Magical Sky Pixie, Etc. -- Y'all Know You're Being Deeply Insulting, Right?

[Synnove]

Originally posted by cjhoworth, back on page 5 or so:

And I happen to think the world would be tremendously improved if all you non-believers would wake up and say, "You know, there may be something to this ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’ business so I’ll try to be as good a person as I can, not hurt anyone, and try to help as many people as possible. And now…breakfast.

Okay, see, this is the biggest thing about religious people that pisses me off, and I’m sure - having read cj’s other posts in this thread - that he and/or she didn’t really mean to come off this way, that this was said more out of frustration than anything else, but it still represents the most annoying thing I’ve found about people of any religion.

You can be a good person and not be religious. Honest, I swear, it happens. All the time. I should know; I do it every day. I’m an atheist. I help people. I’m nice to people. I treat people the way I want to be treated, which since I am a very sensitive and emotional person at times, means I treat everyone delicately. Even if I disagree with them, I’m polite as I can be. I believe that love is a beautiful thing in any of its many forms, and that we should all love each other. You could probably call me a bleeding-heart liberal.

“And yet,” many religious folks seem to say to themselves, “how can this be? We who have Belief have a monopoly on Being Good and Loving Our Neighbour and Practicing Morality!”

It just bugs me. My personal moral code leads me to follow more of the “ten commandments” than every single religious person I personally know. I fully believe that Jesus existed and that he was a great person with an incredible message that more people need to accept and understand. I just don’t believe he was the son of any god, and I think it’s pretty sad that there are people out there who need to believe he’s something ultra super special in order to follow his advice to be nice to others.

On the other hand, because statements like cj’s above bother me so much, I can easily see where religious people would be bothered by the assertion often made by atheists that all religious belief = stupidity or naivete. Some of the smartest people in the world have been/are currently religious, and believe in some Higher Power that guides their lives. Being religious certainly does not preclude being intelligent.

I can see how the IPU/MSP arguments can explain the atheist’s point of view in the most concise manner possible. I can see how it would upset the religious. I’ve never used it myself, because I’m less concerned in religious debate with the idea of how one can believe in such a being than I am with the idea that actual organised religion creates many of the hypocrisies and people should feel free to express their faith on a more personal level. But what other argument/analogy would the religious have the non-religious use in order to make their point so clear? It seems that, although certainly offensive, this is the only way we can express just how doubting we are in the existence of God.

Is it okay if people refer to it as “that ill-fated analogy that upsets the religious?”

Anyway … I’ve seen a lot of people in here say that they should only give the same amount of respect to Christians (and others, but I got tired of typing “the religious”) as the Christians give to them. The problem with that is, until you can find some sort of vB tag that allows anti-atheistic Christians to view the words “Magical Sky Pixie” while the accepting Christians see “deity of your choice”, that’s just not going to work. On a message board such as this, your insulting comment is going to insult both the people who regularly insult you, and the people who’ve never thought an uncharitable thought about the non-believers. So you have two choices: Assume that deep down, even Polycarp and Libertarian and Jodi and all the other nice Christians really, truly, secretly despise atheists and all they stand for, and thus deserve to be insulted in return for this hatred, justifying your use of the insulting term … Or give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and don’t insult anyone, by using some other argument.

If you really feel the need to make a MSP argument, I’m sure there are a thousand threads you can link to that will do that for you. I mean really, how many people on this board haven’t heard it already anyway?

[Measure_for_Measure]

Nice post Synnove.

*“And yet,” many religious folks seem to say to themselves, “how can this be? We who have Belief have a monopoly on Being Good and Loving Our Neighbour and Practicing Morality!” *

Yeah, when I was a theist, I believed this. IIRC, J.S. Mill seemed to share this belief as well.

Frankly it seems entirely plausible to me that after thousands of years of co-development of human morality and religion, that decency would become dependent upon belief in supernatural punishment.

Plausible, but empirically wrong, IMO. Still I find it puzzling, despite the fact that my morality hasn’t changed much while my faith has declined.

Summary and Central Claim: Theists are not simply asserting their superiority when they make the above italicized claim. They really find the existance of a moral athiest to be a little puzzling.

[Peregrine]

Sorry I’m late, but I’d like to take a stab at supporting a few concepts that have surfaced several times in the course of this thread. Here’s my take:

Clearly we ought not to go around belittling our friends’ beliefs, yet an uncensored exchange of ideas is vital to a free society. Fortunately, we have ways of dividing our interactions into compartments with different rules of conduct.

Casual conversation, MPSIMS: Nobody tries to convert anybody; we all respect each other’s right to believe as we must. No derision, but teasing’s okay if all are into it. Ixnay on the ixiepay.

Debate (whether in RL or GD): We distinguish between attacking a person and attacking an idea. Granted that what we believe is a large and important part of who we are, we still offer our ideas as targets whenever we enter the debate arena (either intentionally or by carelessly imposing our ways on others).

Those things about us that are not ideas are off-limits. Thus, insults directed at our sex, color, abilities, sexual orientation, cultural heritage or number of toes are unacceptable because these things are not our ideas. The people who belong to these various non-idea categories determine what is insulting and what is not, and we drop the terms that offend.

But in debate, ideas are not granted this protection, no matter how dearly held. We still respect our opponent as a human being, but we are not required to respect our opponent’s conclusions, which we are at liberty to attack with the devices of our choosing. Debates may be waged with greater or lesser venom; we have learned here that the MSP reference belongs to the greater venom category, at least when used in a certain way. There is still hope that it could be used in proper context to express a point of view without causing great offense.

The Pit: Extra venom is called for. We choose the most insulting devices on purpose. Still directed at ideas, but now without respect. Derogatory characterizations of objects of devotion are expected. Non-idea categories are still off-limits, 'cause we’re still civilized, after all.

At least that’s how I understand it. I think we have a great system, and I’d hate to see it changed to accomodate any special idea.

I like to spend most of my day in the casual conversation compartment, where we can go about our business without trying to change each other. And I prefer my debates without much venom. But I defend the right of any thinking person to engage in heated, unpleasant debate within these minimal rules.

[MrO]

Synnove, I also noticed that post, and it bothered me too. I didn’t comment on it, but I’m glad you did. Well said.

[MrVisible]

Flowbark, I find this contention:

1. Because people often take their religious beliefs more seriously than their political beliefs.

to be completely ludicrous. How do you know how important different beliefs are to people? Do you have a belief-o-meter, which can measure how seriously people take what they believe? Without that, how can you substantiate this claim? It’s an awfully elitist claim to be starting off your argument with, if you can’t back it up.

As to your second point,

2. a) More deeply, because religion thought reflects greater intrinsic uncertainty. Fights don’t occur about whether the sun will rise tomorrow. It’s the ambiguous which leads to heated arguments.

Should I really accord an argument more respect because its adherents can’t prove it?

The rest of your points apply equally to politics and to religion. I’m afraid I’m unsatisfied; I’d need better reasons than these to consider religious beliefs to be worthy of more protection than political beliefs.

Synnove, that was an excellent post. As was Flowbark’s follow-up post. But I have to give Peregrine kudos for my Favorite Post of The Thread So Far.

For me, Peregrine’s post pretty much wraps all of this up.

[SisterCoyote]

Synnove, good post, but for one thing.

religious != Christian.

Please be specific, or I may be forced to run around the room screaming like a banshee.

[quixotic78]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Jodi *
** I HAVE ASKED YOU TO REFRAIN FROM BEING UNNECESSARILY ACTIVELY DISDAINFUL ABOUT A CONCEPT YOU KNOW IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE, OUT OF MINIMAL RESPECT FOR THEM.*
I reject “importance to someone” (or, in a word, fervor) as a criterion for being polite. If someone really believes that the niggers and the Jews are not even human, I’m going to call her a racist. If someone truly believes that women should stay at home, should be forbidden to work, and should be slapped around sometimes, I’m going to call him an outdated chauvinist (and that’s being nice). If someone wants to exile anyone with a Q in his or her name, because the chestnuts told him that Qs are evil and that this is the most important Chestnut Commandment, I’m going to call him a whacko.

The terms “racist,” “outdated chauvinist,” and “whacko” aren’t exactly nice terms. Perhaps you would be able to suggest terms that would show “a minimal respect” for such people?

Jodi, despite your attempts to extend the argument beyond the scope of the OP to more than just Christianity, I think I know why your posts leave a taste of “special privilege” for Christians in my (and presumably some others’) mouths. It’s because the post was prompted by a derisive remark against Christians. You didn’t start the thread when people were mocking the strongly held beliefs of those who feel the moon landings were faked. You didn’t start the thread because LDS were being made fun of. You didn’t start the thread due to Fundie bashing. No, the thread started because of something insulting that applied directly to you. So it smacks of “make a personal exception for me and my ilk.” I know, I know, I read this entire thread, and you’ve done all you can to expand the playing field. But I don’t think you should be surprised when people raise the question, “What makes YOUR case so special so as to warrant a seven-page monstrosity of a thread in your defense?”

---

To be honest, in reading this thread, I saw many more theists say “Nah, MSP doesn’t bug me” rather than “How dare you!” I just don’t know what you want people to do now. MSP–and especially IPU–have their rhetorical use: IPU is a wonderful rhetort to a “Why don’t you believe in God, who will give you life eternal?” question. Should posters, before opting to use either one of these tools, do an impromptu survey in the thread, asking if people are going to be offended?

Probably wasting his time,
Quix

[Polycarp]

Izzy: Good point. And I don’t want to argue it.

Mr. Visible: It’s your privilege to make any statement, in any tone, that you choose, subject to avoidiance of violation of the rules of the board generally and those of particular forums.

I had hoped that there was in fact a happy medium between your expression of your right to express your POV w/r/t any belief whatsoever in any deity and an element of consideration w/r/t the people who do in fact hold such beliefs, of the sort taken into account in the GD rule that says, in effect, “Attack the ideas; don’t attack the poster holding them.”

Apparently that is not an acceptable stance from your POV (insofar as I am reading your views).

I will simply leave the issue alone, then, with the idea that you have “won” this argument – at the cost of offending those who would gladly have stood by you on other issues, and probably will continue to do so nonetheless.

And make one closing observation: if you can bring yourself to see religion as not monolithic, you may be surprised at what those practicing certain aspects of it have to say with regard to the issues that seem to matter most to you.

Peace be with you.

[Liberal]

You didn’t start the thread when people were mocking the strongly held beliefs of those who feel the moon landings were faked.

Speaking for myself, I’m never bothered when someone mocks my belief in a virgin birth. And no one should be bothered when someone mocks a belief in faked moon landings. But I think it bothers nearly all of us when someone mocks someone we love.

[Guinastasia]

Here’s something I just thought of:
If it’s offensive for people to try to “witness” their beliefs in a God to those who aren’t interested, isn’t it JUST as offensive for those who do not believe in a god to try and witness to people who aren’t interested?

I’m not talking about examining beliefs. But let me tell you, the minute you start getting on my case and telling me, “You brain-washed victim, trust me, God doesn’t exist, you’re fooling yourself!”

I’m going to strike back with, “Are you aware that in Jesus you can be saved?”

Think about that for a second.

Double standards?

[yosemite]

Polycarp wrote:
I will simply leave the issue alone, then, with the idea that you have “won” this argument – at the cost of offending those who would gladly have stood by you on other issues, and probably will continue to do so nonetheless.

That’s it in a nutshell.

Say whatever you wish. You have a right to (as long as you don’t violate SDMB rules). And realize that you are alienating some people who have been on your side on some other pretty important issues.

You cannot argue this feeling of alienation away, you cannot expect that we not feel this way. We will judge you as someone who is deliberately choosing to write what you write, with the full knowledge that it is offensive to some.

[clairobscur]

Here’s something I just thought of:
If it’s offensive for people to try to “witness” their beliefs in a God to those who aren’t interested, isn’t it JUST as offensive for those who do not believe in a god to try and witness to people who aren’t interested?

I don’t think there’s any major difference…

[Synnove]

Originally posted by SisterCoyote:

Synnove, good post, but for one thing.

religious != Christian.

Please be specific, or I may be forced to run around the room screaming like a banshee.

Sorry!

I was actually trying to be non-specific because I don’t think it’s only Christians who hold that viewpoint. I think the Christian religion takes a whole heck of a lot of unnecessary abuse (don’t get me started on the “yeah but they killed so many people!” arguments … please. If history had a fascination with kind acts rather than brutal ones, there’d more than likely be at least 10 times as many people who were helped and healed by Christianity than were harmed by it, but I digress) and I didn’t really want to add to it any. I’ve had Wiccan friends who were just as evangelistic and quick to criticise the atheist way of life as any Christians I’ve known.

In fact - maybe I should have been even less specific than I was, and just consistenly typed ‘people’ - there are atheists I’ve known who seem to think that morality == religion. They’re just as bad if they run around constantly proclaiming, “Look! I’m an atheist and I don’t have to follow any moral code and I can do whatever I want so nyah!”, either verbally or with their actions. They do quite enough to damage our already crumbling reputation in the eyes of our majority-Christian society.

The next time I post about annoying trends amongst a certain group of people I’d be glad to exempt everyone on the SDMB who doesn’t display those traits, if they’d all be so kind as to e-mail me so I can collate a list. It will probably be longer than my post itself, but I really want to avoid painting the many good people here with the wrong coloured brush.

Originally posted by flowbark:

Summary and Central Claim: Theists are not simply asserting their superiority when they make the above italicized claim. They really find the existance of a moral athiest to be a little puzzling.

Fair enough. There are many things I wish were different about this world, and this is one of them, I must admit. I wish we lived in a society where a good person was accepted and understood as a good person no matter what their faith. Where theists (that was probably a better word for me to have used than “religious” … ah well) didn’t have to be puzzled by the existance of a moral atheist. At the risk of sounding like some sort of loon, I wish we were all more adept at viewing people for who they are rather than what they are. Down with the labels! grins

I realise that we’re a ways off from that utopia of understanding, and that the responsibility falls upon everyone, theist of any religion and atheist alike, to make that happen, if it’s what they truly wish for.

[Siege]

Synnove, I’m curious. The section of my post you quoted was mirroring something Mr. Visible had said a few posts before, as I quoted. Why do you object to my statements but not his? Quite frankly, I think that’s the first time I’ve put something like that, and it was done very much for the sake of making a point.

Also, Mr. Visible, among the things you’ve been mistaken about in this thread (Satanism not being included among religions comes to mind), let me assure you that I am quite definitely female.

CJ

[MrVisible]

Fascinating that, even though we don’t have enough in common to make reasonable discussion possible, cj, my assumption as to your gender seems important to you.

In response to the dramatic exits of a couple of posters here: Having you as allies might be nice, but showing respect to a belief system which I hold in contempt is too high a price to pay for that alliance. Others may feel differently.

You may, in turn, feel free to be offended at my ideas, belittle my beliefs, and make fun of my fancies. Equality is a wonderful thing.

I ask only that you judge me as someone who is deliberately choosing to write what I write, with the full knowledge that it is offensive to some. And I will do the same for you, and we’ll all live happily ever after.

[Synnove]

Bah. I was trying to reply earlier, cjhoworth, but my computer randomly crashed and then when I finally got it working again, the boards weren’t working! It’s a conspiracy, I tell you!

Anyway, I’ll try to answer your question honestly here. I do hope you saw that I made the note that it didn’t sound like you to have said that. But there were a few reasons why I quoted you and not MrVisible:

First, though I run the risk of offending him, I was kind of not reading his posts. I felt that after he made his personal point about why many atheists tend to be hostile toward religions, the quality of his posts in this thread went a bit downhill and reading them made me quite flustered. In order to read this 7-page thread more quickly I decided to skip over his posts entirely - making what I see now is a wrong decision, one I normally wouldn’t make. (If we were in GD I certainly would have tried a point-by-point rebuttal, but I’d hope his posts there wouldn’t be as abrasive.) So I never saw his comment in its original context.

Also, I guess when I read your post I didn’t read his quoted material very well. I do find it equally offensive. I think when I read that post yesterday I saw his quote as saying “religious people should drop religion but continue to follow the moral code of being nice” whereas yours said something like “nonreligious people should learn to be nice”, and I felt that you were saying no nonreligious person could have possibly been nice to begin with, whereas he was saying that religious people should continue to be nice but without religion. There wasn’t much in the way of your turn-around statement to indicate that you wished the non-believers to begin to believe, just to adhere to “love thy neighbour” and begin being nice. Re-reading it, the distinction I thought I saw isn’t so clear. I guess it was more of a nuance than anything. It certainly does seem that he’s saying religion prohibits niceness, something I strongly disagree with.

I suppose some of my aversion to the statement also comes from having been the person to which similar statements have been directed. While I do find both equally offensive, I can sympathise more with the person at the butt end of statements like the one you crafted, because I’ve been there. It’s flawed logic - obviously - but I am unfortunately incapable of being consistently logical.

The final reason is that with my post I was trying to make a point to both sides, that answering one insult with another doesn’t really “negate” the first insult. I was identifying my tendency to be insulted by theists saying atheists are amoral with theists’ tendency to be insulted by childish, derisive attitudes about their deities. I doubt that quoting MrVisible’s statement would have done much to prove that point.

In all it was sloppy and made it look like I was reading this thread trying to find insult, and for that I apologise. It was not my intention. Both statements are equally offensive and I do hope that you accept my apologies for not addressing both offensive comments.

[MrO]

*Originally posted by MrVisible *
I still think the world would be tremendously improved if all you true believers would wake up this morning and say "Hey, you know, I’m probably wrong about all this religion stuff anyhow. I’m going to ditch all the weird codes of behavior, all the mental gymnastics it takes to justify this belief in a modern context, and instead I’m just going to try and be as good a person as I can, not hurting anyone and trying to help as many people as possible. And now… breakfast."

*Originally posted by cjhoworth *
And I happen to think the world would be tremendously improved if all you non-believers would wake up and say, "You know, there may be something to this ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’ business so I’ll try to be as good a person as I can, not hurt anyone, and try to help as many people as possible. And now…breakfast.

I wasn’t asked, but I’ll tell you why I was more offended by the second quote than the first.

Admittedly, the “I’m probably wrong” part of MrVisible’s statement may be offensive to some, but the rest of it seems pretty valid to me: trying to be good without some supernatural impetus would be better. Many will disagree, but it’s a statement of opinion, and it’s one that I share, and don’t find insulting. It does seem to me that many religious people care a lot more about following the edicts of their religion than they do about being nice to people. Often the edicts tell them to be nice; often they don’t. Still, it seems that to many believers, being nice is the by-product of being religious, not the goal. Often enough, following the letter of a religious law makes people downright mean to each other. (Sometimes the meanness is a result of misinterpreting the law, of course.)

cjhoworth, on the other hand, implies that without religion, people can’t be nice, can’t love their neighbor, can’t resist hurting others, can’t be helpful people. I don’t claim that she feels that way, but it is implied in her post, and it is insulting to those of us who do not believe in God but do strongly believe that there is something to this “Love thy neighbor as thyself” business.

Not trying to pick a fight, cjhoworth, just letting you know how it came across to me. I do get your point, I think. But I also know a lot of people with and without religion who try to be good and love their neighbor.

[MrVisible]

*Originally posted by Synnove *First, though I run the risk of offending him, I was kind of not reading his posts. I felt that after he made his personal point about why many atheists tend to be hostile toward religions, the quality of his posts in this thread went a bit downhill and reading them made me quite flustered. In order to read this 7-page thread more quickly I decided to skip over his posts entirely - making what I see now is a wrong decision, one I normally wouldn’t make.

Don’t worry about it. You don’t argue a point like the one I’m making and expect everyone to actually listen to you. I’ve actually been pretty impressed with the number of people who’ve paid attention.

[yosemite]

Mr. Visible wrote:
In response to the dramatic exits of a couple of posters here: Having you as allies might be nice, but showing respect to a belief system which I hold in contempt is too high a price to pay for that alliance. Others may feel differently.

So, in essence, you have no one but yourself to blame if you lose some (potentially) valuable allies, then? And you do realize that in the Real World, many people (people who were inclined to be sympathetic towards you and your issues and causes) are reading what you have to say, and are feeling a little more alienated? And are probably thinking, “He doesn’t really give a shit how I feel, why am I knocking myself out, worrying about how he feels?”

It doesn’t mean that people won’t still do what they think is right, in spite of your “I don’t care if I lose you as allies” attitude. But you’ll lose a few along the way.

You may, in turn, feel free to be offended at my ideas, belittle my beliefs, and make fun of my fancies. Equality is a wonderful thing.

:rolleyes:

Oh sure. And if we were to do that, you’d be bellyaching about how “hateful” we are. And how “offended” you are. And why we are the reason why everything is going to hell in a handbasket. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t. And if you do claim that you wouldn’t, prepare to have a whole slew of us waiting to pounce on you the first time you complain about feeling ill-used, and prepare for us to point you to this thread.

I ask only that you judge me as someone who is deliberately choosing to write what I write, with the full knowledge that it is offensive to some. And I will do the same for you, and we’ll all live happily ever after.

Yeah, we’ll judge you as someone who is being deliberately hurtful.

And will we try not to ruffle your feathers anyway? Most likely, we’ll try—no matter how (obviously) unconcerned you are about our feelings and sensibilities. Because we weren’t raised by wolves. (Not that I am saying that you are.)

[MrVisible]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
So, in essence, you have no one but yourself to blame if you lose some (potentially) valuable allies, then?

Why, who else would I blame? I accept responsibility for my own actions, statements, and beliefs.

And you do realize that in the Real World, many people (people who were inclined to be sympathetic towards you and your issues and causes) are reading what you have to say, and are feeling a little more alienated? And are probably thinking, “He doesn’t really give a shit how I feel, why am I knocking myself out, worrying about how he feels?”

And others are thinking, “Hey, there are other people out there who feel the same way I do. Even if most of society is too deferential to admit to feeling this way towards religion, there are some people who can say this sort of thing, and some places where it’s still allowed.”

Oh sure. And if we were to do that, you’d be bellyaching about how “hateful” we are. And how “offended” you are. And why we are the reason why everything is going to hell in a handbasket. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t.

Of course I will. Except I don’t believe in hell, and I have my doubts about handbaskets. It’s your ideas against mine in this little contest, and neither of us is fond of the idea of giving any ground away. And then you’ll do the same thing, and be all “offended” too. Just like in this thread. Won’t it be fun? Much more fun than pretending we respect each other, at least.

You want me to treat your beliefs with respect? Stop using beliefs that cannot be proven as a basis for planks in a political platform. Respect the separation of church and state, and admit that a secular government is fairest for all concerned. Stop judging non-believers on the basis of beliefs that are, to them, irrelevant. Start practicing the charity and humility that most religions have at their base. Stop identifying things that you feel might offend your deity, and trying to get everybody on the planet, whether they’re religious or not, to do without them.

Demanding my respect will only earn you my derision and contempt.

Feel free to attack my ideas in any thread throughout the boards. But keep in mind, there are appropriate contexts in which to express derision. If the thread in question isn’t about the subjects we’ve discussed here, then poppin in and calling me a god-hater or a misguided atheist would be just plain rude. However, in a context where my ideas about religion have been aired, or if I’m participating in such a discussion, please heap all the derision you feel is necessary upon my beliefs; attack them in any way you please. One such appropriate context would be a Pit thread in which I demanded your respect for my beliefs.