Posted: November 25th 2010
Eric_PK
I’ve read this question a few times, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a bit of a weird question.
This site isn’t about conversation, it’s about question/response, so I think that you are asking me if I should be kind to a question. Which is a strange thing to ask.
I try to be honest when I write answers and to have an appropriate level of rudeness and flippancy, but I don’t think about kindness.
Posted: December 13th 2010
Mike the Infidel www
This question, on this site, seems to be set up to create a dichotomy between kind and honest – that is, if we wish to answer some of these questions kindly, we’ll have to lie.
Do you think we should tell you what we really believe, or soften our responses to make them more palatable? Personally, I think it’s possible to find a happy medium.
Posted: December 10th 2010
Blaise www
I suspect when you say “kind”, you mean “nice”, on the theory that if we go out of our way not to offend, more people will listen. However, I think that this is a flawed theory. If someone comes to us with an aggressively phrased question, they will either never read the responses, or will need to be met with answers of the same tenor in order to break through to them. Likewise, even in the case of an honest question, sometimes the answer needs to be strong in order to point out the flawed thinking that went into it.
I think we should be kind when answering questions, but that often the greater kindness is not to be nice, in hopes of getting someone to start using their mind and take responsibility for their life.
Posted: December 10th 2010
logicel
There have been some questions revealing such repugnant stances regarding love, morality, atheists living meaningful lives, and freedom of speech, that the last thing on my mind is to be kind, but to be civil (no name calling), honest, clear, unflinchingly unapologetic, and factual instead.
Kindness is not some cheap sweet easily dispensed.
Posted: December 9th 2010
George Locke
I try to take each question and answer it face value. There are a few instances where I think I could have been a bit gentler, especially with atheists, often recently deconverted, struggling to incorporate the implications of atheism into their lives. I’m not perfect!
Theists often write in with a challenge to our beliefs (or lack thereof), and they’re perfectly welcome to do so. That’s part of the purpose of the site. I am happy to take up the challenge of these questions, but I don’t think “kindness” is appropriate in such cases. They’re presenting a serious challenge, so I give them a serious answer. I don’t think a wholehearted attempt to demolish the argument presented can be called “kind”, but often that is the only way to respond to a question seriously.
Posted: December 9th 2010
Paula Kirby www
Why 'when you answer these questions’ in particular? Why not just, 'Do you think you should be kind?’ The fact you plant your question firmly in the context of dealing with people’s questions about atheism/religion seems to suggest that you think this is a delicate area where especial kindness might be called for.
If that is what you’re suggesting, then no, I don’t think this topic should be treated any differently from any other. It is the tradition – enshrined in law in many countries – that religious beliefs have to be handled with kid gloves, treated more gently than any other form of belief, and protected from overt challenge and criticism in a way that NO other beliefs ever are.
Consequently, until the last few years, religious beliefs have not generally been challenged robustly, and they have therefore been given a kind of phoney respect, and a free pass in public policy and discourse. As a result, they have also acquired considerable power and influence in public life, despite the fact that, in the UK at least, the vast majority of the population is not religious in anything more than a vaguely cultural sense.
At the same time, the beliefs of Christianity – the dominant religion in my country – are quite abhorrent and repugnant when you start to look at them properly. But they have been protected from being looked at properly because of the 'Do Not Touch’ message that has been reinforced by people’s willingness to go along with the kid glove approach. By people’s willingness not to question or challenge, when it comes to religion. By the prevailing view that the 'polite’ or 'nice’ thing to do when it comes to religious views is to smile and change the subject.
Being prepared to speak out plainly about the dangers and absurdities of religion does therefore leave us open to accusations of unkindness and worse. But I would challenge you to read the answers given here and imagine them in the context of a discussion on any other set of ideas, and to ask yourself whether they would seem so 'unkind’ there.
And even if they would, how do they compare with the 'unkindness’ of telling someone they will burn in hell for ever more if they don’t share a particular set of beliefs? Or the 'unkindness’ of campaigning actively against the inclusion of gay people in rights the rest of us take for granted? Or the 'unkindness’ of denying children access to scientific knowledge because it contradicts strongly held religious beliefs? Or the 'unkindness’ of the notions of 'original sin’ or 'substitutionary atonement’, both essential elements of Christian theology? Despite the claims of its preachers – claims which have not traditionally been challenged, thanks to the very 'kid gloves’ policy you seem to be advocating, if I have understood you correctly – the underlying beliefs of Christianity are anything but kind or loving or compassionate.
If we are ever to break the ludicrous and undemocratic hold that religious thought has on our society, then it is essential that we get that message across clearly, to believers and believers-in-belief alike. And the very fact that both the believers and believers-in-belief have colluded in sticking their fingers in their ears when it comes to challenges to Christianity, means that we have no choice but to raise our voices sometimes in order to do so. I will not be rude, I will not be deliberately unkind, and I will not resort to name-calling or other forms of personal abuse – but I will be clear and forthright in speaking my mind, and I have no qualms whatever about trying to jolt people out of the complacent assumption that religious views are 'nice’ or 'moral’ or deserving of especial 'kindness’.
Posted: December 9th 2010
brian thomson www
I do, and I usually am – even when the “question” is not an honest question, but an attempt to preach at us. All I ask in return is that the questioner not make negative assumptions about us, what we know, or the thinking we have done – that we’re somehow defective in some way for being atheists. Not being “open-minded” is another funny one – as if the hallmark of a closed mind is to not follow one particular religion. As I and others keep pointing out: it’s knowledge, not a shortage thereof, that allows us to be atheists.
Posted: December 9th 2010
SmartLX www
Yes, in principle, but it’s hard to decide how to be kind.
Certainly insulting people outright is mean and achieves little or nothing, but doing what we do regularly involves implying or outright telling a lot of people that we think they’re wrong.
In fact, just declaring oneself an atheist implies that one thinks all religious people are essentially wrong. Of course it works both ways: wearing a crucifix around your neck is a direct denial of any non-Christian worldview.
To have a civil discussion about it all, both sides have to learn not to take this fact personally. The thing to realise is that the fact that someone thinks you’re wrong about your choice of specific religion or no religion does not necessarily reflect upon your character or your intelligence. A lot of the Christians I know are good, smart people (including my wife). It doesn’t stop them from being wrong, but being wrong doesn’t mean they’re not smart or good.
Once you accept that, what we write will seem a lot kinder.
Posted: December 8th 2010