Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[A Troubled Man]

It is obvious why many Dawkins apologists want to water down his emotionally-laden attacks on those with whom he disagrees. What is most amusing is that Dawkins admits he can't be certain either, yet he has no qualms about attacking those whose beliefs differ from his own.

Sorry, but that is far removed from reality. Dawkins is being honest by saying he can't be certain, while believers are quite dishonest that they are certain. He does not embrace beliefs as you say, he embraces understanding, which is quite different and cannot be compared to religious beliefs.

Emotionally laden attacks? LOL!

 

[Road Warrior]

You are a bottomless pit of insight.

Emotionally laden attacks? LOL!

Logical fallacies, cognitive bias, disformation, sophism, etc.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Obviously the religious fundamentalists are the only ones guilty of emotionally-laden rhetoric, insults and personal attacks.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Logical fallacies, cognitive bias, disformation, sophism, etc.

Obviously the religious fundamentalists are the only ones guilty of emotionally-laden rhetoric, insults and personal attacks.

Laughing at your ridiculous accusation of Dawkins that is without evidence is not a fallacy, an insult or a personal attack.

 

[fantome profane]

It is obvious why many Dawkins apologists want to water down his emotionally-laden attacks on those with whom he disagrees. What is most amusing is that Dawkins admits he can't be certain either, yet he has no qualms about attacking those whose beliefs differ from his own. This is why I see little difference between Dawkins, Myers and other "New Atheists" and people like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and anyone else who rants and preaches hate against people with differing beliefs.

If Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter find a certain belief to be ridiculous it is absolutely ok for them to mock it. Even more if they believe a ridiculous idea has a detrimental effect on society they have a moral obligation to ridicule it. In this respect I agree with you that in their use of ridicule Dawkins and Limbaugh are no different. They also both use the English language. There is nothing wrong with the use of the English language, and there is nothing wrong with the use of ridicule.

If you wish give me an example of something Limbaugh said, and if in the likely case I disagree with it I will be a disagreement with what he says, not with they way he says it. And if I can I might even use ridicule to point out his errors.

As much as you want it to be, this thread is not about Dawkins, and it is not about Limbaugh. I don't care who these people are. Mockery is a legitimate form of expression, and sometimes it is very effective.

 

[gnomon]

Logical fallacies, cognitive bias, disformation, sophism, etc.


Obviously the religious fundamentalists are the only ones guilty of emotionally-laden rhetoric, insults and personal attacks.

I just figured that trolls have to eat as well.

Unless you decide you want to get back on topic. Here's a hint. It's not about atheists or theists. It's a general question. Your obsession with bringing up Dawkins is your problem.

Now we were talking about if it is ever okay to mock a belief whether that belief is religious or not. You and some others have stated that it is absolutely not ok because it's not educational and that mocking is only ridicule.

After finally getting some of you to realize that, oh yes, mockery has been used for centuries in literature as a means of exposing hypocrisy in society, institutions and individuals......suddenly it's not reeeeeeaaaaaally mockery. It's light hearted humor.

Keep changing the truth to fit only your view of the truth and you will always be right.

Not a particularly admirable style. Not logical.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It is obvious why many Dawkins apologists want to water down his emotionally-laden attacks on those with whom he disagrees. What is most amusing is that Dawkins admits he can't be certain either, yet he has no qualms about attacking those whose beliefs differ from his own. This is why I see little difference between Dawkins, Myers and other "New Atheists" and people like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and anyone else who rants and preaches hate against people with differing beliefs.

Come on...

Mockery =/= Hate

Mockery =/= Rant

Mockery = Satire

Okay, so let's get rid of all mockery and making fun of ideas and people. Let's get rid of Stephen Colbert, George Carlin, Monty Python, The Onion, Saturday Night Live, Mark Twain, Borat and Sasha Baron Cohen, Don Quixote, Aristophanes and his work Lysistrata, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Kurt Vonnegut, ALL of Mel Brooks' material, Tom Lehrer, Bill Hicks, Dave Chappelle, Family Guy, South Park, The Simpsons, Penn and Teller, The Office, Sarah Silverman...

Let's censor all of them, those sorry excuses for human beings.

 

[Me Myself]

The fact that this thread already has several pages really puzzles me.

It should be too obvious that mocking ideas is okay. It´s a natural tool to show how imposible or improbable a believe is, not to say, funny comments are fun.

If you can´t deal with them, try not to interact with human beings that dare to have a sense of humor

 

[Road Warrior]

Come on...

Mockery =/= Hate

Mockery =/= Rant

Mockery = Satire

If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them.
Dalai Lama

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them.
Dalai Lama

Nice edit. You failed to address the rest of my post.

And I agree with the Dalai Lama, who - by the way - eats meat.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh, I forgot some other forms of public mockery...

We also need to get rid of Swift's Gulliver's Travels, Jane Austen, "This Is Spinal Tap", Garry Trudeau, Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie, Animal Farm, Calvin and Hobbes...

Weird Al Yankovic! The WORST of the bunch!!

Well, no. There's always the King's Fool. Maybe he really is more terrible than anyone. Not only did he mock, but he would mock the King!!

Laugh at the absurd. Laugh hard. Mockery is a very good thing to have.

 

[Road Warrior]

What is absurd is to compare a comedy like "This is Spinal Tap" and Dawkins advice to his followers to mock and ridicule those who believe in the ritual of the Eucharist.

Getting people to laugh at themselves is fine. Getting people to laugh at others by telling racist or anti-women jokes is not.

 

[fantome profane]

What is absurd is to compare a comedy like "This is Spinal Tap" and Dawkins advice to his followers to mock and ridicule those who believe in the ritual of the Eucharist.

Getting people to laugh at themselves is fine. Getting people to laugh at others by telling racist or anti-women jokes is not.

This thread is not about Dawkins!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What is absurd is to compare a comedy like "This is Spinal Tap" and Dawkins advice to his followers to mock and ridicule those who believe in the ritual of the Eucharist.

Getting people to laugh at themselves is fine. Getting people to laugh at others by telling racist or anti-women jokes is not.

*giggle*

You're right. Christopher Guest doesn't write anything remotely satirical and pokes fun at varying groups and subcultures.

I should have put "Best In Show" down instead.

But go ahead and ignore Chaucer, Twain, Hicks, Carlin, and Family Guy. Since they all don't qualify either.

Or Aristophanes.

LOL <-----laughing out loud at this thread

 

[Sunstone]

LOL <-----laughing out loud at this thread

Ditto.

 

[Sunstone]

You know, you can mock people and still respect them. Friends and couples do it all the time.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ditto.

I also forgot "All in the Family."

One rarely offended more than Archie Bunker.

 

[Sunstone]

I also forgot "All in the Family."

One rarely offended more than Archie Bunker.

On the contrary, you offend me far more than Archie Bunker.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You know, you can mock people and still respect them. Friends and couples do it all the time.

Apparently those that do are horrible rotten immoral pathetic people.

BTW, you're a dirty old man who likes to rip off younger women.

I say that with love and respect for you too.

 

[Revoltingest]

I mock people & their beliefs regularly.
Has anyone ever been offended by this?
I'm sure someone has, but I'm curious to know of examples.
(Of course, I won't stop.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

On the contrary, you offend me far more than Archie Bunker.

*points and laughs*