I like atheists!

briareos · Apr 2, 2012

Mling said:
No, but in this case, it's pretty consistent. People who recognize the humanity of the people they're talking about simply don't say things like this. They say more nuanced things, like "the x's I've met have been pretty nice," or "I really like this belief system, but I've seen it used in some messed up ways."

In general, people don't make broad, blanket statements about things they are familiar with and respect.

I think you draw a good picture of the lesser or greater degrees of consciousness on a subject. I don't think you make a fair case that people who aren't as delicate and correct with their words are actually guilty of doing what you say. One would need to be aware of the perquisites and intricacies of your solution in order to actually be guilty of that verdict given since that verdict concerns intent. Someone who isn't concerned with taking a position on the humanity of a person, probably implied nothing at all concerning that context.

But I do agree, it isn't a good phrase to use, it does show your lack of skill with words and your lack of awareness of the nature of the subject, but I don't believe it implies malice.

Mling · Apr 2, 2012

briareos said:
I think you draw a good picture of the lesser or greater degrees of consciousness on a subject. I don't think you make a fair case that people who aren't as delicate and correct with their words are actually guilty of doing what you say. One would need to be aware of the perquisites and intricacies of your solution in order to actually be guilty of that verdict given since that verdict concerns intent. Someone who isn't concerned with taking a position on the humanity of a person, probably implied nothing at all concerning that context.

But I do agree, it isn't a good phrase to use, it does show your lack of skill with words and your lack of awareness of the nature of the subject, but I don't believe it implies malice.

I didn't say a thing about malice or awareness--only about what is.

It's a privilege of people in the majority to think that intention means much. The reality is, if harm is done, harm is done, and it doesn't matter very much whether the person did it maliciously or carelessly.

If a person doesn't consider somebody else their equal, they won't treat them like one--and the target will have been treated as a subhuman, suffering all the harm that that entails, regardless of how conscious or subconscious or malicious or well-intentioned the person was.

There are two sides to appreciating this:
one is the recognition that enormous amounts of harm come from well-intentioned people and therefore people can't be excused from doing harm simply because they're well-intentioned.

The other is the recognition that enormous amounts of harm come from well-intentioned people and therefore, if somebody points out that you've done harm, that doesn't mean that they're accusing you of being a bad person.

Mling · Apr 2, 2012

briareos said:
While I can appreciate the depth and content of your response, don't you think you're being a bit pedantic?

No.

Why couldn't you rather accept the phrase to mean what that person meant it to mean? Wouldn't that be a much more fair, considerate approach to evaluating that person?

I haven't evaluated that person at all. Only the message of a particular statement they've said.

Such as they don't dislike atheists in general? Or that they can appreciate a general atheist trend or theme?

Because that's not what the statement means. What the statement means is that they don't fully recognize atheists as human beings. There's no other way to interpret it without ignoring that aspect, because there's no other way to unite atheists into one huge group that can be handled the way the statement handles us.

briareos · Apr 2, 2012

I think you make valid points, that I don't deny, I think in the process though you disregard much simpler facets of the expression and the speaker, which is what the speaker actually intends to convey, even if it was very poorly done, such a poor effort still represents a vital and existent part of his/her intent, expression, actions and that must also be considered because it is part of the situation also, lest we be simplistic.

I chose to use the word malice because you used the word "offensive", "pet", "enemy" etc I used the word awareness because you used the words "familiar with".

"I haven't evaluated the person at all"

I took these statements to mean that you do actually use the statement to evaluate the person

What would the person mean, who said that? Certainly, they don't know every atheist in the world, and in reality, they're a very diverse bunch. A person who was thinking of atheists as real live people would recognize that if they met a whole bunch of atheists, they would like some and dislike others, for reasons that have nothing to do with their atheism. A person who recognized that folks are folks and atheists are just folks like any other wouldn't make such a statement.

Only a person who's thinking of atheists as nothing more than atheists--like cardboard cutouts labeled "atheist" with no other traits than the ones they assume all atheists must share-- would say that they like (or dislike) atheists.

If you're treating people as monolithic and as nothing more than their label, it's a fairly minor detail whether you've decided they're your enemy or your pet.

.

If a person doesn't consider somebody else their equal, they won't treat them like one--and the target will have been treated as a subhuman

I agree but I don't believe that those three words could indicate such a thing without further evidence.

The other is the recognition that enormous amounts of harm come from well-intentioned people and therefore, if somebody points out that you've done harm, that doesn't mean that they're accusing you of being a bad person.

well said, I agree.

Because that's not what the statement means. What the statement means is that they don't fully recognize atheists as human beings.

I think the lack of considering all facets of the humanity of people is hardly the lack of recognition of said humanity in general.

razeontherock · Apr 2, 2012

Mling said:
Major offenses committed in the name of religion lately-- countless variations of murder and slaughter, on large and small scales, often with the support of the religiously affiliated government.

So...yeah...lol.

Not sure how that's relevant in the thread, but got an example of Christians doing that, lately?

Mling · Apr 2, 2012

briareos said:
I think you make valid points, that I don't deny, I think in the process though you disregard much simpler facets of the expression and the speaker, which is what the speaker actually intends to convey, even if it was very poorly done, such a poor effort still represents a vital and existent part of his/her intent, expression, actions and that must also be considered because it is part of the situation also, lest we be simplistic.

I chose to use the word malice because you used the word "offensive", "pet", "enemy" etc I used the word awareness because you used the words "familiar with".

I took these statements to mean that you do actually use the statement to evaluate the person

.

I agree but I don't believe that those three words could indicate such a thing without further evidence.

well said, I agree.

I think the lack of considering all facets of the humanity of people is hardly the lack of recognition of said humanity in general.

I think we're interpreting the idea of evaluating the person differently. Yes, I'm trying to evaluate what a person means when they say a certain thing...but not whether the person is bad, or malicious. I'm judging what they're saying--strictly and harshly, even-- but not the worth of the person themself.

As for the various possible interpretations of the original phrase...regardless of how carefully and thoroughly it can be proven, it simply is a consistent and predictable quirk of the English language and something in our thought process that the less people respect a group, the more they will refer to that group as if they're singular. When you get to outright, open and deliberate hatred or imperial condescension, people often start using the singular: things like, "The Jew is very clever," or "the homosexual man is constantly on the look out for his next partner."

In the lesser forms, it looks like what you said above. Not a true singular form, but the general treatment that, once you know one, you know them all. "Oh, I love black man! They're so passionate and strong!"

Jade Margery · Apr 3, 2012

I'm with Mling on this one, though I do agree that what a person says and what they think they are saying are two different things. It could simply be that they are not elegant enough, at that moment, to expound on their opinions of certain groups of people besides 'I like X'. That's especially typical if someone is put on the spot or just isn't good with words.

But more often, especially when used by people who ARE good with words--public speakers, religious or political figures, opinion writers, television personalities, and (really folks) anyone who has the luxury of editing their words both before and after they are put on view for all to see... like for instance, someone who writes for blogs or forums--it is as Mling says. How you speak (or write) says a lot about how you think. Even if you are playing the devil's advocate in a debate and arguing against your own side, the way you formulate your arguments and arrange your information says a lot about how you see the world and what you consider important.

Too often 'I like X' is just the lighter version of 'I have friends who are X'. It's a way to excuse bad things you've done or said or thought about X group of people in the past. Like, yes I have grouped all of these people into a neat little package I can make assumptions about (good or bad!) but I like them, so that's okay.

To be fair, the poster in the other thread 'Question for Atheists' doesn't actually seem to be saying this. He just said, 'I like that there are atheists here'. Which doesn't strike me as a grouping thing to say. He's just appreciating the diversity of the opinions on the board and is curious as to why some of us choose to post here. Which is fine.

I wouldn't personally get too rattled if someone said to me that they like atheists, but I do try to avoid making such blanket statements myself. Unless you are really seeing atheists as one homogeneous stereotype, it just seems like intellectual laziness. It costs only one or two words more to be accurate, so why not?

But then, I'm the last person who should be criticizing anyone for laziness. ^_^

briareos · Apr 3, 2012

Mling said:
I think we're interpreting the idea of evaluating the person differently. Yes, I'm trying to evaluate what a person means when they say a certain thing...but not whether the person is bad, or malicious. I'm judging what they're saying--strictly and harshly, even-- but not the worth of the person themself.

As for the various possible interpretations of the original phrase...regardless of how carefully and thoroughly it can be proven, it simply is a consistent and predictable quirk of the English language and something in our thought process that the less people respect a group, the more they will refer to that group as if they're singular. When you get to outright, open and deliberate hatred or imperial condescension, people often start using the singular: things like, "The Jew is very clever," or "the homosexual man is constantly on the look out for his next partner."

In the lesser forms, it looks like what you said above. Not a true singular form, but the general treatment that, once you know one, you know them all. "Oh, I love black man! They're so passionate and strong!"

I hear you and I agree with you, I just think that if we really care to understand the person, we need to actually consider their intent, not because it's binding on the meaning of their words or because it removes all wrong from their actions but because it is a part of who they are and we cannot leave that part out and truly understand who they are and what they are doing.

briareos · Apr 3, 2012

Jade Margery said:
I'm with Mling on this one, though I do agree that what a person says and what they think they are saying are two different things. It could simply be that they are not elegant enough, at that moment, to expound on their opinions of certain groups of people besides 'I like X'. That's especially typical if someone is put on the spot or just isn't good with words.

But more often, especially when used by people who ARE good with words--public speakers, religious or political figures, opinion writers, television personalities, and (really folks) anyone who has the luxury of editing their words both before and after they are put on view for all to see... like for instance, someone who writes for blogs or forums--it is as Mling says. How you speak (or write) says a lot about how you think. Even if you are playing the devil's advocate in a debate and arguing against your own side, the way you formulate your arguments and arrange your information says a lot about how you see the world and what you consider important.

Too often 'I like X' is just the lighter version of 'I have friends who are X'. It's a way to excuse bad things you've done or said or thought about X group of people in the past. Like, yes I have grouped all of these people into a neat little package I can make assumptions about (good or bad!) but I like them, so that's okay.

To be fair, the poster in the other thread 'Question for Atheists' doesn't actually seem to be saying this. He just said, 'I like that there are atheists here'. Which doesn't strike me as a grouping thing to say. He's just appreciating the diversity of the opinions on the board and is curious as to why some of us choose to post here. Which is fine.

I wouldn't personally get too rattled if someone said to me that they like atheists, but I do try to avoid making such blanket statements myself. Unless you are really seeing atheists as one homogeneous stereotype, it just seems like intellectual laziness. It costs only one or two words more to be accurate, so why not?

But then, I'm the last person who should be criticizing anyone for laziness.

absolutely

Good post I agree. My only point is that if we do care to understand people, their intent is a worthy and necessary piece of information to consider. If we are debating and I do not consider your intent, I may rebut the information you provided but it doesn't mean I've addressed you or your position at all and if the person you are discussing with happens to be below your level of etymology and ability to maneuver conversation and logic, you may run them over like a train but it wouldn't really be fair, you'd probably silence them but didn't really respond to "them".

hollyda · Apr 3, 2012

Just in my experience on CF, those Christians who respect atheists never have to say it. It's obvious through general discourse.

I've ghosted other threads where people have boasted they "like" atheists here on CF because we're good for a laugh. It almost always seems like a way to mask disdain.

The Christians I know IRL don't necessarily like atheists, but they seem to like me...even if one or two can't help but mock my atheism from time to time.

tannicv2 · Apr 3, 2012

briareos said:
When I see Christians who go out of their way, often at the earliest opportunity saying things like "I like atheists, I am glad your here" etc etc... ad nauseam.

It makes me wonder, does it strike a similar tune to this?

I like American - YouTube

Does it sound that way? Considering this character's role in the killing of the American soldier nearer the end of the movie.

I'm sorry for coming to the discussion a little late but Christians do the same thing to each other as well.

briareos · Apr 3, 2012

Possibly, thanks for contributing.

orangelight · Apr 6, 2012

I love theists who like atheists!

briareos · Apr 6, 2012

Awesome!

Theofane · Apr 7, 2012

fenix144 said:
I've never been told by a christian he loved me. Oh well.

"Intellectual integrity" can get in the way of love. That whole attitude of "Now that we have met, we must determine who is the smartest" is underestimated as a barrier to simple goodwill.

Theofane · Apr 7, 2012

tannicv2 said:
I'm sorry for coming to the discussion a little late but Christians do the same thing to each other as well.

People do that to other people, don't they?

razeontherock · Apr 7, 2012

fenix144 said:
I've never been told by a christian he loved me. Oh well.

Ya know, while I'd really like to see more opportunities to express the sheer Love of Christ on these boards, and i do applaud the OP for creating exactly that opportunity, I still gotta say I always felt it kinda cheesy the ol' "Jesus loves you and I do too" schtick.

It's true. It can just be really, really awkward to say, or hear, or discuss. And even moreso with total strangers, and moreso yet in a heated environment. (Which unfortunately is entirely too much of CF, but controversial things are always going to generate the most interest)

So instead I usually agree w/ the non-Christians here when I can, point out misconceptions about the Faith that I see potentially hurting you, and try to close that gap / build bridges / however you want to put it.

It doesn't always work, and sometimes it outright backfires. I do mean well though, and despite my operator error, it is still the Love of Christ in action.

I like atheists!

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Stranger in a strange land

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

To read makes our speaking English good

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Theofane

Guest

Theofane

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads