Overcoming predudice against atheism

Ghost Buster

bluewolf wrote: »

Now robin, everyone is a buddha :pac:

You callin' me fat?

Ghost Buster

Ghost Buster wrote: »

You callin' me fat?

if buddha looks fat to you, you have a problem:pac::pac:

yeppydeppy

yeppydeppy wrote: »

I reckon this is a troll.

Yep, definitely.

In more or less 30 years of describing myself as an atheist and a humanist, I've rarely encountered any kind of negative response.

Most people I know are Catholics, some are CoI, and a small number are atheists. No-one thinks my atheism (or anyone else's for that matter) is worth commenting on. Most people don't care, and the rest are too well-mannered to bother commenting.

irishh_bob

Galvasean wrote: »

So wait, we just bend over backwards because the Catholics think they are getting a hard time even when in this case they are clearly the ones doing the... ah never mind.

edit: aw shucks, I dunno. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of non-believers having to put up and shut up while everyone else is expected to stick up for themselves when people diss their beliefs in public.
Nobody puts atheist in the corner!

i was the victim of sectarianism while working overseas as a younger man , funny thing was , it didnt seem to matter that i was an athiest , i was at best a catholic athiest :rolleyes: according to this particular bigot

philologos

Grants fairy wrote: »

Thanks for advice. Will make meeting note tomoro and speak with line manager. Christians are sure nice, tolerant folk!

It comes around both ways I think. It can be a good opportunity to give people an insight into what you actually think though. Although it is important that work is work, and isn't for preaching.

I had an interesting situation a few weeks ago where a colleague said that evangelical Christians were crazy at work. None of my co-workers knew that I was a Christian, but I allowed the discussion to continue, and then I said that it was funny that they should mention that because I'm an evangelical Christian myself. It's an interesting thing when one can sit back and listen to what people think, and it's also interesting if one can limit how offended they may feel at people saying things about what you can identify with strongly.

People can be surprised when stuff like that happens and one can give people the opportunity to reconsider their preconceptions in your case about atheists, and in my case about evangelical Christians.

I guess it is your call to consider what crosses the line or what doesn't when you go to HR or whatever. Consider your choices wisely.

Mark Hamill

UDP wrote: »

I can imagine how that would go. Suddenly there would be silence followed by claims that the OP was being rude. Then there would be disciplinary action against the OP for intolerance and disrepect of people's religious beliefs followed by an article in the local paper reporting how an atheist attacked a co-worker's religious beliefs in the workplace and how there is an epidemic rise in atheism from people who are jumping on board just because it is fashionable.

OP just giving as good as he got. If he was wrong to do it then so are the theistic coworkers who started off first. It all depends on how the OP wants to take what the coworkers are saying. If he takes it as them joking at atheists expense, then he has every right to return the favour. If he takes it that they are serious then he should take them to task for their generalisations and misrepresentations. If you are going to suggest that he shouldn't respond for fear of "offending" then you might as well suggest he go home and never leave, as just existing is enough to cause offense to the likes of people who will turn the story of an atheist firing back a few mild one liners at some theists into that of an intolerant bigot, representative of an epidemic of religious disresepct.

UDP

Mark Hamill wrote: »

OP just giving as good as he got. If he was wrong to do it then so are the theistic coworkers who started off first. It all depends on how the OP wants to take what the coworkers are saying. If he takes it as them joking at atheists expense, then he has every right to return the favour. If he takes it that they are serious then he should take them to task for their generalisations and misrepresentations. If you are going to suggest that he shouldn't respond for fear of "offending" then you might as well suggest he go home and never leave, as just existing is enough to cause offense to the likes of people who will turn the story of an atheist firing back a few mild one liners at some theists into that of an intolerant bigot, representative of an epidemic of religious disresepct.

No, I was just pointing out some religious people think they can disrespect others but when it comes to someone challenging their beliefs they take it personally and suddenly someone is disrespecting that persons' religion which they make into a big deal.

I would challenge them - wouldn't need to say you are an atheist to do that but just show how ridiculus what they are saying is.

Indeed, I've tried the "but that's exactly what you just said turned on its head" approach in various situations (not religion, I think) and when people take something personally, well, there's no logic recognised then.
While it's good in theory, I would agree UDP's scenario is pretty likely.

Mark Hamill

UDP wrote: »

No, I was just pointing out some religious people think they can disrespect others but when it comes to someone challenging their beliefs they take it personally and suddenly someone is disrespecting that persons' religion which they make into a big deal.

I would challenge them - wouldn't need to say you are an atheist to do that but just show how ridiculus what they are saying is.

I agree with what you are saying regards to how some religious people might act/react, but I still wouldn't let that stop me countering them in any way I see fit. Yes, going the humour route is a little more likely to get them to react aggressively (hence I gave the second option, of responding with debate) , but they can react in much the same way if you counter with a logical deconstruction of their gross misrepresentation (Instead of being declared intolerant, the OP could be declared a "militant atheist, just as bad as the crazy religious guy shouting on the street", given reprimands for "attacking" his theistic coworkers beliefs, all followed by an article in the local paper reporting how an atheist attacked a co-worker's religious beliefs etc. etc.)

Regardless of how the OP reacts to his coworkers (should he choose to react) it is possible that they will play some version of the oppressed theist/militant atheist card. I guess that I'm on this forum so much and am so used to seeing this defensive attitude that I just take it as granted and dont even think to point it out.

nozzferrahhtoo

Grants fairy wrote: »

Has anyone else had a similar experience? If so, how did you handle it?

Dades wrote: »

Unless it becomes a habit, I'd take the moral highground and ignore it.

Yes, it is always fun when something like this happens then weeks later they somehow find out you are an atheist. You can almost see the horror on their face as they try to remember what it was they said in front of you and how bad it was. They were fine talking down when they thought none of the "other side" was there listening. They suffer from shame when they realise there was.

Ignoring it, moving on and just representing yourself generally well is the best way to get on with it. When they see you do not match the strawman of stupidity, arrogance and anger they have built in their head it will cause a subtle change in attitudes quicker than telling them why their preconceptions are wrong and attempting to argue them out of them.

To example this I exercise the reverse approach when talking to theists. Rather than going around telling people I think some Christians are liars or worse I merely engage in keeping said Christians talking and let them demonstrate it for themselves. Which they do at length and in doing so serve my ends more than they know and better than if they gave me their passwords and let me write their posts for them.

As has been seen with users like Philologos above in the past all I had to do was keep him talking for awhile then simply highlight the lack of evidence, cop out and retreats, and simple out right lies that his rhetoric was made of. Users and people like that do half your work for you and now the forum is populated with posts I can point to and say "Look, this is who and what you are actually dealing with here. Do not take my word for it, observe them in action yourself!".

Keep them talking, represent yourself well, and there is very little else you will ever need to do.

Yahew

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, it is always fun when something like this happens then weeks later they somehow find out you are an atheist. You can almost see the horror on their face as they try to remember what it was they said in front of you and how bad it was. They were fine talking down when they thought none of the "other side" was there listening. They suffer from shame when they realise there was.

Ignoring it, moving on and just representing yourself generally well is the best way to get on with it. When they see you do not match the strawman of stupidity, arrogance and anger they have built in their head it will cause a subtle change in attitudes quicker than telling them why their preconceptions are wrong and attempting to argue them out of them.

To example this I exercise the reverse approach when talking to theists. Rather than going around telling people I think some Christians are liars or worse I merely engage in keeping said Christians talking and let them demonstrate it for themselves. Which they do at length and in doing so serve my ends more than they know and better than if they gave me their passwords and let me write their posts for them.

As has been seen with users like Philologos above in the past all I had to do was keep him talking for awhile then simply highlight the lack of evidence, cop out and retreats, and simple out right lies that his rhetoric was made of. Users and people like that do half your work for you and now the forum is populated with posts I can point to and say "Look, this is who and what you are actually dealing with here. Do not take my word for it, observe them in action yourself!".

Keep them talking, represent yourself well, and there is very little else you will ever need to do.

How about this - the Angry Atheists and the Angry Christians keep their rhetoric out of the workplace?

Did we ever find out what upset the OP, anyway? What formula of words can upset non-believers?

The New Atheist is becoming as prim and as upset as Mary Whitehouse.

nozzferrahhtoo

You know as much as I do as to the actual events mentioned in the OP. If it is not on the thread then I know nothing you do not know.

If you take issue with what someone is doing in the workplace or how they carry their atheism however, take it up with them. Not me I can really only discuss myself and how I act.

Yahew

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You know as much as I do as to the actual events mentioned in the OP. If it is not on the thread then I know nothing you do not know.

If you take issue with what someone is doing in the workplace or how they carry their atheism however, take it up with them. Not me I can really only discuss myself and how I act.

Who was asking you?

nozzferrahhtoo

It is sort of a common assumption around here that if you quote someones post and then start asking questions that you are essentially talking with them. Clearly not always an accurate assumption, but one can certainly be forgiven for making it and I would certainly not make any apologies for doing so.

robindch

^^^ Yahew -- a bit more chill, please.

Yahew

The question was Did *we* ever find out?

I ask this because if a religious poster mentioned being upset by a comment in work the question would surely be asked: "what was the comment? "

MagicMarker

Yahew wrote: »

Did we ever find out what upset the OP, anyway? What formula of words can upset non-believers?

Are atheists immune to feeling offended or something?

mcmoustache

philologos wrote: »

People can be surprised when stuff like that happens and one can give people the opportunity to reconsider their preconceptions in yur case about atheists, and in my case about evangelical Christians.

A bit OT here but I know 2 evangelical Christians and they are the easiest people to discuss their faith or my lack of faith with. It's probably because they at least know their holy book, have thought about what they believe and are secure enough in their beliefs to have them challenged. I work with one and drink with another and conversation often comes around to issues of faith or the lack of it. It's surprisingly respectful.

I've found that people that don't really understand what they believe (I'm looking at you, Irish Catholics), tend to be less secure, more defensive and fearful of evil atheists. They definitely don't like being asked even the simplest questions about their faith. It's probably because they're never opened a bible and daydream through mass. I avoid any religious discussion with these types.

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, it is always fun when something like this happens then weeks later they somehow find out you are an atheist. You can almost see the horror on their face as they try to remember what it was they said in front of you and how bad it was. They were fine talking down when they thought none of the "other side" was there listening. They suffer from shame when they realise there was.

Ignoring it, moving on and just representing yourself generally well is the best way to get on with it. When they see you do not match the strawman of stupidity, arrogance and anger they have built in their head it will cause a subtle change in attitudes quicker than telling them why their preconceptions are wrong and attempting to argue them out of them.

To example this I exercise the reverse approach when talking to theists. Rather than going around telling people I think some Christians are liars or worse I merely engage in keeping said Christians talking and let them demonstrate it for themselves. Which they do at length and in doing so serve my ends more than they know and better than if they gave me their passwords and let me write their posts for them.

As has been seen with users like Philologos above in the past all I had to do was keep him talking for awhile then simply highlight the lack of evidence, cop out and retreats, and simple out right lies that his rhetoric was made of. Users and people like that do half your work for you and now the forum is populated with posts I can point to and say "Look, this is who and what you are actually dealing with here. Do not take my word for it, observe them in action yourself!".

Keep them talking, represent yourself well, and there is very little else you will ever need to do.

So all you have to do to demonstrate that Christians are liars or worse is to keep them talking. Got it.

Good man nozzferrahhtoo. Representing yourself well again i see, by directly linking to another posters alleged cop-outs, retreats and outright lies.

Posts like this will definitely help dispel the myths of your strawmen up there and build bridges of dialogue, respectfulness and understanding.:)

Yahew

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are atheists immune to feeling offended or something?

I am not a fan of any football team, so it is hard to get me riled up about who won what, or what happened at the weekend. It's easy to get a football supporter riled up because they care.

Nor would I care if someone mocked my "non-belief" in (watching) Match of the Day. Attacking liverpool will get a Liverpool supporter angry, attacking Jesus gets a religious person upset. An attack on either would not see me upset - although I would prefer atheists didnt attack Jesus in the presence of religious people ( of which I am not one).

So what, in this instance, in this thread with 70 replies was said to the atheist OP?

MagicMarker

Yahew wrote: »

I am not a fan of any football team, so it is hard to get me riled up about who won what, or what happened at the weekend. It's easy to get a football supporter riled up because they care.

Nor would I care if someone mocked my "non-belief" in (watching) Match of the Day. Attacking liverpool will get a Liverpool supporter angry, attacking Jesus gets a religious person upset. An attack on either would not see me upset - although I would prefer atheists didnt attack Jesus in the presence of religious people ( of which I am not one).

So what, in this instance, in this thread with 70 replies was said to the atheist OP?

Well amazingly different people react differently. Just because you don't take offence to a comment doesn't mean someone else won't take offence to the same comment.

Mark Hamill

Yahew wrote: »

How about this - the Angry Atheists and the Angry Christians keep their rhetoric out of the workplace?

Unless it is getting in the way of work, then I dont see why people cant discuss their interests in work.

Yahew wrote: »

Did we ever find out what upset the OP, anyway? What formula of words can upset non-believers?

Yes, in post 11: "General guffawing and laughing. Comments like " who do they think they are", "they think they are just a bunch of electrons". But it wasnt so much the comments in as much as the way they said them. It occured to me later that if you took what they said, and substituted "jew" or "muslim" for atheist, it would not be tolerated. "
Did you not bother to read the thread?

Yahew wrote: »

The New Atheist is becoming as prim and as upset as Mary Whitehouse.

I always love it when someone capitalises an adjective before the word "Atheist" as you just know that its going to be some kind of BS generalisation or misrepresentation. What is a New Atheist?

Dades

The OP has been and gone in this thread so we're all going to get to keep up the handbags it might as well be shut.

Maintain decorum, please!

Yahew

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Unless it is getting in the way of work, then I dont see why people cant discuss their interests in work.

The whole basis of the OP's argument is that he couldn't actually handle criticism of his belief systems.

Yes, in post 11: "General guffawing and laughing. Comments like " who do they think they are", "they think they are just a bunch of electrons". But it wasnt so much the comments in as much as the way they said them. It occured to me later that if you took what they said, and substituted "jew" or "muslim" for atheist, it would not be tolerated. "
Did you not bother to read the thread?

I did miss that ( and having read it I doubt the veracity of it); but why would it upset anybody who actually thought - or, as proper scientists would say , know that all we are are electrons? That is all we are made of. ( Well, atoms not electrons). Exactly what is upsetting? Its about as upsetting as saying "They believe that gravity is attracting them to the Earth"

The New Atheist is someone who has positioned himself as a (anti-religious) religion with a "belief" system, - and some obvious prophets; a belief system which when challenged, causes him upset. No scientist gets upset at a challenge to his belief in something - he goes to prove it, or not. Look at the decade long Steady State vs Inflating universe. The steady state guys lost, and didnt lose an minutes sleep.

Galvasean

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are atheists immune to feeling offended or something?

Perhaps we should be...

Yahew wrote: »

The whole basis of the OP's argument is that he couldn't actually handle criticism of his belief systems.

Now I'm about to become across as a Pedantic Paddy, BUT since when was atheism multiple belief systems, let alone one system?

Mark Hamill

Yahew wrote: »

The whole basis of the OP's argument is that he couldn't actually handle criticism of his belief systems.

Thats not what the quote said at all. The OP said that it wasn't what his coworkers said, it was how they said it, from post 11: "But it wasnt so much the comments in as much as the way they said them."

Yahew wrote: »

I did miss that ( and having read it I doubt the veracity of it); but why would it upset anybody who actually thought - or, as proper scientists would say , know that all we are are electrons? That is all we are made of. ( Well, atoms not electrons). Exactly what is upsetting? Its about as upsetting as saying "They believe that gravity is attracting them to the Earth"

Again, the way they said it. Now, I'm sure they said other things that added to it, and I'm sure the irritability or offensiveness of what was said is lost in the OPs telling, but I can see how such a situation can be very annoying.

Yahew wrote: »

The New Atheist is someone who has positioned himself as a (anti-religious) religion with a "belief" system, - and some obvious prophets; a belief system which when challenged, causes him upset.

I love how some theists try to redefine atheists sticking up for themselves, as they have done for hundreds of years, as "new" and as part of their "religion".

Yahew wrote: »

No scientist gets upset at a challenge to his belief in something - he goes to prove it, or not. Look at the decade long Steady State vs Inflating universe. The steady state guys lost, and didnt lose an minutes sleep.

There is a massive difference between two scientists contradicting each others theories because of having conflicting evidence and a scientifically-illiterate cretin contradicting science because scientific evidence conflicts with their (theistically supported) ego. Its made worse when they aren't even contradicting the others point of view, just trying to ridicule it despite its veracity.

riffmongous

Yahew wrote: »

The whole basis of the OP's argument is that he couldn't actually handle criticism of his belief systems.

I did miss that ( and having read it I doubt the veracity of it); but why would it upset anybody who actually thought - or, as proper scientists would say , know that all we are are electrons? That is all we are made of. ( Well, atoms not electrons). Exactly what is upsetting? Its about as upsetting as saying "They believe that gravity is attracting them to the Earth"

Not every atheist is some sort of cold emotionless logic machine, most are just regular people and if they think someone is saying something in a insulting manner they will get offended.

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

Posts like this will definitely help dispel the myths of your strawmen up there and build bridges of dialogue, respectfulness and understanding.:)

Glad to be of service.

It is an approach I am not ashamed to take with such users. Let them talk, let them hang themselves, and then make sure people see what actually happened in Black and White. This is much better than simply going around bad mouthing people. Point instead to what those people actually wrote and simply say "Go, look for yourself".

Represent yourself well and highlight where others fail to and I think one will do much better than simply trying to argue people directly out of their preconceptions of either side. I do honestly believe that there are some people with whom arguing against them is not as good as simply keeping them talking and letting people hear.

If we are to "over come prejudice against atheism" as the thread is actually about, I do not think the most effective way to do so is to argue people out of their prejudices. I rarely see that work.

By representing ourselves well and ensuring people see when the "other" side do not, I think we can quite effectively show that atheists are not the monsters some people think they are, or wish to maintain that they are.

philologos

ed2hands wrote: »

So all you have to do to demonstrate that Christians are liars or worse is to keep them talking. Got it.

Good man nozzferrahhtoo. Representing yourself well again i see, by directly linking to another posters alleged cop-outs, retreats and outright lies.

Posts like this will definitely help dispel the myths of your strawmen up there and build bridges of dialogue, respectfulness and understanding.:)

Evidence that nozzferrahhtoo is on my ignore list (Will be taking down this image eventually). One of three people who are unable to enter into a civil discussion with other people.

I took nozzferrahhtoo off my ignore list for a temporary period in order to see if he was willing to start on a fresh foot and leave the childishness aside. He wasn't, therefore he went back on the ignore list. No lying involved I'm afraid.

The reason that I didn't continue the discussion on all of those occasions is because we had hit an impasse and ultimately we would have repeated ourselves. Much of the reasons were simply fobbed off without adequate reason, particularly the one on the resurrection. I myself admitted that some of the reasons needed revision. There was no point as far as I see it continuing with him precisely because he thrives on whipping up a false sense of notereity of other people. His approach amounts to childish schoolyard style bullying. My approach to people who simply don't want to continue any discussion with me is simple, and ultimately a whole lot less hostile.

I wish this wasn't the case, and I wish that he wasn't one of the minority of posters on my ignore list. Ultimately I wish him the best, but discussing this topic with him is futile unless he's willing to change his approach which is in and of itself dishonest.

Having met Michael Nugent a year and a bit ago, he's a far better representative of Atheist Ireland than nozzferrahhtoo will ever be, and his attitude towards engaging positively rather than negatively with other people is behind this.

Anyone who is fair minded will see this much.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

so we're all going to get to keep up the handbags it might as well be shut.

I don't know what this sentence means but I think you are prejudiced against handbags :mad:

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't know what this sentence means but I think you are prejudiced against handbags :mad:

Mods are always against handbags.:(

Dades

Can't move for the handbags in this thread!