Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[lunamoth]

I read him as encouraging mocking of religious beliefs -- which is an interpretation that I've noticed people close to Dawkins have put on his words.

Was he encouraging mocking in personal conversations, or only in general, such as in speeches, articles, or blogs?

 

[Sunstone]

Was he encouraging mocking in personal conversations, or only in general, such as in speeches, articles, or blogs?

Good question! I don't know the answer, though.

 

[waitasec]

Was he encouraging mocking in personal conversations, or only in general, such as in speeches, articles, or blogs?

i would imagine he was speaking about the only condition where mocking would be allowable...if one is personally involved with the person they are mocking, not just any joe schmoe off the street.

 

[Road Warrior]

Was he encouraging mocking in personal conversations, or only in general, such as in speeches, articles, or blogs?

Seems to me he was encouraging it in personal conversations, but I see no reason why he'd limit it only to conversations.

So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.

 

[Road Warrior]

And what if they will not listen to reason, not to mention overwhelming evidence, but instead keep pushing their nonsense agenda onto society?
What if they are dishonest or wilfully ignorant?

If someone is pushing a "nonsense agenda" on others, be it a specific religion or atheism, then it's okay to push back politically. However, that is not what Dawkins is saying here. Dawkins just hates religion in general as the quote I posted above attests.

 

[waitasec]

Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.


he's right about that.

 

[A Troubled Man]

However, that is not what Dawkins is saying here. Dawkins just hates religion in general as the quote I posted above attests.

And, hating religion is also NOT something Dawkins is saying.

 

[Road Warrior]

Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.


he's right about that.

Agreed, he is. As mentioned previously on several occasions, people have a right to their beliefs and shouldn't feel pressured to conform to someone else's beliefs. OTOH, if they are the ones trying to force their beliefs on us, then it becomes a legitimate form of discussion. Calling "Creationism" science or pushing to pass laws which align our laws to a specific religion be it the Ten Commandments or Sharia, then citizens have a right to contest such laws or those pushing them.

There is a difference between protecting our rights as citizens or what goes on in public schools and deliberately attacking people for their beliefs. It doesn't matter if the person doing it is Richard Dawkins, Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson, it is still immoral IMO.

 

[gnomon]

And, hating religion is also NOT something Dawkins is saying.

You are wasting your time.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If someone is pushing a "nonsense agenda" on others, be it a specific religion or atheism, then it's okay to push back politically. However, that is not what Dawkins is saying here. Dawkins just hates religion in general as the quote I posted above attests.

Considering the impact religion has on society in general and how they constantly push their agenda, be it about same-sex marriage, evolution, abstinence only sex-ed, or the pope telling people that condoms are worse than sex, I think a general 'pushing back' against religious claims is warranted.
People are of course allowed to believe and think whatever they want in their own homes and heads as much as they like, but when they make those ideas public, be it through conversation, on a forum, in the media or other channels, their ideas are open to criticism, ridicule and mockery, and it follows that if one supports a ridiculous idea then one leaves one-self open to ridicule as well.

As mentioned earlier, sometimes there isn't a discussion to be had.

 

[Road Warrior]

As mentioned earlier, sometimes there isn't a discussion to be had.

The reasons such as you listed below, I think there is, indeed, a discussion to be had.

Considering the impact religion has on society in general and how they constantly push their agenda, be it about same-sex marriage, evolution, abstinence only sex-ed, or the pope telling people that condoms are worse than sex, I think a general 'pushing back' against religious claims is warranted.

Not all religious people agree in the issues you detailed. Even those who do believe it do not believe it is wise to pass it into law since, once we cross the line separating church and state, it opens the door for the religion of the majority to do the same. Looking at demographic projections, I doubt that will be the religion of WASPs. Ergo, the logical conclusion is to keep government secular in order to maintain fairness to all.

 

[A Troubled Man]

There is a difference between protecting our rights as citizens or what goes on in public schools and deliberately attacking people for their beliefs. It doesn't matter if the person doing it is Richard Dawkins, Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson, it is still immoral IMO.

And, there is a difference between attacking people and attacking their beliefs. Dawkins does not attack people, he attacks beliefs. Limbaugh and Robertson attack people.

 

[waitasec]

Agreed, he is. As mentioned previously on several occasions, people have a right to their beliefs and shouldn't feel pressured to conform to someone else's beliefs. OTOH, if they are the ones trying to force their beliefs on us, then it becomes a legitimate form of discussion. Calling "Creationism" science or pushing to pass laws which align our laws to a specific religion be it the Ten Commandments or Sharia, then citizens have a right to contest such laws or those pushing them.

There is a difference between protecting our rights as citizens or what goes on in public schools and deliberately attacking people for their beliefs. It doesn't matter if the person doing it is Richard Dawkins, Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson, it is still immoral IMO.

i think the pressure you are referring to is the insecurity one has when they really haven't qualified why they believe what they do. which really has nothing to do with the opposing POV other than realizing the opposition has qualified their POV.

 

[Road Warrior]

i think the pressure you are referring to is the insecurity one has when they really haven't qualified why they believe what they do. which really has nothing to do with the opposing POV other than realizing the opposition has qualified their POV.

Not so sure about "the opposition has qualified their POV", but I definitely agree people's insecurities are a factor.

 

[Road Warrior]

And, there is a difference between attacking people and attacking their beliefs. Dawkins does not attack people, he attacks beliefs. Limbaugh and Robertson attack people.

I beg to differ. If you want proof, look at what his most ardent defenders are doing on this very forum.

 

[Orias]

I beg to differ. If you want proof, look at what his most ardent defenders are doing on this very forum.

I agree.

When something is being attacked (like a wall) it should be realized that the true intent is to attack whatever is behind that wall.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The reasons such as you listed below, I think there is, indeed, a discussion to be had.

There is, for instance, no discussion to be had with wilfully ignorant/dishonest YE creationists. They are simply wrong.
There is, as a non-religious example, no discussion to be had with those who wish to ban vaccines. They are also simply wrong.
When it comes to how reality works relativism of opinion is nonsense. We have only one method that consistently work in this respect, and that method is science.

Not all religious people agree in the issues you detailed. Even those who do believe it do not believe it is wise to pass it into law since, once we cross the line separating church and state, it opens the door for the religion of the majority to do the same. Looking at demographic projections, I doubt that will be the religion of WASPs. Ergo, the logical conclusion is to keep government secular in order to maintain fairness to all.

Indeed, and while you are probably right, that changes the fact that attacking those that do hold such notions is the right thing to do not at all.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I beg to differ. If you want proof, look at what his most ardent defenders are doing on this very forum.

Proof of what? Explain yourself? What ardent defenders?

 

[A Troubled Man]

I agree.

When something is being attacked (like a wall) it should be realized that the true intent is to attack whatever is behind that wall.

That isn't true at all. Where do you get that idea?

 

[ChristineES]

You would have to decide if it would work or not. If it isn't going to work or cause "bad blood" between you and the other person, then why do it? If it going to hurt more than help, then why do it? And the purpose? What is your intent? Is it to make the person think about individual beliefs? Is it to make a person stop being a theist? Is it to make you laugh at another person's expense? Is it show someone see you find their beliefs and maybe make them understand that the beliefs are stupid? Is it to make the person laugh?

Like any other action there are a lot of questions you must ask yourself before doing it- even something simple.