The question concerning "why Christians are not assisting movement 'x' to change society in a temporally positive way" is something that many people ask and fail to understand the answers to, ending in a mess of an argument or just a sad, speedy summing up of another's character with one word "bigot". It is clear that most non-believers, when questioning believers, are unable to find common ground (this is sometimes the same issue when believers are questioning non-believers). If you are aware that you have no common ground with your opponent(s) in a debate it is unnecessary for the two or more people holding opposing perspectives on life/the world to debate because even if one or more of them held a true claim they would not learn anything from the other because all of them are bigoted.
The word "bigoted" has two meanings from what I can see in the dictionary. It means to be "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions" and/or "expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance". At least one of the two definitions fits every human being that walks on this earth; otherwise none of us would ever hold an argument concerning topics that weigh heavily on the perspectives of others. Many people, however, do not know the true definition of the word "bigot" or they deny the fact that it applies to them because to claim this as an adjective to properly describe one's attitude or personality would be somewhat insulting (especially to those who believe they have a fine grasp on what tolerance and fairness is). Another thing that would cause someone to find an issue with being called a bigot would be the fact that it indicates that the person is closed-minded to some existent, only making efforts to understand those who understand them and only making efforts to respect those who agree with them (to some degree). While this is commonly used to express religious zealots (most commonly Christians), it is also witnessed in many other people who consider themselves atheists or believers in a more subjective reality.
Atheist: "So that's your perspective, just because of your stupid god?"
Christian: "Yeah. The Bible says that Christ's followers should always stand by the truth and God is the truth so I stand by His truth because I believe that His authority is over me."
Atheist: "Typical. You religious nut-cases are always poisoning this earth with your belief in fairy-tales. I wish you people would learn to wake up from your delusions or eventually get shunned from society so we'd grow faster as a nation."
As you can see, this atheist is not showing that he is very open-minded or understanding at all. Of course he has the right to disagree with a person who shares a different perspective or differing opinion, but to insult their objective beliefs does not show tolerance and open-mindedness, it only shows that what this Christian has stated is not enjoyable to the listener. This is not shocking considering that both debaters have differing priorities, but it does signal that both (or at least one of them) are unable to let down their defensive attitudes to sincerely listen to what the other person is trying to say. Because of this complication both of them would be better off ending the discussion instead of continuing to talk since the attitude that one or both of them carries is bigoted.
In my opinion, as soon as you notice that you have come across someone who holds a different belief than you do, I would suggest shifting the point of the intellectual exchange from trying to "win" to attempting to share perspectives. Don't try to understand one another through means of intellectual fighting, that usually does no good especially for people who are grounded in their beliefs. Make the exchange into a conversation rather than a debate, then you two can benefit a little more from the things that you share with one another.
The most open-minded individuals are normally agnostics, from what I know. They question everything they hear and take it into consideration or they doubt it, but for those of us who have objective beliefs and conclusive truths there is very little room left for 100% understanding and agreements unless the two or more people that are engaged in the debate are willing to learn more about opposing thoughts, alien ideologies and strange concepts that they have or have not encountered before. While learning these ideologies it would also be best to think like the person you're talking to rather than to rationalize it through your way of reasoning, otherwise you will risk offending them with incomplete assumptions and they may or may not insult you back. To properly understand another person's reality that resides in their own thoughts ask them questions with a humble attitude and a willingness to learn or else you will find yourself badgering the speaker, seeming as though you are trying to force your truth out of their mouth, all the while missing the enlightening answers that they are providing for you.
A teacher once told me that the "one of the greatest gifts to have is the ability to listen". While this is not something that will guarantee an agreement between people with two very different world perspectives, this will enlighten the people involved, and regardless of whether they agree with each other or not, they will at least be able to say that they understand each other better afterwards.
