Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[A Troubled Man]

It is!

Considering "duck" would be nonexistent.

That's hilarious. In other words, if humans didn't exist, ducks wouldn't exist.

Of course, but they are apart of it.

Ridiculous, but you're free to continue believing that nonsense.

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?

Of course, if people didn't get ideas on their own, there would be no ideas at all. Simple, really.

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

Sorry, I don't hold beliefs.

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

Wow man, pass the spliff.

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.

Those who see their beliefs that way are entirely wrong and will see that any criticisms of their beliefs are criticisms of them personally. If that were the case, these forums and many like them would have to shut down.

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.

LOL! I can't believe you're still defending after being hoisted by your own petard.

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

LOL! So, now you're saying one irrational belief is different from another irrational belief?

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.

Odd, I don't see that in the definition at all. All BOTH definitions state is that an ideology is a set of belief or a body of ideas, which is what I've been trying to explain to you and you keep rejecting it. Hoisted by your own petard.

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.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

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.

Why should I attempt to prove your lack of understanding when you have accomplished that so well yourself?

 

[Road Warrior]

It is!

Considering "duck" would be nonexistent......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".

I had to go back quite a ways to figure out the line of thinking which brought you two to this point, but I completely agree with Orias; we are what we are because of what came before us and which exists with us. It's the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory.

Poet John Donne recognized the human aspect of this in his famous Meditation XVII:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I had to go back quite a ways to figure out the line of thinking which brought you two to this point, but I completely agree with Orias; we are what we are because of what came before us and which exists with us. It's the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory.

From the link... bold is mine...

"The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in another location. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events (compare: domino effect). Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.
Note that the butterfly does not cause the tornado. The flap of the wings is a part of the initial conditions; one set of conditions leads to a tornado while the other set of conditions doesn't."

The explanation above primarily refutes the claim and only supports it in a very small way.

 

[Orias]

That's hilarious. In other words, if humans didn't exist, ducks wouldn't exist.

It is a parody, since "duck" is a word that applies beyond the intended object. In consideration, the object may exist without us but the word may not.

And also, if you consider the evolutionary chain, the possibility could literally be there as well.

Ridiculous, but you're free to continue believing that nonsense.

Why is it ridiculous?

Are you offended?

If you are thats the whole point, you feel your wall (and maybe your own self) is in danger. But all I wish to do is add onto it.

Of course, if people didn't get ideas on their own, there would be no ideas at all. Simple, really.

True.

But we are talking about the individual, the individual may have an idea, but it is the other people that apparently deem it worthy of their adoption.

Sorry, I don't hold beliefs.

You can't hold anything else friend.

This statement is one the most asinine I've read over my years on the forums.

Wow man, pass the spliff.

Should I report this?

Nah, but I could.

Just remember what this argument is all about, if you wish to understand.

Those who see their beliefs that way are entirely wrong and will see that any criticisms of their beliefs are criticisms of them personally. If that were the case, these forums and many like them would have to shut down.

Doubtful.

First you generalize, then you contradict yourself.

They are entirely wrong, yet are you going to prove it?

What is right?

LOL! I can't believe you're still defending after being hoisted by your own petard.

Well a belief is different from a set of beliefs.

Though a belief can consist of a set of beliefs, a belief can also be individualistic like you and me.

LOL! So, now you're saying one irrational belief is different from another irrational belief?

No, I'm saying that a set of beliefs is different from an individual belief.

You say they are both irrational, I say only one is irrational and the other is most likely beyond your fetid perception.

Again though, lets not forget what the argument is about.

Odd, I don't see that in the definition at all. All BOTH definitions state is that an ideology is a set of belief or a body of ideas, which is what I've been trying to explain to you and you keep rejecting it. Hoisted by your own petard.

No, not "all both" definitions state that an ideology is a set of beliefs or a body of ideas.

One says that a belief is something said to be true and the other says that an ideal is a set of ideas that an individual poses as virtuous or true.

This applies to both of us, my petard is more of a doomsday device too by the way. Metaphorically speaking

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Then stop pushing your ideals on me

Why should I attempt to prove your lack of understanding when you have accomplished that so well yourself?

Because you can't? And I asked you to prove that you don't hold beliefs, not my lack of understanding which you seem so keen on trying to figure out.

I'll follow up with a couple of relevant points which should expose your true intent here.



My first post (that you replied too)...

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.

Your third response...

The fact that attacking a wall is just attacking a wall and nothing else.

My seventh post (in response to you).

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

Your sixth post.

Odd, that's exactly what I was saying.

So maybe you see the problem here.

If the the walls are the only thing being attacked, then why did you go on such a spree?

I'll also note that on your second response to me you seemed pretty intent on disagreeing with me already.

 

[Road Warrior]

Note that the butterfly does not cause the tornado. The flap of the wings is a part of the initial conditions; one set of conditions leads to a tornado while the other set of conditions doesn't."

The explanation above primarily refutes the claim and only supports it in a very small way.

I never said it did, but your sophmoric straw man arguments are well known by many here.

The point is, the butterfly was part of the initial conditions. Without it, the particular tornado in question wouldn't have happened, but that doesn't mean tornadoes wouldn't exist.

Without your parents and the way things were in their community when they were born, you wouldn't be you since they might have never met is something like a "butterfly" didn't help set up the initial conditions. We see it in our daily lives all the time. The things that happened to us yesterday affect us today and, therefore, tomorrow.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I never said it did, but your sophmoric straw man arguments are well known by many here.

LOL! Really? You speak for others, you are the authority here? LOL!

You are free to point out any strawman argument if you wish, but I have yet to see you do that.

The point is, the butterfly was part of the initial conditions. Without it, the particular tornado in question wouldn't have happened, but that doesn't mean tornadoes wouldn't exist.

It states quite emphatically (had you read it) that the butterfly does NOT cause the tornado and that if a tornado did arise, the butterfly was merely a part of the initial conditions, just like so many other conditions that would need to arise in order for the tornado to exist, and if those other conditions required for a tornado to arise were not available, the tornado would not exist.

Without your parents and the way things were in their community when they were born, you wouldn't be you since they might have never met is something like a "butterfly" didn't help set up the initial conditions. We see it in our daily lives all the time. The things that happened to us yesterday affect us today and, therefore, tomorrow.

Now, THAT is a strawman argument.

 

[A Troubled Man]

It is a parody, since "duck" is a word that applies beyond the intended object. In consideration, the object may exist without us but the word may not.

LOL! So, you are actually focusing on the word "duck" as opposed to the actual fowl itself. Why didn't you just say so?

Why is it ridiculous?

Are you offended?

LOL! I won't bother repeating myself.

If you are thats the whole point, you feel your wall (and maybe your own self) is in danger. But all I wish to do is add onto it.

Sorry, but I see no walls, just myself.

But we are talking about the individual, the individual may have an idea, but it is the other people that apparently deem it worthy of their adoption.

That is entirely irrelevant to one forming ideas and is a fallacy from popularity and authority.

You can't hold anything else friend.

This statement is one the most asinine I've read over my years on the forums.

I do understand how others can only hold beliefs and how they can't fathom how others don't hold beliefs, so yes, that may very well be asinine to you.

Just remember what this argument is all about, if you wish to understand.

I have yet to see any understanding on your part.

Well a belief is different from a set of beliefs.

Though a belief can consist of a set of beliefs, a belief can also be individualistic like you and me.

No, I'm saying that a set of beliefs is different from an individual belief.

No, not "all both" definitions state that an ideology is a set of beliefs or a body of ideas.

LOL! Hilarious.

 

[Road Warrior]

The point is, the butterfly was part of the initial conditions. Without it, the particular tornado in question wouldn't have happened, but that doesn't mean tornadoes wouldn't exist.

It states quite emphatically (had you read it) that the butterfly does NOT cause the tornado and that if a tornado did arise, the butterfly was merely a part of the initial conditions, just like so many other conditions that would need to arise in order for the tornado to exist, and if those other conditions required for a tornado to arise were not available, the tornado would not exist.

I hear an echo.....but I am also reminded again of why conversing with you is a fruitless endeavor and a huge waste of time.

Have a nice day, man. I hope your troubles end soon.

 

[Orias]

I hear an echo.....but I am also reminded again of why conversing with you is a fruitless endeavor and a huge waste of time.

Have a nice day, man. I hope your troubles end soon.

I know, its kind of like talking to a wall.

His responses turned into, "LOL!" and are no longer coherent (as if they were in the first place).

Though I can assume that it is within his perception that he is making an example of my point, which in essence he did a great job of. Though one must also be reminded that to make an example of my point one must of been offended.

Best regards and Xeper

 

[A Troubled Man]

I hear an echo.....but I am also reminded again of why conversing with you is a fruitless endeavor and a huge waste of time.

Have a nice day, man. I hope your troubles end soon.

Yes, I see why you eventually stoop to personal attacks and then leave. Your beliefs preclude facts and understanding.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Though I can assume that it is within his perception that he is making an example of my point, which in essence he did a great job of. Though one must also be reminded that to make an example of my point one must of been offended.

Yes, you can justify your misunderstanding any way you wish.

Birds of a feather.

 

[A Troubled Man]

BTW gents, there are some very good introductory beginners courses and explanations of Chaos Theory on the web, you might want to look into them.

 

[Road Warrior]

I see mocking, regardless of what is being mocked, as a form of bullying:

Bullying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of power. It can include verbal harassment, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability. The "imbalance of power" may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a "target".

Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse – emotional, verbal, and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as intimidation.

As Phil Plait asked in his speech on the matter, "How many here changed their beliefs because they were mocked?" Sure, a person may shut up, withdraw or otherwise stop communicating with the "bully" or other mockers, but that doesn't change their beliefs. The downside is that people, specifically fence sitters or even those on the same side as the bully/mocker, may sympathize with the victim. If the purpose is to persuade a person to believe a different way, then mocking, bullying or other forms of aggressive behavior are a poor way to do it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I see mocking, regardless of what is being mocked, as a form of bullying:

Bullying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hang on a second there...

"Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of power."

That is very interesting.
Because, if, for something to be considered bullying, there has to be an imbalance of power in favour of the bully, that means that nothing directed against theism in general and Christianity in particular, cannot be considered bullying.

 

[Road Warrior]

Because, if, for something to be considered bullying, there has to be an imbalance of power in favour of the bully, that means that nothing directed against theism in general and Christianity in particular, cannot be considered bullying.

Disagreed. "imbalance of power" is situational. Five atheists can bully a Jewish member on this forum for his/her beliefs regardless of how many atheists and Jews exist in the larger population.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Disagreed. "imbalance of power" is situational. Five atheists can bully a Jewish member on this forum for his/her beliefs regardless of how many atheists and Jews exist in the larger population.

Fair enough, but I've met way too many Christians who cry bullying and claim the role of the persecuted in society to accept that that is the only context we're discussing.
If you're a part of the majority and your side has almost all the power you can't claim to be the victim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see mocking, regardless of what is being mocked, as a form of bullying:

Bullying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As Phil Plait asked in his speech on the matter, "How many here changed their beliefs because they were mocked?" Sure, a person may shut up, withdraw or otherwise stop communicating with the "bully" or other mockers, but that doesn't change their beliefs.

I don't think this is true as a general rule.

Right after Plait's speech first made the news, I remember a few atheist podcasters talking about how ridicule of their beliefs (and themselves for holding those beliefs) was the wake-up call they needed to re-evaluate them. They put their guard up while they were in the actual argument, but when they got home, they got to wondering whether the other person had a point.

It might not always be the most effective approach, and it probably doesn't work in every situation, but I don't think you can say it's never effective. The best that you can say is that using mockery need judgement and discretion.

It's like the tool analogy I brought up before: I think I've used a ball joint puller only 2 or 3 times in my life. I don't spend a lot of time removing ball joints, and when I do, a lot of the time they come off without needing a puller. 99% of the time, it's not the tool for the job... but this has no bearing on whether it's the right tool that other 1% of the time.

The downside is that people, specifically fence sitters or even those on the same side as the bully/mocker, may sympathize with the victim. If the purpose is to persuade a person to believe a different way, then mocking, bullying or other forms of aggressive behavior are a poor way to do it.

So this ad (part of MTV's "real idiots drive drunk" campaign) makes you sympathize with drunk drivers, then?

[youtube]JE4Bc2qu1Y0[/youtube]
MTV: Real idiots drive drunk - YouTube

 

[Road Warrior]

So this ad (part of MTV's "real idiots drive drunk" campaign) makes you sympathize with drunk drivers, then?

Up to your old tricks again, eh? Have a nice day, 9/10.

 

[Road Warrior]

Fair enough, but I've met way too many Christians who cry bullying and claim the role of the persecuted in society to accept that that is the only context we're discussing.
If you're a part of the majority and your side has almost all the power you can't claim to be the victim.

I completely agree that many cries from Christians about "attack on Christmas" and other whining are BS. OTOH, a person, even a person in the majority, can be a victim. Example: Reginald Denny

The problem, IMO, is anyone who advocates doing one thing, such as bullying, mocking, whatever, when it works for them, but disputing it when it works against them. That's hypocrisy pure and simple. Yes, certain Christian groups are guilty of it. Does them mean it's okay to use the same tactics against them? Fight fire with fire? I think not...unless one doesn't mind burning down the entire house. We should work smarter, not harder.

As mentioned previously, it is important to look at our goals and act accordingly. Our goal is secular government, not dividing the USA into "us and them".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Up to your old tricks again, eh? Have a nice day, 9/10.

Asking reasonable questions about the impications of your argument is not a "trick".