Empathy is the best tool

[Ahriman]

If you're secular you may not have a divine command telling you to do or not do this or that - but it's pretty easy to observe that even people who believe they do don't listen.

So essentially "divine command" is doo doo nonsense. Yeah, that checks out.

[Angrboda]

Yes, tolerance and empathy are not often appealed to on the internet. The internet doesn't give you its best alone. What point is there in that?

[The Valkyrie]

Yes.

But, sometimes, empathy needs to be backed up with a BIG stick.

[Alan V]

This sounds like a good idea to me. But in practice, I'm afraid, it appears to be extremely difficult to stick to. 

We all think empathy is great. Then we all see that it's about the easiest thing in the world to switch off. Once it is discovered that someone falls outside the range of the locally acceptable ideology, then that person will almost certainly stop receiving empathy. 

For example, if you were to start a thread on this forum expressing the opinion that Donald Trump is good for the country, or that trans women aren't really women, you would not find that people respond by making you feel understood. No one will say, "I get where you're coming from, but [sympathetically expressed attempt to persuade]." 

I suspect people will argue that such opinions are so far out of the realm of acceptability that no empathy should be given to the person who holds them. Which means that empathy fails to cover a very wide range of disagreement.

Are you saying that we should be empathetic with those who are not empathetic? That we should be tolerant of the intolerant?

I don't believe you have thought this through. Those are not the ways to promote empathy and tolerance IMO.

[Alan V]

The great thing about secularism is that it doesn’t rely on fear, conversion quotas, or hidden agendas. It’s grounded in intellectual honesty.
...
If you’re secular, you don’t have a divine command telling you how to treat others. You probably ground your ethics in humanism, empathy, or some kind of utilitarian concern. That means the way you communicate matters. Being right isn’t enough. Being understood is more powerful, and that starts by making others feel understood first.

Atheists don't have "divine command," but we have intellectual honesty to guide us, as you say. So as far as I am concerned, my biggest obligation to other people is to be as accurate as possible. I let the chips fall where they may, since I don't have any conversion quota to meet, again as you say.

Some people may not know what to do in situations in which they are not being emotionally manipulated, but I think that's their problem to resolve.

[Alan V]

Some people may not know what to do in situations in which they are not being emotionally manipulated, but I think that's their problem to resolve.

In other words, I'm not a mind-reader so I have a very hard time estimating what, if anything, is helpful beyond the facts. I assume people come to these forums to hear different perspectives from different people.

[Belacqua]

Are you saying that we should be empathetic with those who are not empathetic?  That we should be tolerant of the intolerant?

I don't believe you have thought this through.  Those are not the ways to promote empathy and tolerance IMO.

I think most people will agree with you. The standard version seems to be that we are right to pass judgment on people, and the ones who (in our humble opinion) don't deserve empathy get no empathy from us.

I don't think there's a one-size-fits all answer to whether we should have empathy for those who lack empathy. For example, you seem to be saying that we should lack empathy for many people (those who lack empathy). 

But all that is about feelings, really. And our feelings about other people, in my opinion, are not a good foundation for ethical decisions. It's easy to act ethically toward those for whom we feel empathy. It is more likely we'll act badly toward people for whom we do not feel empathy. If we want to act ethically, we should take empathy and our other feelings and affections out of the equation. I act ethically (I hope) not because I like the person I'm dealing with, but because it is good for me to act ethically. 

The OP made a limited and reasonable argument, if I'm understanding him correctly. He said that when we're discussing religion with believers, it is good to approach them with empathy. Basically, you catch more flies with honey, etc. I think he is correct.

I also think that if this is our only method we will usually fail, simply because we withhold empathy so easily.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes.

But, sometimes, empathy needs to be backed up with a BIG stick.

'You can get farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.' - Al Capone

Boru

[Rizen]

Empathy is for losers and I say that as an observable fact, not to be inflammatory. We just elected a convicted rapist, felon and fraud who want to force Christianity upon the country. Where's the empathy in that? Nice guys finish last. People respond to strength, not empathy.

[arewethereyet]

The concept of empathy as a tool bothers me. To me it smacks of something you emulate to get something you want. It sounds manipulative to me, and it sounds too much like faking empathy.

Not a fan of the concept.