Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins

[Tristesse]

Okay. So since you can find some "ridiculous" ideas that some believers hold, then all believers should be mocked. Instead of actually trying to understand why someone believes a certain way, whatever you deem to be ridiculous should be ridiculed.

Does the same apply to you? Should I be able to just ridicule everything you say that I think is ridiculous? Where does that get us? Nowhere. It is a waste of time.

Absolutely it applies to me. If you find something that I believe for irrational reasons and is absurd, please mock me. I want to know about it.

I think those ideas should be mocked if they are being presenting as justified beliefs.

 

[Student of X]

Absolutely it applies to me. If you find something that I believe for irrational reasons and is absurd, please mock me. I want to know about it.

I think those ideas should be mocked if they are being presenting as justified beliefs.

Mockery is a resort to social pressure.

Joseph Campbells four functions of mythology are mystical, cosmological, psychological, and social.

By resorting to social pressure, it's as if atheism is saying, "hey we are the dominant mythology in this culture now and we are taking over the social function and using it to pressure you to conform".

Pretty lame, atheism.

 

[fallingblood]

Absolutely it applies to me. If you find something that I believe for irrational reasons and is absurd, please mock me. I want to know about it.

I think those ideas should be mocked if they are being presenting as justified beliefs.

Do you really think that would get us anywhere? Most likely, it would just drive you to hold those ideas further. That is usually the outcome of such mocking. It doesn't help anything, besides spread intolerance and ignorance.

 

[Tristesse]

Do you really think that would get us anywhere? Most likely, it would just drive you to hold those ideas further. That is usually the outcome of such mocking. It doesn't help anything, besides spread intolerance and ignorance.

It could. Why would you eliminate that as an option? Some kids grew out of santa claus because they were mocked at school. It can work, I'm not saying it works all of the time, but it does have a tendency to be effective.

 

[fantome profane]

yep, This was a really stupid thing for Dawkins to say. We shouldn't be mocking theists. We should just hit them in the face with a cream pie. That is the best way to win an argument.

 

[Tristesse]

Mockery is a resort to social pressure.

Joseph Campbells four functions of mythology are mystical, cosmological, psychological, and social.

By resorting to social pressure, it's as if atheism is saying, "hey we are the dominant mythology in this culture now and we are taking over the social function and using it to pressure you to conform".

Pretty lame, atheism.

Well, first of all, atheism isn't system of beliefs nor does it tell you what you should believe, ergo it isn't a mythology. And I don't think mockery should be the only form of discourse with theists. And secondly, why should I care what joseph campbell says?

 

[gnomon]

Mockery is a resort to social pressure.

Joseph Campbells four functions of mythology are mystical, cosmological, psychological, and social.

By resorting to social pressure, it's as if atheism is saying, "hey we are the dominant mythology in this culture now and we are taking over the social function and using it to pressure you to conform".

Pretty lame, atheism.

Who knew Richard Dawkins was the "Pope" of Atheism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you really think that would get us anywhere? Most likely, it would just drive you to hold those ideas further. That is usually the outcome of such mocking. It doesn't help anything, besides spread intolerance and ignorance.

It marginalizes the beliefs and the people who hold them, which I think is part of the point.

Even if the individual believers dig their heels in and believe even more, if they're made to seem ridiculous in the eyes of society, then they lose some of their influence within that society.

 

[gnomon]

If anyone's interested in digging up and parsing Dawkins words than it might be of interest to spend a few seconds on a google search to see the discussion and Dawkins own input on this point. It's only available at the website that bears his name.

Plain ridicule is not what he is talking about.

 

[4consideration]

He wants them thrown in a gulag.

edit: On a more interesting note. Is it actually proper to say "thrown in a gulag". Wasn't the Gulag a bureaucracy? They oversaw labor camps. Yeah, I meant thrown in a labor camp.

Just curious. Does he feel the same way about mathematicians? And, does he feel the same way about scientists that support their position with the use of modern mathematical concepts? Just wondering, if anyone happens to know.

 

[gnomon]

Just curious. Does he feel the same way about mathematicians? And, does he feel the same way about scientists that support their position with the use of modern mathematical concepts? Just wondering, if anyone happens to know.

I was being facetious.

Can't help it when the "look what Dawkins said" threads come up on this forum.

I always recommend checking out his debates with various religious leaders. You will find them incredibly lacking in ridicule, Dawkins supports reading the Bible along with other religious texts as literature because of the huge impact they have had on culture and recently he has stated that people should challenge beliefs, especially those of politicians, who lay claim to a belief in ridiculous concepts. Preposterous is another word. He used it in the same speech giving an indication of what he means.

One of the biggest faults I find with Dawkins is a tendency to lapse into a generalization in discussing religions. He also calls out moderates a lot and I don't think that is the best strategy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Public mocking is good. I'll start.
- The faithful believe some things I disagree with!
- Believers sometimes attend churches with poor landscaping!
- The Pope has a piece of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe!

 

[Badran]

It marginalizes the beliefs and the people who hold them, which I think is part of the point.

Even if the individual believers dig their heels in and believe even more, if they're made to seem ridiculous in the eyes of society, then they lose some of their influence within that society.

That is true. What about its negative effect though? Do you think what you said outweighs the negatives that occur due to this mentality and approach?

The mentality of ridiculing people for holding any position you find silly or unjustified, that is.

Personally i think ridicule can be appropriate in some instances, but that generally, it isn't a good, healthy or even thoughtful approach to take.

 

[Kathryn]

Dawkins is a great intellect. His book "The Ancestor's Tale" is a magnificent study of evolution, and the book "The God Delusion" logically brings out many of the problems and fallacies of theism. As for Dawkin's forthright stance, consider a comment George H .W. Bush allegedly made to one Robert Sherman at a formal press conference at Chicago's O'Hare airport in which Mr. Bush, then vice president said that "he didn't think atheists should be considered citizens or patriots since, "we are one nation under God." ".1 Any complaints about that?

1. George H. W. Bush's alleged remark about atheists - snopes.com

Snopes could not verify that remark.

It is probably an urban legend.

Just sayin'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is true. What about its negative effect though? Do you think what you said outweighs the negatives that occur due to this mentality and approach?

The mentality of ridiculing people for holding any position you find silly or unjustified, that is.

Personally i think ridicule can be appropriate in some instances, but that generally, it isn't a good, healthy or even thoughtful approach to take.

If I can infer a bit from what Dawkins has said on this subject before, it's that religion gets special regard and status, and that ideas that would normally be considered ridiculous in any other context get treated with respect simply because they're religious.

I don't think he's arguing to ridicule all religious beliefs; only that ridiculous beliefs are fair game for ridicule even if they're religious.

 

[McBell]

I wonder why he did not do that to Archbishop Williams in their recent debate.

Because there is a time and place for mocking?

 

[McBell]

So, are you saying two wrongs make a right? And you didn't actually address the quote in the OP. Do you agree or disagree with mocking believers in public?

I say that it is just fine to give back what those who claim the higher moral ground dish out.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It is sad when he resorts to this

 

[fallingblood]

It marginalizes the beliefs and the people who hold them, which I think is part of the point.

Even if the individual believers dig their heels in and believe even more, if they're made to seem ridiculous in the eyes of society, then they lose some of their influence within that society.

That, or it can make people think that the person ridiculing, and the group they are associated with, are intolerant, or just paint them in a negative way.

I'm not sure if you saw the atheist billboard that had the claim "Slaves, obey your masters." It was meant to ridicule the religious. Yet, it made those atheists look like jerks, inconsiderate, or simply ignorant. It was tackless, and did not make people see atheism in a good light.

Ridicule has the tendency to do that. Now, I am for showing others how some ideas are ridiculous. But I think there are better ways then ridicule. I personally think you are quite talented in showing how some ideas are ridiculous, because you are a talented debater. I think that is far more effective.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't think he's arguing to ridicule all religious beliefs; only that ridiculous beliefs are fair game for ridicule even if they're religious.

I would agree more with this. I still think ridicule may not be the best way to go, but this position is better then the one cited in the OP.

When I first say the article with Dawkins quote, I do have to say that I was suspicious that it was actually edited in order to make what he said sound different then what he actually said.