Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[gnomon]

It's a waste of time, people.

The threads dead. The topics dead.

Though we can all thank Apex for a couple of good weeks. Seriously, that's something like five or six threads spawned from his one OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Malice scorned, puts out itself; but argued, give a kind of credit to a false accusation. -- Philip Massinger

Now everyone is reminded why I've ceased to respond to your posts. They are full of false, unsubstantiated accusations, are rarely, if ever, on topic and often violate this rule:


Please stop the personal attacks and get back on topic. TIA

You do realize that anyone can click on your profile and see your post history, right? It speaks for itself.

I think the fact that you employ tactics that you argue are ineffective and disrespectful speaks directly to the sincerity of your argument in this thread, if not its truth.

But I get it - you don't want to respond to my questions. Fine.

 

[A Troubled Man]

A duck swimming in the water is a duck swimming in the water, what does this have to do with rebuking the analogy?

Ducks aren't people either.

So a loved one is not a part of us either?

People are people. Other people are other people.

Name one thing that is not associated with people.

Religious beliefs.

You're not even close to being able to interpret what I said, and they were simple words.

If you say so.

I guess if it helped you thats all that matters.

Then, I can assume your confusion remains?

 

[A Troubled Man]

This clears everything up, you seem to have no idea that beliefs are personal.

Beliefs are not arms and legs, they are ideologies. For example, the belief that Jesus is our Savior and Lord is and ideology shared by millions and was handed down through a holy book. How is that personal?

And you be are being very contradictory to what you lay claim too.

How so?

 

[A Troubled Man]

You forgot to add "IMO".

Does it help you to put words in my mouth?

BTW, your conclusions are incorrect

And yet, you haven't shown me why they are incorrect while many here have shown you why you are incorrect.

My humble advice is for you to avoid projecting your feelings on people and focus more upon how to better convey your thoughts to others.

I'm starting to see a reading comprehension issue on your part here. Where have I projected my feelings? Or, are you just providing another fallacy in light of an argument?

Making accusations is rarely an effective method of persuasion....IMO.

We are merely pointing out your fallacies and confusion and attempting to remedy them, however you don't appear to have any interest in that.

It as meant as a joke. No harm meant. I apologize if harm was done since it was not intended.

Really? A joke? No, there was no harm done and you need not apologize. The point of that was to show you what actually constitutes a personal attack. Are you starting to understand the differences yet?

 

[A Troubled Man]

While I can't say I agree with everything he said, I certainly can agree with much of what he said including his perspective on how to treat others of differing beliefs. It seems to me he doesn't believe mocking of one's beliefs is the smartest approach as exemplified by his remarks.

Notice that Tyson understands the differences even though he states that mocking isn't the smartest approach. Notice that you said "how to treat others of differing beliefs" which would show you still don't really understand those differences.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It's a waste of time, people.

The threads dead. The topics dead.

Though we can all thank Apex for a couple of good weeks. Seriously, that's something like five or six threads spawned from his one OP.

But but but....I want to be reminded of how I'm not a good Buddhist.

You guys are no fun.

 

[Road Warrior]

You guys are no fun.

Tell me about it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Tell me about it.

Hey! I'll keep sparring with you if you keep telling me how young you think I am. Deal?

Just keep me over 18, and we're cool.

 

[Road Warrior]

You have the lightness and carefree spirit of a Twentysomething. I picture you with flowers in your hair and a muslin peasant dress frolicking barefoot through a meadow full of flowers.

This should be your theme song: [youtube]pFd4MKd6Ac8[/youtube]
Silent Running Joan Baez - YouTube

How's that?

Sorry, but gotta get to work. Have a great day, Mystic Sang'ha!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yay!

Then I pull out my whip and throw few taps on my minions as we run through the fields of green!

:hearts:

 

[Orias]

Ducks aren't people either.

What does this have to do with rebuking my analogy?

Assuming you have any understanding of what one is.

People are people. Other people are other people.

So then its settled, loved ones are not a part of us then.

Religious beliefs.

So if people didn't exist religion still would?

If you say so.

Its pretty clear, you can stick to your shallow upheaval of the topic and part ways.

Then, I can assume your confusion remains?

What kind of response is this?

This whole conversation is about your perception, not mine.

Beliefs are not arms and legs, they are ideologies. For example, the belief that Jesus is our Savior and Lord is and ideology shared by millions and was handed down through a holy book. How is that personal?

So this is an ideology then?

How does one go about not possessing any beliefs at all then?

Since ideologies hardly pertain to the actual reality.

How so?

I guess, a shallow understanding is an understanding.

Maybe now you understand the proverb.

The walls you put up, are designed to be attacked at some point or another. Just as the walls I have put up.

 

[sonofskeptish]

When religious beliefs undermine rational thought, lack common sense, and promote supernatural explanations for things, despite no evidence, or contradictory evidence, it is not only acceptable to mock such views (religious or otherwise), it should be encouraged. But that doesn't mean you should go kicking a crutch out from someone just for the hell of it.

 

[A Troubled Man]

What does this have to do with rebuking my analogy?

Assuming you have any understanding of what one is.

Since you fail to understand why people are people, walls are walls and ducks are ducks, then it is pointless to carry on.

So then its settled, loved ones are not a part of us then.

I can't see how people are part of other people. Aren't people individuals?

So if people didn't exist religion still would?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Its pretty clear, you can stick to your shallow upheaval of the topic and part ways.

If you say so. I don't see any understanding on your part here anyways, especially how you manage to arrive at conclusions.

What kind of response is this?

This whole conversation is about your perception, not mine.

It sure looks like a whole lot of misunderstanding on your part.

So this is an ideology then?

Yes, it is, by definition.

How does one go about not possessing any beliefs at all then?

By gaining understanding that replace beliefs.

The walls you put up, are designed to be attacked at some point or another. Just as the walls I have put up.

Odd, that's exactly what I was saying.

 

[Orias]

Since you fail to understand why people are people, walls are walls and ducks are ducks, then it is pointless to carry on.

Well ducks are ducks because of people and well walls exist because people built them.

You are the only one saying that I am making those comparisons yet it seems like you are the one that wants to compare them

I can't see how people are part of other people. Aren't people individuals?

If you existed solely by yourself, you would be an individual, simply because there would be no one else for you to get your ideas from.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

I said name one thing that people are not associated with and you said religion.

Heh, I think it should be obvious.

If you say so. I don't see any understanding on your part here anyways, especially how you manage to arrive at conclusions.

You don't see understanding because you don't understand, that doesn't mean I don't understand.

It sure looks like a whole lot of misunderstanding on your part.

Well they do tell you to only believe half of what you see, with that being said your misunderstanding is not my argument. Your perception is.

Yes, it is, by definition.

I'm sorry, but belief is not defined by ideologies.

That is entirely self defeating.

By gaining understanding that replace beliefs.

Like by coming up with new and better beliefs? :biglaugh:

Odd, that's exactly what I was saying.

Doubtful

 

[A Troubled Man]

Well ducks are ducks because of people

LOL! Now, that's funny.

walls exist because people built them.

People may have built walls, but people aren't walls, they are people.

If you existed solely by yourself, you would be an individual, simply because there would be no one else for you to get your ideas from.

Nonsense, I am an individual regardless of how many people exist and I can get ideas entirely on my own or from other people.

I said name one thing that people are not associated with and you said religion.

Heh, I think it should be obvious.

It is obvious, people are people and religion is religion. Just because people embrace religious ideologies does not mean those ideologies are part of those people in the same way as arms and legs.

I'm sorry, but belief is not defined by ideologies.

Did you actually read that link? Had you read it, you should have noticed there was nothing in their that supports your claim. And, had you used the very same online dictionary to look up the word 'ideology' you would have found this...

Ideology: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

ideology - definition of ideology by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Like by coming up with new and better beliefs? :biglaugh:

Funny how you're laughing yet fail to understand the difference between understanding and beliefs and how understanding replaces beliefs, just as you failed to understand ideologies and beliefs.

Keep laughing.

 

[Orias]

LOL! Now, that's funny.

It is!

Considering "duck" would be nonexistent.

People may have built walls, but people aren't walls, they are people.

Of course, but they are apart of it.

Nonsense, I am an individual regardless of how many people exist and I can get ideas entirely on my own or from other people.

How can you say that with certainty?

You say you can get ideas on your own but how do you know they are not from other people?

Would you have the same beliefs had you not had this conversation with me?


You may be an individual, just like I may be an individual, but what we consist of is common and hardly "individualistic".

It is obvious, people are people and religion is religion. Just because people embrace religious ideologies does not mean those ideologies are part of those people in the same way as arms and legs.

This is nonsense.

People control religion, without people religion would not exist. To some ideologies are a reality, simply because ideals are subject to an intersubjective perception. Therefore making the random occurrence that a persons ideals coincide with reality "like survival of the strong, depletion of the weak" more realistic than idealistic.

In the end this is all arguable though, but it can be said with a fair amount of certainty that people have a tendency to defend or fight for a belief as if a limb was at sacrifice.

With that being said, a persons beliefs essentially evolves the very person.

Did you actually read that link? Had you read it, you should have noticed there was nothing in their that supports your claim. And, had you used the very same online dictionary to look up the word 'ideology' you would have found this...

Sure it does, no where in the definition does it imply ideology unless one invokes the semantic into it. It is something that can be labeled "truthful", as we know, ideologies are rarely labeled so.

And a set of beliefs, like Christianity, is different than a belief, like "God" exists.

Ideology: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

ideology - definition of ideology by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Ideology (definition one of two)

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

Lets not forget the other part of the definition, so the standard of ideology is set by your argument.

A belief is only an ideal when someone says this is the way something should be, I have been saying this is how it is.

Funny how you're laughing yet fail to understand the difference between understanding and beliefs and how understanding replaces beliefs, just as you failed to understand ideologies and beliefs.

Keep laughing.

I will because I understand that no matter what we fathom it is simply belief.

If you can prove it be my guest.

My belief is, if you believe it, it must be true.

 

[Road Warrior]

Yay!

Then I pull out my whip and throw few taps on my minions as we run through the fields of green!

:hearts:

Ahhh! Buddhism Alex DeLarge-style.

[youtube]qa12tvOTQx8[/youtube]
A Clockwork Orange, reading the bible - YouTube

You'd look good as a Droog too.

 

[Road Warrior]

When religious beliefs undermine rational thought, lack common sense, and promote supernatural explanations for things, despite no evidence, or contradictory evidence, it is not only acceptable to mock such views (religious or otherwise), it should be encouraged. But that doesn't mean you should go kicking a crutch out from someone just for the hell of it.

I still think mocking is neither acceptable nor should be condoned, let alone encouraged, but am interested to know how you draw a difference between encouraging mocking someone who is purporting that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and "kicking the crutch out from someone".

Phil Plait gave a wonderful lecture on Active Skepticism online (the youtube link is to the 45 minute lecture is on this blog.) He presented several comments on scenarios like you mentioned. Debunk? Yes. Stand up against ignorance of science? Yes. Attack, mock, demean or ridicule? Not the best way to convince people.

As he mentioned in the lecture, you aren't trying to convince the die-hard Moon Landing Hoax believer or Fundamentalist who believe the world is 6000 years old because they are unwilling to change. Who we should be striving to persuade to be skeptical of wild, unsubstantiated claims are the fence-sitters. The people who just don't know and are skeptical of both the claims by learned experts on both sides of the fence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ahhh! Buddhism Alex DeLarge-style.

[youtube]qa12tvOTQx8[/youtube]
A Clockwork Orange, reading the bible - YouTube

You'd look good as a Droog too.

Ochen horror show!