Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[ChristineES]

I can see that. Sure.

Are you hunky dory with people who think Christianity teaches hate? Are you okay with people you feel misrepresent your religion?

I may not be OK with it, but people are entitled to that opinion.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I may not be OK with it, but people are entitled to that opinion.

Of course. Herein lies the issue, though. You're not okay with it. You're entitled to argue against it. You're entitled to speak up and correct misunderstandinga of what you feel is Christ's message. If somebody said that Jesus taught to hate others, I'm guessing you'd take issue with that.

That is how I take Dot's efforts. She's speaking up against what is a misrepresentation of Dawkins' speech. And she's entitled to do that as much as you are entitled to speak up against what you think is a misrepresentation of Christianity.

 

[ChristineES]

Of course. Herein lies the issue, though. You're not okay with it. You're entitled to argue against it. You're entitled to speak up and correct misunderstandinga of what you feel is Christ's message. If somebody said that Jesus taught to hate others, I'm guessing you'd take issue with that.

That is how I take Dot's efforts. She's speaking up against what is a misrepresentation of Dawkins' speech. And she's entitled to do that as much as you are entitled to speak up against what you think is a misrepresentation of Christianity.

It wasn't that she was speaking up at it- she was telling the person to stop posting his opinion. She has every right to speak up about, sure, but not every right to tell someone what to say and not say in his or her posts. See the difference?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It wasn't that she was speaking up at it- she was telling the person to stop posting his opinion. She has every right to speak up about, sure, but not every right to tell someone what to say and not say in his or her posts. See the difference?

No. I disagree.

But you have every right to your opinion.

So there.

 

[ChristineES]

No. I disagree.

But you have every right to your opinion.

So there.

Different people see things differently. That I have learned to accept.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As Phil Plait advised several times in his speech at the TAM8 Conference (July 2010), it is better to rely on the merits of the arguments rather than "vitriol and venom".

[youtube]dmP9XozKEV0[/youtube]
Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube

IMHO, this advice applies to everything we do as a society. Unfortunately, at least in American culture, there is an all-too-common feeling that "he who yells loudest, wins". As Mr. Plait pointed out in his speech, this attitude is wrong.

If this approach is so wrong, then why did Plait use it himself?

I'd say that much of his speech, especially the part at the beginning, is definitely at the vitriolic end of the scale compared to the spectrum of discourse I've seen in the skeptic community. And I've never seen any other prominent mainstream atheist or skeptic resort to name-calling the way he did by calling his opponents "dicks".

That speech bugs me. The hypocrisy that Phil Plait demonstrated in it really lowered my opinion of him.

 

[Road Warrior]

But doesn't he have a right to his opinion? I know you strongly disagree with it, but others don't see it the same way. We have to accept that people aren't going to see things the same way as we do.

Yes, he does have a right to his opinion just like others. Unfortunately, his opinion is to mock and ridicule anyone with whom he disagrees on religious matters.

Some people complain that I'm misrepresenting his speech. I disagree because I think that is the essence of his speech. It's not the first time he's gone down the road of being militant and aggressive in his approach to people with whom he disagrees on spiritual matters. It's one thing to protect one's rights under the law, such the encroachment of religion into secular government, but it's another to seek to eliminate religion completely and ridicule believes simply because one disagrees with their beliefs.

Agreed that we should accept that people will disagree. That's human. It's also a lesson I'm trying to convey to those who support Dawkins' militant attitude toward those with whom he disagrees. Conversely, other hate-mongers like Limbaugh, Falwell and Roberts also need to learn this lesson.

The problem isn't that people will disagree, but how they disagree. Mocking and ridicule will only result in an escalation of the hate and dimunition of fellow human beings. It divides people, not unites them.

 

[HerDotness]

You forgot to add "in my opinion" Dot.

There is no "my opinion" about it. It's been demonstrated repeatedly by me and others that Dawkins was NOT saying to mock religious people but what they believe.

The problem still is that you and others keep claiming that he means to insult religious people.

Apparently, the old saw holds true: Can't criticize the beliefs because doing that IS criticizing the holders thereof who are so inextricably identified with their religious beliefs that criticism becomes a 2-for-1 deal.

Yet another reason why criticizing beliefs is still off-limits, and this preposterous misrepresentation goes on and on and on.

It's appalling!

 

[HerDotness]

It wasn't that she was speaking up at it- she was telling the person to stop posting his opinion. She has every right to speak up about, sure, but not every right to tell someone what to say and not say in his or her posts. See the difference?

Oh, okay, I get it...we'll have a more productive discussion if we let egregious misrepresentations stand as if they're true.

"Yes, yes...I see that this distortion, exaggeration and grotesque misconstrual of what the man said is YOUR opinion, no matter how completely erroneous, of what he said. So, of course, it would be rude to point out that your interpretation is simply wrong.

"Now, let's see. Just how do we discuss what he never said? I guess by agreeing that of course, you're right."

So much for truthtelling and achieving any possible means for reaching any sort of authentic understanding and maybe even agreement.

 

[Road Warrior]

There is no "my opinion" about it.

I disagree. That's my opinion. Since you obviously have no intention of respecting it and would rather spread half truths and outright lies about what I did say, then let's just agree to disagree since you obviously would rather make accusations than discuss the issue. Have a great life, Dot. Really.

Oh, okay, I get it...we'll have a more productive discussion if we let egregious misrepresentations stand as if they're true.

"Yes, yes...I see that this distortion, exaggeration and grotesque misconstrual of what the man said is YOUR opinion, no matter how completely erroneous, of what he said. So, of course, it would be rude to point out that your interpretation is simply wrong.

"Now, let's see. Just how do we discuss what he never said? I guess by agreeing that of course, you're right."

So much for truthtelling and achieving any possible means for reaching any sort of authentic understanding and maybe even agreement.

 

[HerDotness]

Unbelievable! But what else did I expect?

That's all. I'm done.

 

[HerDotness]

It wasn't that she was speaking up at it- she was telling the person to stop posting his opinion. She has every right to speak up about, sure, but not every right to tell someone what to say and not say in his or her posts. See the difference?

So, you wouldn't tell another person to stop stating a clear and evident misinterpretation of what a biblical passage says when you know the person is interpreting it wrong?

Mustn't correct an erroneous opinion because "everyone's entitled to differ," is that it?

No wonder no one understands what scripture actually means if that's the case.

 

[Road Warrior]

I think there is a lot of emotional knee-jerk reactions from the word "mock" which as has been shown to mean different things to different people.

A good point, but when coupled with "Ridicule them! In public!", it's pretty clear what he meant by "mock".

 

[ChristineES]

So, you wouldn't tell another person to stop stating a clear and evident misinterpretation of what a biblical passage says when you know the person is interpreting it wrong?

Mustn't correct an erroneous opinion because "everyone's entitled to differ," is that it?

No wonder no one understands what scripture actually means if that's the case.

But I believe and others believe that Dawkins really meant what he said. I know you don't, and you have that right. We have interpreted it wrong in your opinion, but we are not interpreting it wrong in our opinion.
This is the last time I am mentioning Dawkins in this case- it is getting old and it wasn't a big deal to begin with (The Reason Rally, that is).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

But I believe and others believe that Dawkins really meant what he said. I know you don't, and you have that right. We have interpreted it wrong in your opinion, but we are not interpreting it wrong in our opinion.
This is the last time I am mentioning Dawkins in this case- it is getting old and it wasn't a big deal to begin with (The Reason Rally, that is).

And I believe Dawkins was absolutely and ethically correct, and others have agreed with me. While you have disagreed with me and have made it a point that Dawkins should stop what he's doing if he wants to be a nicer person.

Christine, I think you and others have judged Dawkins and his message very harshly. Are you okay with coming off that way? I'm okay with you judging him harshly. But are you?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A good point, but when coupled with "Ridicule them! In public!", it's pretty clear what he meant by "mock".

Yes, and I think he's correct and ethically sound for it.

 

[ChristineES]

And I believe Dawkins was absolutely and ethically correct, and others have agreed with me. While you have disagreed with me and have made it a point that Dawkins should stop what he's doing if he wants to be a nicer person.

Christine, I think you and others have judged Dawkins and his message very harshly. Are you okay with coming off that way? I'm okay with you judging him harshly. But are you?

I don't feel as though I am judging the man at all. What I am judging a few words. I don't know enough about the man to judge him in any meaningful way. And the words themselves didn't even bother me.
In reality, I am not really talking about Dawkins- I am talking about making fun of people in general- other people are tossing Dawkins name into the pot. Maybe I am wrong about the words Dawkins used, I can accept that, but there are others who do make fun of others and that is what I am addressing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't feel as though I am judging the man at all. What I am judging a few words. I don't know enough about the man to judge him in any meaningful way. And the words themselves didn't even bother me.
In reality, I am not really talking about Dawkins- I am talking about making fun of people in general- other people are tossing Dawkins name into the pot. Maybe I am wrong about the words Dawkins used, I can accept that, but there are others who do make fun of others and that is what I am addressing.

Could've fooled me.

But what do I know? I'm a chick who admits to being certifiably insane, who collects edge weapons, and who is terrified of balloons.

So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Orias]

Is it ever ok to mock religious beliefs? Or even non-religious beliefs?

Well mockery is one of those things that is only so if it offends some sort of personal interpretation.

Are there some beliefs that are just completely off the table?

What do you mean?

If there are some beliefs that are immune to mockery, which ones? Why? How to we distinguish between beliefs that are ripe for ridicule, and those that are immune?

Immune? I wouldn't say that, rather I would tend to think that some religions are just a little bit more adversarial than others, which I guess could make them a bit more bold and or hard headed.

 

[ChristineES]

Could've fooled me.

But what do I know? I'm a chick who admits to being certifiably insane, who collects edge weapons, and who is terrified of balloons.

So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I don't lie. At first I talked about the man on that other thread, but later on and on this thread I never mentioned him until earlier today. Maybe you are mistaking someone else's opinions for mine.