Kicking crutches

[Wertbag]

Talking to a Christian online and he said "Atheists are evil.  They see religion is a crutch, helping people through life and providing support and yet they want to kick that out from under them.  Some people need that support, some people find great benefit in it and yet on these discussion boards there are always atheists trying to destroy that positive energy in peoples lives."

Initially this argument sounded quite reasonable but I could see several good reasons to fight against the idea of a crutch:

- The Dumbo effect.  People believe they need the crutch because they have never known any other way.  Every time they have succeeded or had good times, it was with that crutch beside them.  The crutch is magical because we attribute positive energy to it, not because it generates that positive energy.  We can actually fly without the magic feather.  In fact atheists are actually in the best position to know the difference, many of us having lived both with the crutch and without it, so we have a comparison to base our choice on.  The Christian who has never been without has nothing to refer to.

- Swinging the crutch.  What we find is that people with crutches like to swing them around, they want as many people as possible to know they have a crutch and they want you to have a crutch too.  We get religious TV, music, street preachers, public prayers, bibles in your hotel room, pamphlets in your mail and spam in your inbox.  Speaking out against crutches is offsetting those speaking for them.  Remaining silent would not get the same curtesy in return.

- Spiky crutches.  Many atheists have been hurt by religion, whether that be with bad parenting advice, physical abuse, sexual repression, taught hatred of gays/unbelievers/other religions/"others", crippling fear of hell, taking money from those who can't afford it, science/education/medical denial, attributing mental health issues to demons or numerous other problems.  Many people see the crutch as spiky and dangerous, likely to wound the holder as much as help them.  They wouldn't know the threat the crutch provides until it is too late.

- Crutch kicking is not automatically evil.  For the action of kicking a crutch to be evil it would have to be done with the intent to cause harm.  If someone doesn't believe in crutches and lets others know but has no idea of what impact that discussion would have, then there is no evil intent.  Even if the result was purely negative, without intent it is not an evil act.  Ignorance does not equal malice. 

- Life without a crutch maybe better.  Sure the Christian can't imagine life without the crutch but the atheist certainly can.  It is quite possible to "Your life is good but it could be better".  It may not be a question of good verse bad but good verse very good.  The number of atheists who use the term "freedom" when describing the difference is quite telling.  Not feeling restricted, not being forced to think and feel certain ways, being free to express your individuality and being free to love who you want.  It would be quite possible to say "I want to kick the crutch away because, while it may help you to walk, without it you will be able to run"

[TABA]

I’d be hesitant to kick anybody’s crutch away, even if I’m convinced it’s a crutch of false beliefs.  Without it, they might end up thriving as many of us have, but they could also end up in a world of hurt and misery.  I wouldn’t want to be responsible for contributing to the latter.  On the other hand if somebody asks for help in letting go of the crutch, I’d be ready and eager to help.  And that’s how we operate at Ex-C: we don’t go looking for crutches to kick.  People come here at some point in the deconversion process.  Maybe they’re already convinced Christianity is not truth, or maybe the cracks in their faith have just started to appear.  We welcome them, encourage them, and point the way to a life without the crutch.  
 

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

Crutch kicking is not automatically evil.  For the action of kicking a crutch to be evil it would have to be done with the intent to cause harm.  If someone doesn't believe in crutches and lets others know but has no idea of what impact that discussion would have, then there is no evil intent.

I disagree with this, somewhat.  It might not be evil to kick the crutch, but it could well be irresponsible.  Undermining somebody’s faith, especially unsolicited undermining, might be done with the best will in the world, but it could still cause a lot of distress.  Not everybody is cut out to deconvert; in fact most people probably are not. 
 

2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Life without a crutch maybe better.  Sure the Christian can't imagine life without the crutch but the atheist certainly can.  It is quite possible to "Your life is good but it could be better".  It may not be a question of good verse bad but good verse very good.  The number of atheists who use the term "freedom" when describing the difference is quite telling.

My life was not bad as a Christian, and I never imagined that it could be better as a non-believer, but indeed it is.  But again that’s not a given, by any means.  
 

Don’t get me wrong: I’m happy when people deconvert.  And I’m happy to help build their immunity to Christianity and theism so they can enjoy the benefits of deconversion.  But people have to take the first steps themselves.  By all means let’s put the arguments against Christianity out there for people to hear.  If that’s crutch-kicking then I’m in favor. It’s just targeting individual believers that gives me pause.  Does that make sense?

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

We can actually fly without the magic feather.  In fact atheists are actually in the best position to know the difference, many of us having lived both with the crutch and without it, so we have a comparison to base our choice on.  The Christian who has never been without has nothing to refer to.

 

Major point many of us make to christian apologist's. Sometimes the comeback is that they used to be atheist then found jesus. A way of finding equal footing of experiencing both sides. But, more often than not, the apologist was never intellectually knowledgeable about atheism, a well informed atheist, or intellectually atheist upon question and cross examination. Pushing back the equal footing of experience tactic in these cases. If they know very little about the history and intellectual content of atheism, and you do have all of this experience behind your position taking, then they can not claim to have the same experience that you have. 

 

And there is not equal footing of experience after all. One person has much more depth of experience and knowledge base beyond that of the apologist in question. 

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

- Crutch kicking is not automatically evil.  For the action of kicking a crutch to be evil it would have to be done with the intent to cause harm.  If someone doesn't believe in crutches and lets others know but has no idea of what impact that discussion would have, then there is no evil intent.  Even if the result was purely negative, without intent it is not an evil act.  Ignorance does not equal malice. 

 

No, and most of the time people don't generally have ill intent when debating or exposing the lies of religion with others. They generally have the best of intentions when discussing hard or uncomfortable facts and content. A bitter truth over a sweet lie, to the better interest of those fooled by the lies. 

 

But I agree with TABA that engaging these situations unsolicited isn't the best course of action. I generally only engage solicited conversations or debates about religion. And wade through them according to figuring where a person is with it. And speak to that without going beyond that. In real time, day to day situations outside of the internet. 

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

- Life without a crutch maybe better.  Sure the Christian can't imagine life without the crutch but the atheist certainly can.  It is quite possible to "Your life is good but it could be better".  It may not be a question of good verse bad but good verse very good.  The number of atheists who use the term "freedom" when describing the difference is quite telling.  Not feeling restricted, not being forced to think and feel certain ways, being free to express your individuality and being free to love who you want.  It would be quite possible to say "I want to kick the crutch away because, while it may help you to walk, without it you will be able to run"

 

And this also applies to the christian who was a technical atheist due to non-belief in gods. But had next to no knowledge base or understanding of religion or gods while non-theistic. They had an experience of atheism which was shallow and lacking in scope and depth. They then switched to religion (whatever the depth) which became a crutch. And could kick the crutch and run by simply gaining an understanding that they never had or experienced prior while being a technical atheist or christian. The person who has experienced all of this, necessarily has a richer all around experience and knowledge base over the person who has not.