacked (but now that I look at it, it does seem to imply they're reckless with their life due to their personal thinking). Of course this is only taken from my experience and I agree it isn’t always the case.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by melbmatt

You mentioned disagreeing; however I was meaning to refer to actually attacking the beliefs. eg. ‘You must change your beliefs as they are dangerous not to go to hospital and only rely on faith healing’. It was in this context, as opposed to ‘I simply disagree’, that I have found theists to get on the back foot and felt personally attacked (but now that I look at it, it does seem to imply they're reckless with their life due to their personal thinking). Of course this is only taken from my experience and I agree it isn’t always the case.

What's the difference between disagreeing and attacking the beliefs? I used the former term, but 'that's fucking ridiculous - if your god exists and interacts, that interaction can be measured. It's fundamentally fucking laughable to claim otherwise' is both disagreement and attacking belief, and that form is one I have both experienced and used. Again, without always having the 'boohoo you're attacking me!' response crop up.

We're getting into Rule #fucking 3 territory, here.

[melbmatt]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

What's the difference between disagreeing and attacking the beliefs? I used the former term, but 'that's fucking ridiculous - if your god exists and interacts, that interaction can be measured. It's fundamentally fucking laughable to claim otherwise' is both disagreement and attacking belief, and that form is one I have both experienced and used. Again, without always having the 'boohoo you're attacking me!' response crop up.

My Bold.

The difference is ‘disagreeing’ can be done without an attack.
‘I disagree with point A’ as opposed to ‘Point A is ludicrous”. There is a clear distinction there, they both disagree but the later adds an attack to imply irrational thinking. You acknowledged this yourself by saying your statement is both disagreement and attack. Two things are going on there, not the same thing.

Either way, I agreed with you that theists don't always claim they are being personally attacked. I'm not making the claim that they always do.

[rayne]

Originally Posted by Penny Shipton

How do all you guys deal with theists? I know alot of atheists who insist of the quietly quietly approach and modeling of warm and fuzziness to help the bible bashers see that we are actually very ethical and intelligent human beings......BUT I find taking the piss works better, questioning their 'faith' and posting outrageous and ruthless facebook posts. What do you guys think. Does your approach change for different situations/people, eg family, collegues? I would appreciate your thoughts.

I use logic if they start trying to argue with me. Pointing out the logical fails is easy.

[DanDare]

There are obvious extreemes and many harder "in the middle" cases. Go have a look at the "When People say 'I'll pray for you...'" thread. http://atheistfoundation.org.au/foru...ad.php?t=14734

[workmx]

Tend to avoid talking religion with theists, as it is almost always a waste of time.

Occassionally, the topic will come up. Today is a good example:

WM: "I see you have lots of junk mail there. I don't get any of that since we moved house."
Co-worker: "Really? I get heaps and Mormans/Seventh day Adventists knocking on my door."
WM: "I don't get them either, which is a pity 'cause they are always fun to chat to."
CW: "Really? Why's that?"
WM: "'Cause you can ask them about the problem of evil, and watch them flounder trying to think of an answer."
CW: "Maybe god is testing your faith, that's why he does bad things."
WM: "Isn't that like saying my husband abuses me, 'cause he wants to know if I really love him?"
CW: "I am a Baptist, so I will ask my pastor about the problem of evil"
WM: "Good idea, always good to ask questions."
CW: "Actually I like it that god thinks for me and I don't have to worry about anything."
WM: "Okay, will chat later. Bye"...

Ussually feel bad after this kind of encounter, like I have insulted them. Dunno why.