How the hell can one be "bigoted" against religion?

[beam me up scottie]

I see this ridiculous right wing talking point constantly on DU and it floors me every single time.

Are those of us who criticize right wing ideology bigoted against it?

The worst offenders claim that atheists who criticize religious intolerance are bigots, but when pressed they can never defend that claim. Lots of hand waving and blathering on about how we're supposed to tolerate other viewpoints but no valid reason why religion as an ideology deserves special consideration.

[trotsky]

1. Theists have long sought a way to counter atheist arguments.

For thousands of years they've tried, but failed.

But they finally found what they think is a silver bullet in today's era: if you criticize religious beliefs, you are bigoted against religion.

Doesn't matter that there is no logic behind it, it's a discussion-killer. It may not shut the atheist up like burning at the stake used to, but it attempts to neutralize their voice. And sadly it often succeeds.

[beam me up scottie]

2. For theists that's exactly what it is.

But I'm amazed by how many atheists still respond to criticism of religion with that kind of knee jerk reaction.

Religious upbringing?

[trotsky]

3. I strongly believe that there are some atheists who fully realize the folly of religious beliefs...

but think that it is NECESSARY for the vast majority of humans to have them. This seems to me to spring from an inherent arrogance that they are somehow "better" than everyone else, and this manifests itself as a patronizing attitude toward those "lesser" than they are. Baby needs its blankie! Of course we don't see babies, we see otherwise functional adults who are clinging to harmful ideas. It is the horrible "New" atheist who is actually treating everyone - believers and non-believers - as grownups. The "faitheist" can't have that, and certainly can't counter the arguments of atheism (since they accept those themselves), so the charge of "bigotry" is repeated.

Here's a good blog post about everyone's favorite faitheist, Chris Stedman:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/11/why-faitheist-chris-stedman-is-so-obnoxious/

...I’m just going to focus on what’s been posted in the excerpts from his new book, starting with a sentence from this excerpt that I had overlooked when I first read it: “With divisive religious fundamentalism on the rise, reactionary atheism that fixates on making antireligious proclamations is creating even more division.”

Now what is this saying? “Antireligious proclamations” calls up an image of rhetorical pomposity on the atheist’s part, but I don’t think pomposity is a particular sin of popular atheism. That suggests all Stedman really means by the phrase “making antireligious proclamations” is “saying things critical of religion.”

...

What’s going on here is just this: it’s not, contrary to what Stedman implies, that most atheists (or even most atheists that believers have contact with) are bad. It’s that religious believers have prejudices about atheists that they want to justify, and if it’s convenient to acknowledge one atheist as “the good atheist” to better bash other atheists by contrast, they’ll do that, even if there’s no meaningful difference between their chosen token and the atheists they’re bashing. I’ve seen Bertrand freaking Russell used in the “good atheist” role, for crying out loud! Russel! (For those who don’t know, he once called religion “a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.”)

[beam me up scottie]

4. That's an excellent piece, he totally nailed it.

I've noticed that fatheists and theists who point to the properly deferential atheist as an example of a "good" one are exactly like men, white people and heterosexuals who prefer quiet women and minorities to the uppity ones.

[beam me up scottie]

10. Yep.

I've heard that before; what starts out as "I love independent women!" usually ends up being more like "As long as you keep your thoughts to youself!"

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. "Are those of us who criticize right wing ideology bigoted against it?"

I asked that question once. I was told criticizing right wingers was OK because it isn't against the rules here at DU.

Checkmate, atheists!

[beam me up scottie]

6. Right?

I've seen some twist themselves into knots trying to redefine bigotry so that only atheists are bigots.

It's like they're all reading from the same script.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. My personal fav:

The assertion that whatever opinion you hold of a belief system, you must also hold of anyone who subscribes to that belief system.

[beam me up scottie]

8. I just posted the same picture in a thread the other day!

DU is full of the logically challenged.

[MindPilot]

11. Kinda depends on which definition you choose to apply

1: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

By this definition, I am clearly a bigot; intolerant of all the zombie jaybuzz sky daddy BS. But not *because* it is different, simply because it is BS.

2: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

3: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

By these two definitions, not a bigot since these go more to hatred and intolerance of the person and group, rather than the idea. And I certainly don't consider my distaste for religious ideas unfair at all.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Using the first definition anyone who is intolerant of bigotry is a bigot.

And that's the one they love to apply only to atheists who are intolerant of religion.

Iif you ask if that makes them bigots as well since they feel the same way about right wing ideology they start to spin.

[whatthehey]

12. Depends on which definition you like

I'm certainly and unabashedly antagonistic to the different opinion that humans can know what a non-contingent unverifiable transcendent deity wants and should enact that into our laws and social norms. What's more I'm downright prejudiced against those who hold that opinion, specifically that I pre-judge them to be gullible and irrational at best.

But if person A just feels the need to believe that there is some kind of divine originating force, either because they have bought the medieval 5 proofs nonsense or because they have internalized the overextension of the ex nihilo concept, then I have no prejudice against that belief, whjether they call it God or Allah or Jesus or Brahma. I have no prejudice against them getting together in dressy clothes in a nice building once a week to hypothesize about it. I get extreme prejudice-y when they start telling the rest of us we should follow their musings about what their ineffable pal wants however.

[PeaceNikki]

13. Exactly. Opposing bigotry is not bigotry.

“Tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.”

[LostOne4Ever]

16. I would call tolerating intolerance apathy. nt

[beam me up scottie]

17. Exactly.

The apologists have turned it into a bad western.

We're the bad dudes in the black hats and they're the heroes who protect the poor poor victimized homophobic, misogynistic religions from us.

[Curmudgeoness]

14. Well, they get a hide

if they come out and call us "assholes". But calling us "bigots" seems to pass the personal attack test, so they lean on that one time and time again.

[beam me up scottie]

18. One got away with calling us assholes today.

They just did it in a round about way so that any alert would fail.

I'm sure they're scouring this group right now looking for posts to alert on, the cowards keep lying in alerts so we have to always watch our backs now.

[Curmudgeoness]

19. So are you saying

that I shouldn't call the trolls who are scouring this group for alerts "assholes"???

OK, I will just think it.

[beam me up scottie]

20. We could go back to posting disclaimers in every thread.

That way the jurors know the alerters are just trolling for hides in a protected group.

But yeah, I think it all the time too.