Have you ever decided to come out as an atheist to your friends and family, only to have them react with anger or outright denial? Any atheist — not just former Jehovah's Witnesses — is likely to face this after they leave their faith. Many of us hope our associates will get used to the idea, but some never do. They may use guilt, angry condemnations, or other tactics to bring us back into their religion, all while insisting that it's for our benefit. This can be as hurtful as it is confusing.
Read Article: Coming Out as an Atheist to Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society
It must be really tough to live in a highly religious country. Here in the UK practically everyone is an atheist to it’s assumed that you are unless there’s a reason to believe otherwise. Theists are the fringe.
>The very idea that one of their friends knows what they know about the Truth and rejects it can be a little scary.
This is really a fundamentalist mindset in Xianity in general. It’s almost a given that when an apologist confronts an atheist, he/she will assume the atheist is unfamiliar with the Bible. This is why it’s so important for atheists like Dan Barker and Matt Dillahunty to speak out as boldly as they do. We need more people to say not only that they were raised in Xian homes—but that they believed and were willing to devote their lives to a cause they now see as invalid. Atheists don’t “not believe” because they don’t understand the claim. They really do understand the claim, and they reject it because it’s not borne out in verifiable, consensus reality. We don’t recognize “god” in the same inarguable way we recognize (i.e., have consensus that there is) a coffee mug on a table.
>For instance, the believer often assumes that the atheist is miserable after leaving their organization, then boldly rejects the atheist’s attempt at correcting them.
Again, fundamentalists do this as well, not only with atheists, but with gays. Ironically, with gays, they seem to ignore the fact that it’s their camp that pushes social rejection of homosexuals, when they point to the young gays experiencing feelings of confusion or failure. They want to say the kids are having problems because they’re gay, not because they’re rejected by much of society because they’re gay.
This same logic is also used in regard to illegal drugs. Many anti-drug advocates point to ills that are the direct result of the illegal status of the products, and claim “drugs” are the cause. They don’t understand that much of the violence and law-breaking in the drug culture is a result of the drugs being illegal. I’m not saying that legalization would not come with its own set of ills; I’m just pointing out the error in using harm caused by the illegal status of drugs to bolster an argument that drugs are bad and should, therefore, remain illegal.
Misassigning blame seems to be a common fallacy in many debates. But when we assign blame to the opposing side for problems we, ourselves, have purposely created—that’s simply intellectually dishonest and purposefully ignorant.
> If the atheist tells the Witness that they’re accusations are offensive,
Or even funnier, what I see occur is the apologist responds that they’re sorry they offended you—obviously this is an emotional issue with you (i.e., you have an agenda or you’re “touchy” about it, and therefore bias and incapable of objectively examining the facts). This is why I make it a point to try and not be offended by others’ mischaracterizations. I’m often stunned by the shear ignorance of some of them, but I am generally not offended. I recognize that the error is with them and not with me, and that I need not be offended by someone’s lack of reason or knowledge. If I get upset, they will take it as proof that there really is something there, “I’ve hit a nerve.” If I don’t employ emotion, and just continue to insist that I honestly don’t know what makes them think I’m unhappy or miserable, that is—for my experience—far more effective at clearly making my point.
The other thing to remember is that a person who goes for the “struck a nerve” point is a person who thinks they _can_ strike a nerve. This is generally an indication that _they_ experience nerve strikes themselves (otherwise, why do they assume other people are so easily “sticken”?). Hang around long enough, and maintain a reasonable demeanor, and eventually you’ll see this person become more and more insulting in an attempt to actually strike the nerve they keep missing (much to their chagrin).
It’s exactly the same mentality as a spoiled child gunning for attention. They fall to the floor and kick and flail. If you don’t look, they scream or throw things. If you still don’t react as they wish, they will take it to the extreme of breaking things or hitting you—actions you really can’t ignore at that point.
In a debate, when the person becomes unarguably offensive—trying their hardest to “make you look”—the best reaction is to just point out that, while you’re not personally offended, you can’t help but notice they’re name-calling and trying to be insulting. Use quotes to point this out. Point out as well that you have not engaged in such tactics, and that you prefer to stay on point. And then continue on. This will either force them to stay on point (which won’t last long, because if they could logically defend their position, they would be name-calling); or they will continue with the tactics, in which case I tend to just let them know that I don’t engage in argumentation with verbally abusive, over-emotional people because I prefer to consider propositions using logic and reason. I feel no remorse at that point in leaving a discussion.
As this article is pointing out—it’s very important to see not just what the apologist is saying—but to understand WHY they’re saying it. It’s really not about “you”—it’s totally about “them.” And once you really grasp this, it’s much easier to not be offended by their insults. It’s not that I honestly look that miserable to them—it’s that they’re really _that_ insecure.
Many times I’ve spoken to apologists and “heard” the message behind the words. Sometimes it’s a 180 from what they’ve just said.
When I was in college, I took a lot of communication courses. Emotional reactions fall into the category of intrapersonal communication: Messages from ourselves, to ourselves. When we react emotionally to X, it means there is something about us that really does “have an issue” with X. And it is a good idea to examine that and find out what our minds are really telling us about why we feel the way we do. Our off-the-cuff justifications about “why” we “feel” such-and-such about X are often either (1) incorrect or (2) just the tip of the iceberg. We all have the capacity to have immediate emotional response to any given thing; but if we can’t calm down, and be rational about topic X, then we probably do have something about it that goes down deeper into our psyche. This goes as much for atheists as for fundamentalists. Sustained emotional reaction is a choice. When a person loses their power to choose—when they believe or feel they have no choice but to “feel X” about Situation Y—that person has lost their personal control over their own mind. And it’s generally a good idea to ask why I (or the other person) is having such trouble being rational about Situation Y. Since emotional response is often used as a defensive mechanism to protect areas of our lives that need “extra” protection (where reason is simply perceived to be “not enough”)—it’s always a good idea to make sure we’re not doing it ourselves. And when we see others do it, understanding what is happening can sometimes provide a level of sympathy that was previously hard to generate.
It’s like trying to help a wounded wild animal. When it lashes out at you, while you’re trying to aid it—it’s easy to get angry; but it’s our understanding that the creature is (a) threatened and (b) believes we are trying to harm it. The animal is, literally, suffering from a delusion—that we are attacking it as it is vulnerable. And it’s doing the only thing it’s mind will allow: attacking you. Usually, in such a situation, we will take quite a bit of hissing, spitting, attempted biting and clawing—because of our compassion for the animal.
I submit that if we can view other people in this same light, it will greatly increase our capacity for compassion and calm discussion with such individuals. Having been on both sides of the coin, I can say that the fundamentalist has a lot of incorrect rationalizations about their arguments and reactions. They really don’t see their irrationality, blind spots, and outright contradictions. Often they’ve been controlled from the time they were children, and their defense responses are so automatic that they seem inherent. I have a lot of pity, generally, because I _was_ one of these people. I don’t know if any of this is helpful to atheists who haven’t been in that position before; but I am offering it in case it might be.
Thanks, Austin, for a very insightful article.
Sounds like we agree on these issues, Tracieh. Note that I realize non-atheists can experience the same thing. If a Catholic became a JW, for instance, their family and friends might have a similar reaction. The article was directed at atheists, especially former Witnesses, but it can happen to almost anyone.
I like the way you phrased your advice here. Seems like you’ve had this experience yourself. I didn’t have enough room for more than a small section of advice, but for anyone who didn’t quite “get” what I was saying, your version expands on the idea in a way that might help them. Thanks for posting it.
Great article. As an atheist and former Jehovah’s Witness, I can confirm that this is the only viable approach.