Sympathy towards some of the bigots

Somewhere in this forum I've seen a post that claimed that christian conservatives are more sympathetic than millitant atheists.

This left me very curious, because most people in this forum are in favour of intellectualism and LGBT rights (or build a mask stating they are), and this point of view sounds very confusing.

Note that I am not very biased in this. I'm too self-centered to care beyond anything that concerns my personal freedoms.

It may be complex, but I see no necessary contradiction. One may sympathize without agreeing.*

edited 22nd Apr '11 8:05:34 AM by Tongpu

Yes, I suppose so. Although the way it was worded kinda implied that one side is "better", when evidence begs to differ (at least when it comes to christian fundamentalism).

edited 22nd Apr '11 8:39:04 AM by Mullerornis

^^

This.

Also, I've never seen anybody here defend outright bigots. For instance, nobody on here has ever sympathized with the Westboro Baptist Church, at least I've never seen that happen.

I honestly don't like militant atheists or fundies. Being a conservative christian doesn't make someone a bigot, being a raging extremist nutjob of any stripe is always bad though.

To reiterate what Tongpu said with an example. I can sympathize with and understand why, say, the Haditha Massacre happened. It doesn't mean I support those marines, but I can sympathize. I'd rather not discuss this in this thread though, I'm always available for a PM if anyone wants an explanation of the concept though.

edited 22nd Apr '11 8:40:41 AM by Barkey

Well, to be fair, militant religious fundamentalists at least do not pretend to be open-minded, while people who display all the signs of fanaticism while claiming "free and rational" thought add hypocrisy on top of fanaticism.

Seriously, though, it is indeed possible to be sympathetic without agreeing. There are quite a lot of people this one can't help but be sympathetic towards even though she considers them wrong. Rather difficult to explain, but...this one does not see what they see, but understands that what they see is serious, horrible and really cannot be ignored in clear conscience.

I think the point is that in the public at large, that there's more sympathy for Christian conservatives than for "militant" atheists, and not so much here in particular. Although there are threads exploring it!

There's a couple of potential reasons for this, I think.

First, is the moral privilege we have ingrained in our society in terms of religion, where religion is by definition moral. So atheism is, almost by a 2nd-tier definition, immoral.

Second, my personal experience is that we still live in a majority religious culture. And especially in America, even liberal/progressive religious individuals are still looking for "glory" for their individual religion. And I think that leads them to agree with people with the same label as them before people without that label.

Third, atheism is often ingrained with leftism, and there's a knee-jerk reaction against even moderate left-ism that you don't see with even extremist right wing views. I actually think that a big reason for the knee-jerk reaction is actually #2. But that's neither here nor there.

Those are the things I think that given someone who is not intellectually engaged with the socio-political system as a whole, would have a knee-jerk reaction against atheism where it might not exist with conservative Christianity. That said, most people who are posting in a forum such as this, are by definition intellectually engaged, and as such I don't think these general stimuli really count for people here.

It would all depend on how you defined "christian conservatives" and "militant atheists", because there are shades of grey in both positions. For example, the Pope, Sarah Palin, the CDU in Germany and some evangelicals in the Church of England could all be called "Christian conservatives" on some level. They'd probably all agree on certain things, but differ widely on others. One person might well find one or other more sympathetic than militant atheists, and vice versa.

The title of the thread kind of assumes everyone who can be put in a certain category you disagree with is thereby, objectively, a bigot. I think that's a mistake.

Indeed I should have rephrased better. What I mean by "bigot" usually fits into the textbook definition of it. In my personal opinion I tend to gravitate towards people who are "hellbent on sacrificing freedom in name of what they consider best for peace on their nation", but such specification is unnecessary.

I'm sympathetic towards the fundamentalist Christian ideal, inasmuch as it reminds me of Don Quixote tilting at windmills—there's a misunderstanding of the situation, but not the sort of malice you see from a lot of militant atheists. Unfortunately, a lot of those who claim to preach peace and love are ultimately as hateful as those they consider their enemies.

Well, I don't see Richard Dawkins as particularly malicious. Arrogant, yes, but at least he does contribute to the whole via his studies on biology. I'm very pragmatic, you see, and since pastors generally aren't very usefull to the whole, I don't tend to generate much sympathy.

Then again, I'm pretty sure there's millitant atheists whose usefullness is small enough for me to not like them.

edited 22nd Apr '11 12:47:25 PM by Mullerornis

I aim to be sympathetic to the other side and I aim to understand their reasoning and feelings. I will not always agree with the other side however. Understanding is important though I think. I do not always succeed though. Bias often gets the best of me. Example: Antitheism and my feelings towards it are...none too positive. That shows a lot when I meet antitheists and speak with them.

edited 22nd Apr '11 1:01:22 PM by Aondeug

Why not?

I think the reason fundies are more sympathetic than militant atheists is that both try to convert others to their view, but the fundies have a better reason to do so. If they're right, then non-believers go to Hell, so trying to save people from that is pretty altruistic. If atheists are right, then believers cease to exist after death, just like non-believers do. So why should they care what others believe?

Experience with antitheists who declared themselves that or expressed ideas similar to it hasn't been positive on my end. As for the ideas themselves...I do not like them. Directly opposing theism bothers me. Direct opposition to religion as a whole (some antitheists go with that) bugs me even more. I myself am religious as are many of those close to me and many of the things I love and adore were inspired by religion. It's a special and important thing to me that I don't think needs to be opposed as a whole.

In short: Experience with dicks+beliefs that would be pushing me even if they weren't dicks=heavy negative bias. I am not proud of the bias I have and seek to improve it. It is still a bias I have however.

Aondeug, most of the focus on these tends to be on atheism and christianity, how does a buddhist such as yourself tend to view it?

edited 22nd Apr '11 5:08:48 PM by joeyjojo

Myself? I am agnostic and do not swing too heavily in either direction. I place more stock in the idea of higher beings such as gods than I do in the idea that there are no such things though. I do not pretend to know their nature. I can tell you what I would like to be their nature or what I would find interesting however. I'd like gods that are largely unconcerned with us emotionally speaking. They just sort of observe us and go off making new crap to watch. Sometimes they play with us and sometimes they hurt us and sometimes they are nice to us, but largely they just watch and don't care too much either way. Then they grow bored and make new shit. We're just toys.

I also like the idea of gods being in control over the laws of physics. Like there's a system of gods that all work on this shit and keep things going. They may or may not be sentient beings as we understand them. They could just be vague forces we cannot truly comprehend. Or maybe they are the laws themselves.

The idea that there is one all mighty god over the universe whom we all become a part of when we succeed in achieving true everlasting Nibbana is a nice one as well.

I am just one Buddhist however. Other Buddhists are theistic. Tibetan Buddhism for example has a pantheon and is very ritualistic. It's a mix of Mahayana and Vajrayana. Thai Buddhism, the sort I am most familiar with and practice, is animistic. They picked this up from the old religion of Thailand. The people still pay tribute to their gods and spirits. Loi Krathong, one of the biggest holidays in Thailand for Buddhists, is to honor the water goddess Phra Mae Khongkha as well as wash away all of our impurities.

For some it's just a passive sort of thing. They offer things to the gods and ask for blessings and believe that it is truth, but aren't too focused on it. Others just do it because of tradition or to be polite. Some are deadly certain and find it to be an important part of their practice. Others don't care either way and don't do it. Some don't believe at all and don't do anything about it. It depends on the sect and individual person.

I respect the beliefs of the more strongly theistic however and do not seek to directly oppose those beliefs.

edited 22nd Apr '11 5:31:47 PM by Aondeug

I agree with the idea that religion is generally seen as moral, and atheism, therefor, is more immoral.

Besides that, the majority of people, in most places, are religious to some degree. Even if one sees a religious group as extremist, it's still closer to one's viewpoint than no religion at all. For a non-religious example, a moderate Doctor Who fan is likely to be more sympathetic to someone who feels Doctor Who is the best television program that has been, or ever will be, created, than someone who thinks that Doctor Who is the worst television program in history. While the former is still an extreme view, it's closer to the moderate view.

In general, extremist groups are, by nature, extreme. However, as many internet flame wars have shown, if someone says they don't like something that one likes, even if it's as trivial as TV or music preference, it tends to spark debate and anger. The same goes for atheism. Many self-labeled militant atheists admit they aren't out to convert anyone, but just increase the atheist presence and voice, sometimes very loudly. The fact that they disagree with very deeply held religious viewpoints at all is more likely to be upsetting than people who take those deeply held viewpoints too far.

@Aondeug: Thank you for sharing some tenets of your creed. It's quite interesting. It's good to get a non judeo christian counterpoint to atheism as well.

edited 22nd Apr '11 7:11:09 PM by joeyjojo

Aondeug, I'm an agnostic misotheist who's strongly in favor of secular humanism. I promote godless culture. I don't particularly like traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions. I like paganism, and Buddhism, and Jainism ,Christian anarchism, and deism... Do you hate me now?

Sure thing joey. I enjoy sharing my non-Judeochristian views in such topics. Sometimes anyway. Not all the time of course. I AM A RARITY IN THESE PARTS.

Love Happiness: Hate is a strong word and I do not actually and actively hate most individuals. I cannot think of anyone I truly and completely hate at the moment actually. Not even my father. Ideas? Antitheism is the big one that gets my scorn. Now as for hating you in particular... You don't come off as particularly dickish which is a plus for you. Your beliefs in regards to theism and in particular the monotheism of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are something that more or less instantly raises my back though.

The answer to your inquiry is therefore that I do not hate you, but your beliefs unsettle me.

edited 22nd Apr '11 7:43:00 PM by Aondeug

I just tend to dislike tradition a lot...

I do not necessarily dislike tradition. I do believe that it is often clung to far too hard and that it can lead to bad things. I do not think it is inherently bad however. There may be some positive uses for the thing.

Also if you really dislike tradition you should have difficulties with Buddhism and Buddhist countries I am thinking. It is a tradition after all. Especially Theravada. It's the traditional old school.

"Mahāyāna" also refers to the path of seeking complete enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, also called "Bodhisattvayāna", or the "Bodhisattva Vehicle."

This is what really appeals to me. I basically meant I dislike conservative traditionalism. I'm basically a commie in terms of values so it grates me a lot.

Do you know the specifics behind Buddhism, Mahayana, and the cultures in which Mahayana is most popular? Said nations are East Asian.

I am not trying to dissuade you from liking Buddhism. I just want to make sure you understand the religion and its philosophy. I have noticed that there are those who were initially supportive of it may become very unsupportive of it after researching into it.

Nope nothing. The only Buddhists I have ever heard of (not met) have all been ultra-liberal Western Buddhists. Of course I am aware they are far from representative of most Buddhists, and I don't pretend to understand the philosophy or whatever. I like meditation (which is commonly part of practice right?), and I like the focus on eliminating suffering. And I like the seeming inclusiveness(?). That's it. I admit having my my opinion skewed by this too [1].