Reason Rally: Mock Believers! - Dawkins

[Kathryn]

I personally am glad to see him resort to ridicule. It exposes his true character - or lack thereof. I always prefer to know the unvarnished truth about a person.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So because some theists don't know what tolerance is, you think tolerance towards all theists should just be thrown out the window?

There's a difference between intolerance and mockery. When a politician on a campaign trail states their beliefs and someone like, say, Steven Colbert mocks their beliefs on television because of their silliness in his opinion, is that intolerance? I don't see how someone highlighting the daftness of someone else's beliefs is intolerant.

 

[Kathryn]

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.

Hey, I'm consistent. I don't appreciate it when ANYONE resorts to ridicule. I think it is very sophomoric and immature.

This goes for theists, atheists, and everyone in between.

It's a case of the classic "I need to tear you down in order to build myself up." It's pathetic.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I personally am glad to see him resort to ridicule. It exposes his true character - or lack thereof. I always prefer to know the unvarnished truth about a person.

You might try reading one of his books to find out the truth about Dawkins, instead of relying on reading quotes on the Internet. I personally think Unweaving the Rainbow is a great, positive summation of the naturalist worldview.

-Nato

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What about all of us religious here on RF? We don't count when we support gay marriage rights?

When did I say that, Apex?

 

[Apex]

There's a difference between intolerance and mockery.

In most cases, no, there is not.

When a politician on a campaign trail states their beliefs and someone like, say, Steven Colbert mocks their beliefs on television because of their silliness in his opinion, is that intolerance?

It is very well known that people like Colbert are, basically, comedians. There can be a difference between comedy and plain mockery and ridicule. No where in the speech in the OP was the use of comedy mentioned. Also, I can not remember ever seeing contempt used on shows like Colbert's. Yet contempt was also encouraged in the OP.

I don't see how someone highlighting the daftness of someone else's beliefs is intolerant.

And who gets to decide what is, and is not, daft? You? Me?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Hey, I'm consistent. I don't appreciate it when ANYONE resorts to ridicule. I think it is very sophomoric and immature.

This goes for theists, atheists, and everyone in between.

It's a case of the classic "I need to tear you down in order to build myself up." It's pathetic.

I know, love. It's why I have all the respect in the world for ya.

 

[Kathryn]

You might try reading one of his books to find out the truth about Dawkins, instead of relying on reading quotes on the Internet. I personally think Unweaving the Rainbow is a great, positive summation of the naturalist worldview.

-Nato

Why are you assuming that I am relying on reading quotes on the Internet?

I have read quite a bit of his writings. I have also watched numerous interviews with him.

I have formed my opinion of the man based on my own observations. Of course I realize that he's not a jerk one hundred percent of the time - no one is. He can be charming, he can be clever, and he can be gracious. He is obviously very intelligent. But he can also be abrasive and arrogant, and his reputation for those traits is based on his own actions.

Encouraging people to openly ridicule others is just more evidence of his negative personality/character traits.

 

[Apex]

When did I say that, Apex?

No outcry from the religious when that occurs.

^This. I may have just misunderstood you though.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In most cases, no, there is not.

It is very well known that people like Colbert are, basically, comedians. There can be a difference between comedy and plain mockery and ridicule.

To borrow a page from your book: in most cases, no, there is not. Highlighting the ludicrousness of a given position through comedy is exactly what mockery is, and if people can get away with mocking people's sincerely held political beliefs on national television, I don't see why a person shouldn't be equally permitted to mock a person's sincerely held religious beliefs in public or private.

No where in the speech in the OP was the use of comedy mentioned. Also, I can not remember ever seeing contempt used on shows like Colbert's. Yet contempt was also encouraged in the OP.

Mockery is a comedic display of contempt. You can't really separate the two.

And who gets to decide what is, and is not, daft? You? Me?

We all do, obviously. We all decide what we individually consider inherently daft and mock people and things we find as daft accordingly.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

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.

I agree. But it's the best example of a belief so absurd that people are expected to simply profess belief in it, as a demonstration of the purity of their faith. They believe in believing such things, which is different from actually believing them.

And I've never ridiculed anyone in public for it, but I'm not surprised there are people who would.

-Nato

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Why are you assuming that I am relying on reading quotes on the Internet?

I have read quite a bit of his writings.

Of course you have. And I'm an astronaut.

-Nato

 

[kai]

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

I agree with this also. I think, if you think something sounds ridiculous you should be able to say so.It shouldn't be socially Taboo just because it is religious.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

^This. I may have just misunderstood you though.

I may have typed that without thinking on it thoroughly. I understand how you might have taken that as a broad brush stroke to paint all theists as a homogenous group of "do as I say, not as I do" sort.

My apologies.

 

[Apex]

To borrow a page from your book: in most cases, no, there is not. Highlighting the ludicrousness of a given position through comedy is exactly what mockery is, and if people can get away with mocking people's sincerely held political beliefs on national television, I don't see why a person shouldn't be equally permitted to mock a person's sincerely held religious beliefs in public or private.

Good comedians know the difference between plain mockery, and good comedy. Have you ever seen Colbert say "What? How can you believe that? You are a ******* ****** ***** MORON!". That is mockery. But it is not comedy.

Mockery is a comedic display of contempt. You can't really separate the two.

Contempt: the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
If you truly believe comedy can only be directed towards things which you disdain, consider vile, or worthless, you have one messed up idea on what comedy is.

We all do, obviously. We all decide what we individually consider inherently daft and mock people and things we find as daft accordingly.

And herein lies the problem I, and a few others, pointed out at the beginning of this thread. If we all went around mocking everyone, and everything, we find "daft", the world would really be a horrid place.

 

[Student of X]

If you truly believe comedy can only be directed towards things which you disdain, consider vile, or worthless, you have one messed up idea on what comedy is.

Maybe it's that lame-*** 'bad-boy' humor trend. 'Family Guy' humor. Ugh, I hate that show.

 

[Apex]

I agree. But it's the best example of a belief so absurd that people are expected to simply profess belief in it, as a demonstration of the purity of their faith.

There are other examples he could have chosen that would have better fit your description. The fact that he did not, IMO, is telling.

They believe in believing such things, which is different from actually believing them.

Huh?

And I've never ridiculed anyone in public for it, but I'm not surprised there are people who would.

-Nato

I am glad for this. I would never ridicule someone in public for their beliefs either. I prefer calm, rational, discussion. It usually seems to get you farther in the long run.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Good comedians know the difference between plain mockery, and good comedy. Have you ever seen Colbert say "What? How can you believe that? You are a ******* ****** ***** MORON!". That is mockery. But it is not comedy.

No, that's not mockery. That's just an insult. Dawkins has never been in favour of just flat-out insulting people for their beliefs.

Contempt: the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
If you truly believe comedy can only be directed towards things which you disdain, consider vile, or worthless, you have one messed up idea on what comedy is.

Where did I say that? I thought we were dealing specifically with mockery, not comedy in general. Mockery is a form of comedy used to express disdain.

And herein lies the problem I, and a few others, pointed out at the beginning of this thread. If we all went around mocking everyone, and everything, we find "daft", the world would really be a horrid place.

And where did I say you should do it all the time? I just said that I don't find anything wrong with doing it in general, in the same way that there's nothing wrong with being sarcastic. Being sarcastic all the time, however, would doubtlessly make you out to be a massive douche. Nobody here is saying you need to mock everything you find stupid all of the time - just that there's nothing inherently wrong with mocking things you find stupid on general principle, provided you have reasonable (rather than hurtful) intent.

 

[Storm]

Of course you have. And I'm an astronaut.

-Nato

Surely you have a better reason for calling Kathryn a liar than the fact that she dares criticize your idol.....

 

[Apex]

I may have typed that without thinking on it thoroughly. I understand how you might have taken that as a broad brush stroke to paint all theists as a homogenous group of "do as I say, not as I do" sort.

My apologies.

Thanks. I was thinking you probably didn't mean to convey that.