The privileged theist.

[Phillip McCleod]

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

This seems a much better word than 'patronizing', 'conceited', 'arrogant', or 'condescending'.

It better conveys the combined sense of entitlement and persecution complex that the believer relies on to label others and maintain firm control of the terms of debate. 'Patronizing' is more old school ignorant. 'Privileged' is more modern and self-centered.

Discuss.



..

[trotsky]

1. I have learned that atheists are not allowed to point out theistic privilege.

Certainly not any atheist who enjoys privilege in some other area (white, male, etc.).

Strange, because anyone who expressed a similar sentiment against any other minority group (for instance, saying that black men aren't allowed to point out white privilege because they are men) would be rightfully condemned for such a remark.

Ironically, this double standard ends up being yet another example of theistic privilege.

[Phillip McCleod]

2. i've had that argument as well..

but apparently the concept of intersectionality doesn't apply to non-believers.. at least not if they make the mistake of being 'evangelical militant rabid strident', or 'vocal', or really 'having an opinion and expressing it in public'.

the privileged class gets to define the terms of the debate, tho, and either we accept it or we are labeled for dismissal.

..sigh..

[Dorian Gray]

3. Not all believers

feel that they're martyrs or label others.

[Phillip McCleod]

4. i do know this..

maybe a would be a better smiley than a :hitself: .. ?

see, for reference..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121876407
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=73978

[cleanhippie]

5. Here, use this instead.

[Goblinmonger]

7. To continue the satire that is the OP

Yes, not all believers are like that but don't we need a way to label those that do? Isn't it good to be able to separate them into groups?

And if you didn't read the similar atheist thread, please do to see sentiments just like this regarding atheists.

[Dorian Gray]

21. The evangelical atheist one?

I commented already.

[LTX]

6. Patronizing and self-professing "persecuted" atheists seem rather common as well.

This nominal thread being no exception. Just noting it.

[cleanhippie]

9. Someone seems to have lost any sense of humor an irony.

This is poking fun at the thread posted yesterday about "evangelical atheists", and follows the same poke as the "I have proof god doesn't exist" thread that you tried to crap on in the same way.

All of this only exists as a response to the absurdities espoused by theists, but you already knew that.

[LTX]

12. Could be just me. On the other hand, it could be the quality of the humor. n/t

[cleanhippie]

13. Quality is in the eye of the consumer. When one lacks a sense of humor, quality is irrelevant.

Most important is the point being made through humor. And if the sense of humor is lacking, the point is lost.

[TM99]

8. I will gladly play along

but I can't say that 'privileged' is the best choice of words.

Here's why. Privilege is now a political buzz word born from the academic gender & race studies departments of Ivy League and small liberal arts colleges.

This will get tricky here if you follow along. What about this delicious conundrum? Imagine an African American lesbian Episcopal priest. She is obviously not privileged and yet according to your new use of the word, because she is a theist, she would be. What about a yourself? So you are a male & an atheist. With the last name McCleod, if that is your real name, well, hell, you are definitely white. Are you straight as well? If so, wow, then how can you be both privileged and not-privileged at the same time?

Perhaps we need some sort of mathematics to be involved. Our aforementioned example would be (not privileged +3 * privileged +1). You would be, assuming you are a white straight male of course, (privileged +3 * not privileged +1). So what do we do now? You apparently are much more privileged so how can you yammer on about the theist being more so?

No, I would just stick with the old adjectives - 'patronizing', 'conceited', 'arrogant', or 'condescending'. They can be applied equally to individuals both theistic and atheistic that meet those characteristics. There are plenty of those types of individuals on both sides of the fence.

[Phillip McCleod]

10. really good points..

..like a hit point system in D&D. Way too complicated.

But it seems slightly less insulting than 'pompous'. I don't want to hurt any feelings by mislabeling others.. .. ..

[Goblinmonger]

11. Plus you then need to go to critical hits and misses

and that gets weird.

Oh, wait, this isn't a thread geeking out about D&D?

[TM99]

15. My inner Geek comes out when I least expect it.

True, it is complicated, but it might get us all to slow down and think things through before we label anyone.

Most labels hurt after all. And aren't we all using them to insult others anyway because we ourselves feel insulted?

None of us really know each other online. Even in person a conflict is easier to resolve if we don't immediately go to generalizing labels and lump that individual into a category of 'bad group' and me in 'good group'.

When I was younger I enjoyed the fundamentalist baiting. Hell I enjoyed playing intellectually with Hare Krishna's in the airports and on street corners. Now, I generally walk away from such conflict whenever I can. I am not going to win a debate with a born-again Christian convinced that I will burn in hell for not believing in his deity. Nor will I win a debate with an atheist woman dead set on her certainty that all religions suck and that there can be nothing useful and meaningful in the Buddhist teachings.

I do not have conflicts with Christians or atheists or Feminists or whatever. I am in conflict only with self-identifying individuals in said groups. That is all.

[Jim__]

16. Good Points.

Some of these points were brought out in a recent article Atheists in America - discussed in this thread.

An excerpt from the article:

...

Over the next few blogs I will summarize some of the findings from our work. But to understand those results, it is important to consider who atheists are. In our sample, we had a high percentage of individuals with college and post-graduate degrees. This is reflective of the reality that atheists have higher levels of education than others in our society. We also interviewed more men than women. We even made an attempt to interview more women but still interviewed almost three men for every woman we interviewed. Research has shown that men are more likely to be atheists. I wished we had interviewed more women so that we would be in a position to look at possible gender differences between the atheists and non-atheists. Our respondents were also highly likely to be white which also matches what national probability samples have indicated about the racial makeup of atheists.

The educational, racial and gender status of atheists suggests that this is a group with a relatively privileged societal position. As I pointed out earlier, many atheists feel marginalized, and there is research indicating that atheism is less accepted than other religious beliefs. In fact, I have done some of the research showing that atheism generates more relative animosity than other religious beliefs. So it is true that as it concerns religious status, atheism is a marginalized position. But in other ways, atheists are not so marginalized. Being more likely to be white, male and educated means that they have advantages in society that offset the disadvantages their beliefs about religion can bring them.

...

[TM99]

17. I missed that thread.

Interesting. Thanks.

[cleanhippie]

14. Make sure to abandon your OP like the author of the other one did after shit-stirring.

Gotta keep the dishonesty at the same level.

[Phillip McCleod]

18. oh right!

Almost forgot.. way to save the day.

On that note ..

.. you're all meanies I am outta here!

..

How was that?

[cleanhippie]

19. Pretty good, although the satire is evident with you, the other OP is genuine hatred.

[TM99]

20. No, no, no!

It has to be more like this --

[goldent]

22. A privileded theist is just a theist

Keep trying.

[Phillip McCleod]

23. sorry, but i abandoned this thread.

oops!

[goldent]

24. Well, I wanted to put in a single response before I abandoned it

but then I saw your response and thought, what the hell, I can still abandon it after two responses.

[Phillip McCleod]

25. yeh.. and i kid. i'm just keeping up the spirit of the satire..

.. i figure i might as well milk it as long as someone's willing to play along!

truth is there's a heuristic effect. the vocal or militant or .. ew!.. evangelical atheists are just teh ones who are willing to speak in public and be labeled pariahs. the internet in some ways is this time a better gauge of people's religious or nonreligious feelings because there's a tendency to perhaps be blunter.

but IRL the believers rule, and we all know this.

so that's where i'm coming from..