• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.

Ah, in other words if you ridicule ideas in general, then don't spare religious ideas? If that or something to that effect is what he's saying i don't really have any objection to that. I don't think religious ideas should be given some form of inherent value.

If thats his point but he's also particularly encouraging ridicule rather than just saying it as i put it above, then i would still disagree with that but its certainly not as much of a bad thing to say as i first perceived it.

To put it differently if the second is the case, then i would agree with him that religions shouldn't be spared from this, but i would disagree that ridicule in general is a good idea.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
No, it wasn't meant to ridicule the religious; it was meant to ridicule a church-state violation.

That whole thing came about because the state legislature issued a proclamation declaring 2012 to be "the year of the Bible". This billboard was an atheist group's response: a kind of "you want the Bible? Okay, we'll give you the Bible" approach.

I think it fell down a bit on the execution, because I'm not sure how apparent it was from the billboard itself that this was the point of the campaign.
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
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.

Okay, I will check out his work. I also have to admit that I was also being somewhat facetious.

I do not support ridiculous beliefs that ingore or deny actual proof. So, please do not interpret the following as a defence of ignoring anything that can actually be shown to be so in reality. Thanks for helping me out here.

If I am off-base, and this doesn't really apply to Dawkins' position, then I apologize in advance -- it just seems to apply to me at this time, based upon some of the other posts I have seen on this forum that are presented as being in agreement with him. I guess I just have to get this off my chest.

I find it interesting to see that often an argument is presented against the basic belief in God as though such a belief is the most ridiculous, ignorant, and sometimes delusional thing, and supporting a useless endeavor -- simply because it is based upon an assumption of the existence of God -- a matter which has not yet been proven either way.

I note, in comparison, that mathematics also employs a faith-based (trusted) assumption of something that has not been proven (as far as I know) to actually exist -- that is "0". It is also my understanding that if we were to remove the use of "0" from mathematics until we could prove it, that it would radically alter the discipline as we know it. Additionally, much of what we consider to be "scientific" relies upon the use of modern mathematical concepts and formulas -- so scientific understanding would predictably be radically altered, as well. (I am not in any way suggesting that we do such a thing.)

Mathematics seems to have clearly demonstrated a possibility for the "reasonableness" of the use of a faith-based based assumption (in this situation, not willy-nilly across the board) that has been shown to actually apply well to reality, even though there is no hard evidence (proof) of its existence.

I would like to see those who are insisting that they are so thoroughly scientific in their approach to reality as to justify mocking "religious" people for their basic belief in something that has not been proven -- to simply extend the same courtesy to a basic "religious" belief that they recognize as already valid in science, unless they don't actually understand it to be already employed within scientific approaches through the application of certain, unproven assumption(s).

In my (limited) experience, mathematicians tend to be the most objective, methodical people that I have met. Yet, they also seem to be ok with working (at times -- at least with regard to "0") within an understanding of something that is reasonable and works, yet is not proven to actually exist. I do not see it as too far of a stretch that there may possibly be something really valid in employing the same methods/similar assumptions (as in assuming the existence of something in order to work with the concepts that it's assumption allows,) since it seems to work well with "0" for those commonly viewed as being thoroughly objective and "scientific."
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Mocking people is very immature but it isn't illegal. I wouldn't stop it or want to, after all, people have a right to act immature if they want to, even if they are great intellects (you'd think a great intellect would know better, though). ;)
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
No, it wasn't meant to ridicule the religious; it was meant to ridicule a church-state violation.

That whole thing came about because the state legislature issued a proclamation declaring 2012 to be "the year of the Bible". This billboard was an atheist group's response: a kind of "you want the Bible? Okay, we'll give you the Bible" approach.

I think it fell down a bit on the execution, because I'm not sure how apparent it was from the billboard itself that this was the point of the campaign.
I retract what I said then. I was not aware that was the intention. I do have to say that that execution was horrible. We actually discussed this billboard in one of my classes, and no one knew what it exactly was referring to. It does make more sense with that background though.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Mocking people is very immature but it isn't illegal. I wouldn't stop it or want to, after all, people have a right to act immature if they want to, even if they are great intellects (you'd think a great intellect would know better, though). ;)
It just goes to show that even great intellectuals are human...
 

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
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.

Yeah, that would be the atheism narrative. I don't buy it.

And I don't think mockery should be the only form of discourse with theists.
How magnanimous of you.

And secondly, why should I care what joseph campbell says?
Joseph Campbell Saves The World

In which the late, great master of myth reveals just how foolish all our religious impudence is, again
 
Last edited:

Looncall

Well-Known Member
One reason for using ridicule is that it is often the only approach left to combat ignorance and lies.

Religious notions are sometimes held in the face of contrary evidence. The guff about a Noachian flood is an example. What else but ridicule can be applied in such a case?
 

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
One reason for using ridicule is that it is often the only approach left to combat ignorance and lies.

Religious notions are sometimes held in the face of contrary evidence. The guff about a Noachian flood is an example. What else but ridicule can be applied in such a case?

How about tolerance?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
How about tolerance?
I have asked that myself.
But so many theists only care about tolerance when it comes to their beliefs...

Hells bells, they are not even tolerant of other theist beliefs...

Comical how they are all of a sudden about tolerance when they are the ones being "persecuted"...
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I don't think religious notions should get special treatment merely because they are religious. In that respect, I suppose I agree with Dawkins.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
What does everyone (theist and atheist) think about his statement? Should you mock someone in public for no other reason then you think one of their beliefs doesn't make sense?
No. The questions he gives as examples are perfectly reasonable but I don't think they are in themselves mockery or ridicule and they shouldn't be used.

If nothing else, they're counter-productive, making people defensive and more likely to respond in kind that actually address the questions and challenges.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Speaking strictly from a marketing perspective -- that is, without addressing the issue of whether it's morally right or wrong -- mocking the competition, if done light-heartedly, appears to be an effective way to influence opinion and behavior, while castigating or condemning the competition appears to have largely negative consequences. I'm basing my opinion here on what little I recall of sales and marketing from having worked in the field 20 years ago.
 

E. Nato Difficile

Active Member
Comical how they are all of a sudden about tolerance when they are the ones being "persecuted"...
Right.

These aren't just wacky superstitions, or weird opinions. They're the basis for public policy. If people didn't use religious rhetoric when talking about women's reproductive rights, or gay marriage, or embryonic stem-cell research, or other matters, I'd be more "tolerant" of religious beliefs.

-Nato
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I have no strong moral objection to mocking anybody in public, provided the reasons for mocking them are reasonable, justifiable and you don't do it purely with the intention of hurting their feelings. Since I think religious beliefs are inherently silly, I think mocking them is perfectly reasonable - and also due to the fact that people base a lot of their lives on religion, I think it's important to highlight superstitious rubbish as being deserving of mockery on a regular basis. I would expect people to mock anything I think that's silly or unsubstantiated - it's just what people do when presented with such things.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
I have asked that myself.
But so many theists only care about tolerance when it comes to their beliefs...

Hells bells, they are not even tolerant of other theist beliefs...

Comical how they are all of a sudden about tolerance when they are the ones being "persecuted"...
So because some theists don't know what tolerance is, you think tolerance towards all theists should just be thrown out the window?
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I have asked that myself.
But so many theists only care about tolerance when it comes to their beliefs...

Hells bells, they are not even tolerant of other theist beliefs...

Comical how they are all of a sudden about tolerance when they are the ones being "persecuted"...

True that.

I've been called a whore, a ****, my sexual orientation has been called out to be some sort of basis for my character as a human being, votes have been cast to determine whether I could marry a woman if I wanted to, I'm routinely called an abomination in public by pastors and the pulpit alike, I see Buddha figures everywhere depicted as some fat laughing dude that uninformed people mock, and let me bring up some of my past facebook wall posts where I applauded a state's passing of gay marriage rights. The rhetoric gay rights supporters were receiving from the opposition was mocking, ridicule, vitriolic, rude, and condemning.

No outcry from the religious when that occurs.

Now, SHOULD there be an outcry? I don't think so. I welcome it. Go ahead, call me a whore for wearing what I want. Tell me I'm an abomination. Threaten me with hellfire. You have all the freedom in the world to believe and say whatever you want about me and about my beliefs. Be rude and condescending.

But if I'm expected to be gracious and have a thick skin under fire, I don't see a problem expecting believers to do the same.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
Right.

These aren't just wacky superstitions, or weird opinions. They're the basis for public policy. If people didn't use religious rhetoric when talking about women's reproductive rights, or gay marriage, or embryonic stem-cell research, or other matters, I'd be more "tolerant" of religious beliefs.

-Nato
Yet the example used in the OP is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Last I checked, that doctrine has nothing to do with any public policy. It is also pretty benign, and completely harmless.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
True that.

I've been called a whore, a ****, my sexual orientation has been called out to be some sort of basis for my character as a human being, votes have been cast to determine whether I could marry a woman if I wanted to, I'm routinely called an abomination in public by pastors and the pulpit alike, I see Buddha figures everywhere depicted as some fat laughing dude that uninformed people mock, and let me bring up some of my past facebook wall posts where I applauded a state's passing of gay marriage rights. The rhetoric gay rights supporters were receiving from the opposition was mocking, ridicule, vitriolic, rude, and condemning.

No outcry from the religious when that occurs.

Now, SHOULD there be an outcry? I don't think so. I welcome it. Go ahead, call me a whore for wearing what I want. Tell me I'm an abomination. Threaten me with hellfire. You have all the freedom in the world to believe and say whatever you want about me and about my beliefs. Be rude and condescending.

But if I'm expected to be gracious and have a thick skin under fire, I don't see a problem expecting believers to do the same.
What about all of us religious here on RF? We don't count when we support gay marriage rights?
 
Top