HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » The privileged theist.

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 08:06 AM

 

The privileged theist.

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.



..

25 replies, 2330 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply The privileged theist. (Original post)
Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 OP
trotsky Apr 2013 #1
Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #2
Dorian Gray Apr 2013 #3
Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #4
cleanhippie Apr 2013 #5
Goblinmonger Apr 2013 #7
Dorian Gray Apr 2013 #21
LTX Apr 2013 #6
cleanhippie Apr 2013 #9
LTX Apr 2013 #12
cleanhippie Apr 2013 #13
TM99 Apr 2013 #8
Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #10
Goblinmonger Apr 2013 #11
TM99 Apr 2013 #15
Jim__ Apr 2013 #16
TM99 Apr 2013 #17
cleanhippie Apr 2013 #14
Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #18
cleanhippie Apr 2013 #19
TM99 Apr 2013 #20
goldent Apr 2013 #22
Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #23
goldent Apr 2013 #24
Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #25

Response to Phillip McCleod (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:00 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:09 AM

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..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:03 AM

3. Not all believers

feel that they're martyrs or label others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dorian Gray (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:06 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:31 AM

5. Here, use this instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dorian Gray (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:50 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 04:29 PM

21. The evangelical atheist one?

I commented already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:39 AM

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

This nominal thread being no exception. Just noting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:51 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:23 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:29 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:56 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:08 PM

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.. .. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:21 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:05 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:34 PM

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.

...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:42 PM

17. I missed that thread.

 

Interesting. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:59 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:12 PM

18. oh right!

 

Almost forgot.. way to save the day.

On that note ..

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

..

How was that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:13 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:37 PM

20. No, no, no!

 

It has to be more like this --



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:26 PM

22. A privileded theist is just a theist

Keep trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goldent (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:12 PM

23. sorry, but i abandoned this thread.

 

oops!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #23)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:17 PM

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.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goldent (Reply #24)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:22 PM

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..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread