Is it really that difficult to accept that there is a huge difference between...

[cleanhippie]

ridicule of a belief and ridicule of a person?


Why is this concept so difficult for people to understand. Even if you are one who (purposely or ignorantly) equivocates the two, you would find yourself guilty of doing just that when you mock a belief you find ridiculous, such as the belief that Obama is a muslim socialist.

If you find that mocking a persons beliefs is the same as mocking a person, then you must hold that the belief that President Obama is a muslim socialist is a valid and respectable belief. So do you, or do you find that belief to be ridiculous?


Any belief or idea (religious, political, philosophical, whatever...) that is held to be true without merit, evidence, or basis in reality, is ridiculous.

Just think about it. You'll get it.

[seabeyond]

1. why is ridicule necessary if you are actually wanting a discussion

on differing views. ridicule... regardless of a person or a belief is still ridicule.

[cleanhippie]

2. I feel like you did not grasp the point of my post.

Ridicule is what we do when a belief or opinion is, well, ridiculous.

What possible positive conversation can result when talking with someone who believes that Obama is a muslim socialist?

[seabeyond]

3. i did absolutely grasp your point. and since you see that it is an absolute necessity

to ridicule what you dont agree with, i am going to suggest that you are the one that does not understand. can i ridicule? that would be your answer, not mine.

i would prefer to discuss.

this is religion. i assume you are talking about the right to ridicule religion and expect or demand for people to not be offended. because after all, you are ridiculing religion and not the person. yet people believe in what they do, and a very big part of who they are, so as much as you demand another not being offended, it would take a special someone to not be offended. which really is the purpose of your ridiculing.

you say that it is supposed to be obvious since it is the ridiculous, that you would ridicule. the obvious, is others dont think it is ridiculous. you do, they dont.

then you demand they not be offended when that is clearly your intent, to offend with ridicule.

[cleanhippie]

4. How much respect do you have for the belief that Obama is a muslim socialist?

Seriously? How much respect do you give that belief?

[seabeyond]

5. the example you are using is not the same as religion. that is why i ignored it

and spoke about your true intent, the right to ridicule religion with the demand others not be offended.

[cleanhippie]

6. It is a belief like any other. It is exactly the same.

Unless you are trying to tell me that religious belief is deserving of a different standard than other beliefs?

[seabeyond]

8. you cannot prove there is not a god. you can prove obama is not.... whatever. nt

[cleanhippie]

10. Are you telling me that religious belief is deserving of a different standard than other beliefs?

And you cannot prove that there is a god, but that makes no difference to this conversation.


A belief is a belief, regardless of what KIND of belief it is, and if that belief is held to be true without merit, evidence, or basis in reality, then it is, by definition, ridiculous.

Are you telling me that religious belief is deserving of a different standard than other beliefs?

[seabeyond]

11. i have stated what i meant cleanhippie. you dont get it, that is fine. nt

[cleanhippie]

12. You are applying a double-standard, but have yet to explain why.

A belief is a belief, regardless of what KIND of belief it is, and if that belief is held to be true without merit, evidence, or basis in reality, then it is, by definition, ridiculous.

Are you telling me that religious belief is deserving of a different standard than other beliefs? Why?

[seabeyond]

14. no. i am not applying a double standard. you refuse to hear my position and DEMAND i accept your

fabricated interpretation of the argument which i refuse to do. hence, do i get to mock? nah. immature at best.

[cleanhippie]

16. Yet you are doing just that, and refusing to answer a simple, direct question.

Are you telling me that religious belief is deserving of a different standard than other beliefs? Why?


That is my question to you. I am not mocking, I am not ridiculing, I am asking you a question in order to better understand your position, something you claimed in your initial response that I was not doing. I do not understand how you can hold what seems to me to be a very self-contradictory position, for I see ALL beliefs to be just that, beliefs. You seem to want to separate different types of beliefs into categories that garner different levels of respect, and I want to know why you feel that way.



So again, I ask, Are you telling me that religious belief is deserving of a different standard than other beliefs? Why?

[seabeyond]

18. i did not come in here and reply to a post about demanding people not be offended with ridicule

to discuss "Are you telling me that religious belief is deserving of a different standard than other beliefs? Why? "

you again, can DEMAND that i discuss this shift in conversation. and i can equally say.... no. that was not the point of your post and that was not the point of my reply.

you seem to feel that you can make demands on others and they must submit or face ????

[cleanhippie]

20. Had I demanded anything of the sort, then you would have a point.

You seem to have inferred something from my post that I had not implied. If you are going to focus on what you inferred from my post instead of what I actually meant, despite me trying to clarify my intent for you again and again, I do not see how we can continue.

Thank you for your time.

[seabeyond]

22. cant you tell the difference of ridicule of religion as opposed to the person. think about it.

i think that is exactly what you are saying. when ridiculing religion the religious are not supposed to be offended. tell me how else one takes that post?

[cleanhippie]

25. I do not know how my postion can be made any clearer.

I have attempted to remove "religion" from the equation by providing an example of a belief held by many people in this country, which is that Obama is a muslim socialist. If you are able, for just one or two posts, to focus on that question, and that question alone, I feel that my point may just get a bit clearer to you. Will you try?

So I will ask again, is the belief that Obama is a muslim socialist, ridiculous?

[seabeyond]

31. i dont know how i can be more clear, that your position on religion cannot be equated to

your argument of obama. so, for me, that is a mute point.

but... as i probably said initially, no... i would not use ridicule and mockery to argue that either. i think it is a lazy, immature way of making a point.

but, again

you seem incapable of idenitfying a religious belief of a person with an OPINION on what another person is. that is two different animals.

[cleanhippie]

32. You have been clear on that, but have yet to explain why.

WHY are the two questions not equated? Why does a religious question deserve more respect than a non-religious one? THAT is the heart of my argument.



On edit: I see that you are giving the words belief and opinion two different meanings when they are synonymous.

From the websters definition of opinion : a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.


From your posts, I infer that you feel that religious beliefs are a very different thing than a persons opinion on any other subject. Am I reading you correctly?

[seabeyond]

35. this is the point. you are (see, i cant say the word cause you turn it to slang and my post gets

hidden. you want to ridicule and mock, but i cant use a perfectly fine word without being accused of an attack) without clue? about belief in god. so you do not get the difference. you dont experience it. you do not know it. you do not understand it. so you have no idea why a belief of god is different from believing obama is a socialist. and there is no way in hell you will understand anything, anyone says to you.

i have said it repeatedly and often. you dont get it. so it is what we say

agree to disagree

just dont demand people not be offended when you ridicule and mock

[cleanhippie]

39. Sigh. I never demanded any such thing, you incorrectly inferred that, despite my attempts to correct

that.

You are right, that if you cannot see how the belief in one absurd concept (Obama being a muslim socialist) is exactly the same as the belief in another absurd concept (for example, the belief that Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs), we will never find common ground. And that makes me sad.

Unless you AGREE that the belief that Obama is a socialist muslim and the belief that Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs are equally absurd? Because from your argument up to this point, you say that there IS a difference between the two beliefs. Do you still hold that opinion when comparing these two examples?

[Silent3]

71. So the "you can't prove me wrong" defense...

...is sufficient to confer respectability upon a belief, to move it from what you agree is worthy of mockery to that which should be off limits?

No matter how wildly unlikely an idea might seem to you, so long as the idea is constructed so as to lie carefully beyond the reach of disproof?

You say that the idea of Obama being a Muslim socialist -- hey, let's make it Kenyan-born Muslim socialist -- has been disproved, but disproved to whose satisfaction? Obviously not to the satisfaction of those who thinks this is true of Obama. Such believers combine that belief with the belief that any evidence to the contrary is part of a conspiracy or cover-up.

Can you prove those supposed conspiracies and cover-ups are false? Again, to whose satisfaction? Anything that a person wants to believe is true can be moved beyond disproof.

What about the religious belief that the Earth is 6000 years old? Mockable, or not mockable? Can you prove that scientists haven't faked the contrary evidence, that it isn't their "hatred of God" or "worship of materialism" that cause them to fail to see, or worse, cover up, the "clear evidence" of a young Earth?

What about an adult believing in Santa Claus? Mockable, or not?

Belief in invisible pink unicorns (which do occasionally become visible, but only to True Believers in invisible pink unicorns)? Mockable, or not?

Is belief in the virgin birth of Jesus really all that much different on the "well, you can't prove it didn't happen!" scale of things?

[seabeyond]

72. mmm, i believe the discussion was to expect to be able to ridicule without a person being offended

that simple. that is what i am addressing. repeatedly

[Silent3]

77. As I just said in other post, of course many people take offense...

...when you criticize what they believe. But should a person's readiness to take offense confer immunity from criticism or from ridicule on their beliefs?

I think you're creating a false dispute where there is no dispute as a diversion from the question of why some beliefs are worthy of mockery and others are not.

You invoked the "can't prove me wrong" defense yourself. If your only purpose in this discussion was to address whether or not people will be offended when you mock their beliefs, why even bring up that supposedly important distinction?

And why do you work so hard to avoid the questions you've been asked? If you'd asked me what the atomic weight of boron is out of the blue, I'd humor you, simply look it up, answer you regardless of how much I was scratching my head about why you asked, maybe ask why you asked, and move on.

Why is that so hard to do? Aren't you making it pretty damn clear that you don't like where the answers lead by working so hard to avoid answering? Are you always so "religiously" devoted to sticking narrowly to what you insist is your only reason for discussing an issue?

I repeat:

So the "you can't prove me wrong" defense is sufficient to confer respectability upon a belief, to move it from what you agree is worthy of mockery to that which should be off limits?

No matter how wildly unlikely an idea might seem to you, so long as the idea is constructed so as to lie carefully beyond the reach of disproof?

You say that the idea of Obama being a Muslim socialist -- hey, let's make it Kenyan-born Muslim socialist -- has been disproved, but disproved to whose satisfaction? Obviously not to the satisfaction of those who thinks this is true of Obama. Such believers combine that belief with the belief that any evidence to the contrary is part of a conspiracy or cover-up.

Can you prove those supposed conspiracies and cover-ups are false? Again, to whose satisfaction? Anything that a person wants to believe is true can be moved beyond disproof.

What about the religious belief that the Earth is 6000 years old? Mockable, or not mockable? Can you prove that scientists haven't faked the contrary evidence, that it isn't their "hatred of God" or "worship of materialism" that cause them to fail to see, or worse, cover up, the "clear evidence" of a young Earth?

What about an adult believing in Santa Claus? Mockable, or not?

Belief in invisible pink unicorns (which do occasionally become visible, but only to True Believers in invisible pink unicorns)? Mockable, or not?

Is belief in the virgin birth of Jesus really all that much different on the "well, you can't prove it didn't happen!" scale of things?

[seabeyond]

80. i didnt bring it up, and if you will take note the poster

continually threw out the argument of religion and obama and then another argument.

i have tried to hold to only one position in this discussion.

i slipped a little at one point to address his continued questioning that took me away from the reason i even posted in this thread, in this forum

[Silent3]

81. Wow, just like a sleazy politician on a talk show

You know you're talking points, and you're gonna stick with 'em no matter what, especially when you know that actually answering the questions won't leaving you looking good.

[seabeyond]

82. yes. i replied to the poster that demanded that people not be offended.

we have the choice what we discuss on the discussion board. since i wanted to discuss a person stating ridiculing a belief should not offend people, i addressed that.

sleazy politician... ? you working at insult here? i am not allowed to address the only issue i am interested in?

what is it with yours and others insistence that people must do what you say, or incur insult, mockery, ridicule?

[Silent3]

83. You're allowed to address whatever you like

Just as I'm allowed to rate as highly probable an unfavorable interpretation of why you won't address very easy to address questions.

Edit to add another point: expressing a hope or desire that people understand and acknowledge the difference between ridicule of an idea and ridicule of the whole person of the believer in that idea, or expressing exasperation that people don't understand that distinction, is not a DEMAND!!! that people not get offended.

[seabeyond]

84. i am allowed to address whatever, which results in insults....

i dont discuss religion on du. that was not the issue i discussed from post one. i am sure i am not the only member of du that refuses to discuss religion on du. because it inevitably leads to insults, mockery and ridicule. not something i favor.

you want to approach members of du with assumptions, then go at it.

[Silent3]

85. Since you responded before I could edit my previous post to add...

...this point, I'll repeat it here:

Expressing a hope or desire that people understand and acknowledge the difference between ridicule of an idea and ridicule of the whole person of the believer in that idea, or expressing exasperation that people don't understand that distinction, is not a DEMAND!!! that people not get offended.

As for you not discussing religion on DU, that avoidance itself is part and parcel of putting religion up on a special pedestal that I don't think it deserves. Religions should be just as open to criticism as political viewpoints or any other area of human ideas and philosophies.

[seabeyond]

86. silent

i live in the panhandle of texas. i am a calif that moved here two decades ago. i knew nothing about the fundamentalist religion prior to moving here. i put my kids in the best private i could find. the only ones are christian. i had 6 yrs of their version of christian religion. i had 6 yrs of walking thru with kids keeping them balanced and healthy in a very unhealthy environment. i spent 6 years listening, discussing, learning, understanding what was happening at the time of the christian coalition explosion. and i did it all without ridicule, mocking, or insult.

i CHOOSE not to discuss religion any longer.

again, your assumptions of my motives are wrong.

[Silent3]

88. At least in this last comment, where did I say anything about motivations?

Whatever your motives, you appear to be treating religion as a special, privileged subject matter where special care must be taken to avoid "ridicule, mocking, or insult".

Do you take as much care in other areas of discourse? If not, why? (I fully expect for you to ignore or evade that question -- so there is no "demand" that you answer there.)

Your success in avoiding insult could be questioned as well. While your wording is mild, describing the fundamentalist religion that surrounds you for creating a "very unhealthy environment" could certainly be taken as an insulting evaluation of your neighbor's religious beliefs.

[seabeyond]

89. you are funny

i have specified that ridicule is an immature manner for discussion or debate. i might have even stated that i dont use ridicule when debating other issues. but no, i do not find it to be a productive form of discussion. and i certainly would not expect for someone not to be offended if i did use ridicule. because i know, if i choose ridicule, it would be with the intent to offend. it cannot be any other way.

you have stated why i dont answer a question, why i dont talk religion and you have been wrong. that is assigning a motive to me.

the fundamentalist religion my children were in was unhealthy. for many many many reasons. and for a couple reasons i allowed the kids to stay in it. for more important reasons i pulled them out. it is my interpretation and experience and opinion that it was unhealthy. that is not insult, mocking and ridicule.

[Silent3]

93. I'm sure "funny" was meant only as praise...

...for my charming sense of humor, since we now all know that you never would use mockery or insult as a means of making a point.

And where did I state why you don't talk about religion? I said that avoiding criticism of religion, religion in particular, puts religion on a special pedestal. I believe that this the end result of such targeted avoidance, whether you intend that end result or not. Your motivation is irrelevant to that assessment.

I also note your continued avoidance of outstanding questions which have been posed to you, and give you no credit for that being the result of a laudable, principled stand, however you describe or don't describe your motives for that oh-so-convenient-in-this-context policy.

[seabeyond]

94. funny... was making me chuckle. but i am done here. nt

[Silent3]

96. Ah, yes, pointing out that something you're in obvious disagreement with...

...is making you chuckle could NEVER be considered mockery. I'm sure that whenever you notify someone that their opinions make you laugh, you always do so with the utmost courtesy and respect.

[Starboard Tack]

51. His "true intent"? Ah yes, one can only wonder what that is.

Maybe he'd like it if we ridiculed him for his lack of belief, which we have no reason to do. But he deserves ridicule for his actions and his attitude. He badgers and bullies, mocks others for their differing views, decries belief in all it's forms. Yes, one can only wonder what his true intent is. I think it's just a way of getting attention. Most of the time I ignore him, as do many. I don't think he likes that.

I'm not a believer, but I remember a lot of good lessons from when I was, like tolerance and "do unto others". I think a lot of fellow atheists had really bad experiences with the church and feel very hostile towards anyone who supports religion, in any way. I never had a bad experience, personally, with the church. In fact, I enjoyed my involvement very much. The fellowship was the best thing. I just stopped believing in the basic tenets of the faith. Couldn't get my head around them and still can't, but for those who can, I say "More power to them", as long as nobody tries to shove their beliefs or views down my throat.

[cleanhippie]

52. When you say "maybe we should ridicule HIM..."

You have made it a personal attack and are ridiculing a person, not a belief.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Bravo! How does it feel?

But I wasn't attacking your because of your beliefs, just your actions.

[seabeyond]

54. i am kinda in the same place as you

i can argue religion and disagree. i think mockery and ridicule is a wrong approach. and i certainly dont expect people to not be offended if i choose that approach. the whole purpose is to offend. seems like a silly position to have.

i am well versed in this posters style.....

kinda like continued accusations of personal attack and then get a post hidden...

[skepticscott]

63. Most people here see no problem mocking

Republicans, conservatives, Freepers, libertarians, etc, when they proclaim things that are patently, demonstrably ridiculous, or in cheering on others who do it, and I'll wager they consider that they have every right to do so.

The question is, why do religion and religious believers demand a free pass from the same type of criticism, when they proclaim things that are equally ridiculous and at odds with reality?

[seabeyond]

73. i dont know about most people. plenty of people choose not to mock

but if a person does want to argue thru mockery, then seems silly to demand the person not be offended. no one started this thread with do not mock religion. the thread starter was in mocking, dont be offended.

[Starboard Tack]

48. Yes, but you ridicule the holders of the belief

I think it's fine to ridicule a belief or a religious institution, but ridiculing an individual on the basis of his beliefs or affiliation with an institution is unnecessary and demonstrates bigotry. Would you like to be judged as a person because of your atheism or your passion for firearms? I think not. Why can't you see others as flawed individuals, as we all are, who deserve the respect you would like to have bestowed on you? You don't solve bullying by becoming one yourself.
It's fine to ridicule an individual for their actions, but not their beliefs. Manners may not make the man, but they sure as hell help.

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Many ideas are so demonstrably wrong or ridiculous that they deserve nothing more than ridicule.

Ideas and beliefs are NOT sacred, and they don't have a right to not be mocked.

[seabeyond]

9. and here we differ. i dont know that i have ever used "mocking" to argue a point.

on edit... i am not saying one is not able or allowed to use mocking. nowhere do you read i say that. it is challenging the person that then demands.... the other person not be offended with the ridiculing or mockery

[Humanist_Activist]

13. Oh, for crying out loud, we aren't saying religious people can't be offended!

Hell, they are so oversensitive, they are offended by everything, I'm sure the grass offends them on some level if they aren't already allergic to it.

We just like to correct people and say its not like we questioned the virtue of their mothers, or kicking their dogs, they are so nutty about their beliefs that if atheists don't toe their line, we risk getting attacked, physically. That is what we object to.

[seabeyond]

15. we aren't saying religious people can't be offended!

that is exactly what the first post was demanding, which is what i addressed. repeatedly. consistently.

as you continue your mockery of them as people and not their position. but then, i guess you would just ridicule that argument and say, really, you are not talking about the person but their beliefs, why should the be offended.

"they are so oversensitive, they are offended by everything" "they are so nutty about their beliefs"

right. nothing personal there.

[cleanhippie]

17. What is the difference between saying that the belief that Obama is a muslim socialist is rediculous

and saying that the belief in transubstantiation is ridiculous?

[seabeyond]

19. post 8. i already answered. nt

[cleanhippie]

21. Your "answer" is rediculous.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your time.

[seabeyond]

23. it isnt rIdiculous. i promise. you cannot prove there is a god. we can prove

obama is not whatever

but yes, i like to get to the point of agreeing to disagree. two perspectives. thanks. all the guys are outside doing work. i have to go out and help, or .... it will look like i am doing the role thing.

[cleanhippie]

26. And you cannot prove that there is a god.

And I never made any claim about god at all here, because that has nothing to do with this conversation.

[cleanhippie]

30. You are applying a different logic to the same question.

This toon kind of sums it up...

[seabeyond]

37. no. you are arguing two different arguments. nt

[cleanhippie]

40. No, Im not. And that is where our differences lay.

Lets try another exercise along the same lines, ok?


Label the following two beliefs as reasonable or absurd.

Obama is a muslim socialist.

Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs

Are these beliefs reasonable or absurd, and why.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. I'm making remarkably accurate observation of oversensitive religious people. n/t

[seabeyond]

36. in your opinion. or you are insulting them, in others opinion.

i mean... really?

[Goblinmonger]

49. so if I say I believe women are inferior to men

You are going to respect that belief?

[seabeyond]

53. i didnt insist anyone respect differing opinion. i argued one cannt demand someone not be offended

when they use ridicule for argument.

people work really hard to misrepresent what is actually said. i dont respect that much either.

[Goblinmonger]

75. I will remember you said that

next time I happen upon a thread where you and others are ridiculing someone for what you perceive to be sexist or misogynistic beliefs.

[seabeyond]

79. you do that goblin.... and i challenge you to find a thread where i either mock or ridicule

someone i disagree with.

hey... how about starting on this thread.

yup, i hold you to that.

[SATIRical]

87. That's just stupid

Only a fool would think such a thing.

See how much I just accomplished?

[cbayer]

24. The TOS for this site includes a person's religion as one area where bigotry is not permitted.

"Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic."

As with the other groups, ridicule or contempt towards other members based on their religious beliefs is a TOS violation.

You are correct here. The comparisons being offered to you are bogus.

[cleanhippie]

27. You mean like saying "creationists are all dumbasses" ? Is that bigotry?

[Starboard Tack]

56. Of course that's bigotry.

Saying creationism is a dumb idea is not. Bigotry is about labeling groups of people negatively, based solely on their religious beliefs, which are personal and vary from individual to individual, even among creationists, believe it or not.

[MineralMan]

57. Absolutely correct.

Saying that creationism is a superstitious concept based on mythology finally written down after being shared around campfires by a group of itinerant sheepherders who lived several thousand years ago is not bigotry. Wondering why anyone believes such a thing in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence is not bigotry.

Calling someone a moron for believing such a thing is bigotry. That's why I would not do that.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Thank you. Respect!

[cbayer]

60. To be clear, he is referring to a post in which I called a group of Texas legislators

dumbasses after they passed a bill that would require creationism to be taught as a science. It was pointed at a specific group of people who had done a specific thing.

Hilariously, he posted a response in which he agreed with what I had said.

For some reason, this has become a weapon with which some members here feel they can attack me as being a bigot. It's very weak and very stale, but the irony continues to tickle my funny bone.

[cbayer]

61. Adding a link to the post (it was Indiana not Texas, btw)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=7654

I have been ignoring this up to now, but it's become increasingly distorted and for the member who posted "I couldn't agree more" (along with others) to be using it to try and smear me requires a response at this point.

[Goblinmonger]

76. How is that being distorted?

Certainly you aren't claiming you are being taken out of context because he has posted pretty much your entire post verbatim?

Just admit you were being hypocritical. It's not that hard, really.

[skepticscott]

62. Not as a bigot, but as a hypocrite

Because you go around scolding and upbraiding anyone else on the board that you perceive is mocking or denigrating others because of their beliefs, or anyone who engages in what you decide is "broadbrushing". Like here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=15829 ("I don't think people that primarily care about truth and accuracy are inclined to mock others.&quot Apparently calling people "dumbasses" doesn't count as mocking in your neck of the woods. Either that, or you don't care much about truth and accuracy. You applied the broadbrush label "dumbasses" to an entire group of people that you've never met and never talked to because of one thing they did.

I know you'd like to make this go away by trying to dismiss it as "very weak and very stale", but you still said it and still think it now just as much as you did then. Count on being reminded of it every time you point that finger at others.

[cbayer]

66. .

[skepticscott]

97. Cute, but irrelevant

This is about hypocrisy, displayed by a host of this group. If you can't address that, fine, but expect it to be brought up again until you do.

[cbayer]

99. Host privileges

Group Hosts have the following abilities in their assigned groups:

Lock thread (Reason: Violates this forum's Statement of Purpose)
Once, I believe, when the host consensus was that an OP belonged in H & M

Lock thread (Reason not specified)
Once, an anti-atheist screed posted by a nuked troll.

Pin & lock thread
Never

Pin thread
Never

Block a member from the group
Once, with mod consensus. Member is a strong theist who was felt to be disrupting. Temporary ban.

Make a member a Host of the group
Never

Remove a Host of the group
Never

Now, I have never met a person who did not show some kind of hypocrisy at some point, and surely I have. If I didn't, I might be deemed a saint, which I surely am not. Being hypocritical at times is human, but it does not make one a hypocrite. Your perception that I am a hypocrite is your perception. It does not make it true.

I am a person of integrity and I object to you implying that any hypocritical behavior on my part makes me unfit to host this group. I have never, in my role as host, done anything that would put my integrity on the line.

You don't like my behavior or attitude as a participant in this group, but it has nothing to do with my ability to fairly host it. If I am incorrect about this and the members feel otherwise, they can petition any host above me to remove me (RenewDeal and murielvolestrangler).

Any questions?

[skepticscott]

104. My claim that you are a hypocrite

is based on the fact that you continue to scold and criticize posters for mocking others for their beliefs, while enthusiastically and unapologetically doing the same yourself. You yourself have stated that people who mock others for their beliefs don't care much about truth and accuracy...since you do mock others, how does that speak for your integrity and ability to host? And it certainly isn't just MY "perception". Try leading by example, or keep your scolds to yourself.

And if being hypocritical doesn't make one a hypocrite, what does?

[Goblinmonger]

78. If I or cleanhippie or another "militant" atheist posted what you did

about a specific group of believers, you and others would have had your little side conversation about how inappropriate it was and you know it.

You called a group of people dumbasses because of their religious beliefs. That you then come on here and talk about atheists being bad because they do the same thing is the only ironic this around here. At least cleanhippie and I and others fully admit that nothing is above ridicule.

That you can't see that you are doing the same thing you poo-poo atheists for doing on here really, in my opinion, casts a bad light on you as a host of this forum (and I supported you initially). Own up to it and lay off those of us that do the SAME THING you did with creationists.

[2ndAmForComputers]

64. "Of course that's bigotry. Saying creationism is a dumb idea is not." The problem is...

...if you (correctly) describe the spectacularly, ginormously cosmic level of dumbth that creationism is, the logical conclusion is that people who espouse such an idea are, themselves, dumb, and not in a small way.

So a creationist who's around will jump and say he's been personally attacked. And he kind of has a point, except such attack is not unwarranted and constitutes a statement of fact.

Ironically, he's correctly using logic for a change.

[Starboard Tack]

68. If a creationist puts his belief on the table for discussion

then he is open to all criticism of that belief. That does not excuse insulting his intelligence or mocking him for his personal faith. Example: I was traveling through the Arizona desert a few years ago with a close friend and we stopped to visit the meteor crater. An amazing place near Winslow off I-40. My friend, who is not a dumbass or stupid and is extremely logical in most aspects of his life, starts shaking his head. I ask him what's wrong and he uttered one word "Disney". I said "What, you don't believe this is real?" "Disney", he repeated. I should mention that he is Jewish and practices his own flavor of Judaism. I pointed out that the crater had been scientifically verified as being about 50,000 years old. This is a conundrum, especially for intelligent, educated people like him. We talked about it for a while and he would come up with half-assed justifications for everything, including the measurement of years being subjective. We didn't get angry with each other and we let it go. I didn't insult him for his faith, which is very important to him and keeps him on track in his life. He doesn't try to convince me of anything and I don't try to convince him. Neither of us know. My logic tells me "No, there can be no creation. It doesn't make sense to me." That doesn't make me right and his believing differently doesn't make him right or wrong. Spiritual truth is a personal thing and no two people have an identical take on it, in my experience. I'm an atheist, but I believe in something I call a soul, as do many atheists and agnostics. I know self professed Christians who do not believe in heaven and hell, others who don't believe in the virgin birth or resurrection. These things are metaphors for them.
Tolerance, my friend, is precious. Something, the angry religionists and angry atheists could do well embracing. Bigotry sucks.

[skepticscott]

69. Saying "neither of us know" is just intellectual cowardice

No, we don't know anything to an absolute, 100% mathematical certainty, but that doesn't mean, as it seems to be popular to imply, that any two competing explanations for something must have equal (or even remotely equal) merit and evidentiary support, and be deserving of equal consideration. We do know that the earth is more than 6000 years old, with as much certainty as we know anything, and it is not a matter of "spiritual truth" (just a fancy way of saying that some people need to cling to delusions and superstitions because they're incapable of handing life without them). Pretending otherwise is why the information stream keeps getting polluted with more and more garbage every year. As for me, I value the truth over a few ruffled feathers any day.

[Starboard Tack]

91. OK, so you think I'm an intellectual coward

And I think you are an intellectual bully. That's what each of us think. Can we prove it? No.
As you say "we don't know anything to an absolute, 100% mathematical certainty".
This is not a court of law, or a fucking science lab. It is life and each person has a right to live his/her life as he/she sees fit. Your assertion that others "cling to their delusions and superstitions" is insulting, condescending, pompous and obnoxious. It also rings of hypocrisy as you cling to your need to prove believers wrong. So don't let that bit of truth ruffle your feathers.

[Silent3]

98. Who is not letting anyone "live his/her life as he/she sees fit"?

Why oh why is that over-the-top histrionic refrain so popular among apologists for unfounded beliefs?

Are believers so weak willed that they'd cease live as they see fit if their beliefs are criticized or mocked? Are they delicate flowers who must be shielded from contradiction to continue in their beliefs? How strong could such beliefs be if they are so fragile?

This is not a court of law, or a fucking science lab.

What does that have to do with anything?

Your assertion that others "cling to their delusions and superstitions" is insulting, condescending, pompous and obnoxious.

Is there no belief in the world that you consider delusional? Do you disbelieve that delusions occur at all? If you believe delusions occur, what are your criteria for deciding what is or is not delusional? Do those criteria vary depending on whether or not "this is a fucking science lab"? Would you be impressed when those you consider to be delusional invoke the incredibly weak defenses of "you can't absolutely prove me wrong" and "no one knows absolutely for sure" in support of their delusions?

I submit that you most likely do think it's possible for some beliefs to be delusional. For example, someone believing that Obama is a Kenyan-born secret Muslim socialist bent of the destruction of America.

Pretty delusional, huh? Pretty sad when someone clings to that, huh?

Why isn't it a terrible affront and intellectual bullying to think that this Obama crap is delusion, or worse, say it's delusional out loud where a believer in that nonsense might overhear you and feel insulted?

The real issue here is where one draws the line between what's delusional and what isn't, not that anyone dares to draw the line at all. Your rhetoric is attacking the existence of the line, not the more substantive (and less hypocritical) issue of how one decides where to draw it -- because you almost certainly draw such a line yourself, even if in a different place.

[Starboard Tack]

100. Let's discuss this "delusional line"

The real issue here is where one draws the line between what's delusional and what isn't, not that anyone dares to draw the line at all. Your rhetoric is attacking the existence of the line, not the more substantive (and less hypocritical) issue of how one decides where to draw it -- because you almost certainly draw such a line yourself, even if in a different place.

Do you not think that what one sees as "delusional" is very subjective. I could say that you were delusional in thinking I might respond to your post, on the basis that it had any merit. Obviously, you weren't delusional, because I am responding. In doing so, I may well be delusional in thinking that my response will open your mind some. Do I make my point?

[Silent3]

101. That the meaning of delusional is somewhat subjective...

...doesn't erase any and all meaning from the term. Further, however you personally define delusion, you do define it, and in doing so draw a line between what kinds of ideas strike you as delusional or not.

You can, of course, make finer distinctions about degrees of delusionality, harmless vs. dangerous delusions, etc. Your example, which is apparently suppose to be a breath-taking eye-opener for me, could be a case where you rate yourself as very mildly and harmlessly delusional for expecting your post to have a given result.

Even with such possible distinctions in mind, my guess is that you'd consider someone who thinks Obama is a Kenyan-born secret Muslim socialist bent of the destruction of America to be very delusional, somewhere from mildly dangerous (dangerous as a bad, albeit small for his/her own part, influence on our democracy) to potentially very dangerous, if he/she is driven to violence by this delusion.

All my questions that you've thus far evaded still apply:

Where do you draw your lines about what's delusional or not, and why?

Why wouldn't making the distinctions you make make you an intellectual bully?

What does this not being a fucking court of law or a science lab have to do with anything?

Why the patently absurd histrionics about anyone here in this thread not letting others live as they see fit?

Why speak as if religious beliefs are so precious and delicate that they must be shielded from mere verbal criticism? We're only talking about criticism delivered in just the same manner as political debate after all, the way you'd criticize, say, Republican tax plans or environmental policy, not pogroms and persecutions -- just in case you can't help yourself from losing track of that distinction when religion is the issue.

I have no delusions that you're any more likely to answer these questions than before. If you don't or won't, that evasion will say plenty enough.

[Humanist_Activist]

28. Where is the bigotry? n/t

[seabeyond]

29. exactly and that is how it is in other protected groups. i wasnt even discussing that point

but... back in the old days, a person could not go into the old feminisim group and mock women, or their "beliefs". and they certainly cant in lbgt or africanamerican group

[Humanist_Activist]

33. So basically any outspoken atheist is a bigot by default?

Because even acknowledging we are atheists is mocking religious belief.

Also, your premise is wrong, even regarding protected groups. Remember, we are talking about mocking beliefs, not people.

[seabeyond]

38. i pretty much know no one said that and is a made up argument on your part, that you can argue

with yourself. i am not playing.

no, i did not say that.

[cleanhippie]

41. You exactly said that there is no differnce between mocking a belief and a person.

[seabeyond]

42. no. i didnt. i said do not expect a person to not be offended. nt

[cleanhippie]

43. You have stated that the ridicule of a belief and the ridicule of a person are the same thing.

Are you denying that?

[Humanist_Activist]

44. Just because someone is offended doesn't make what was said bigotry.

That is what I object to, this changing of the definition of the word to basically mean anytime there's a disagreement or I say something you don't like, that ends up being called bigotry.

[tama]

45. Personhood is a belief

so ridiculing persons means ridiculing beliefs.

[rug]

46. "Mock them, ridicule them in public."

Just so there's no confusion, Dawkins yesterday was referring to people, not simply beliefs.

"So, when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is don't believe you, I don't believe you until you tell me, "Do you really believe"--for example, if they say they're 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."

Disingenuous post.

[SamG]

47. So I think I see your point with Dawkins now.

Perhaps Dawkins is not as well-respected among atheists when he states things in those terms.

Certainly not all atheists talk in the tone of Dawkins.

I actually think Dawkins was speaking in the context of public figures, especially political figures, as he pointed out this morning's interview on Chris Hayes' show.

[Starboard Tack]

58. I certainly don't.

One good thing about being an atheist. Nobody speaks for me, especially the angry atheists, the "victims". Not that there aren't many true victims of "religionists", but those "religionists" were individuals who abused their power and deserve contempt. In my experience most who adhere to a religion or religious sect are decent people. Not all, but most.

[Goblinmonger]

50. If our Pope says it we have to believe it.

Oh, wait...

[humblebum]

65. Then I would say don't complain about the criticism of atheism. nt

[LeftishBrit]

67. I don't complain about 'criticism of atheism'

I do complain about any suggestion that atheists are politically dangerous or ought to be denied freedom of association.

I don't even mind if someone tries to convert me. But I do mind if anyone equates me, or my family, with Soviet oppressors due to our atheism. I mind if they attempt to defeat atheist or secularist politicians, or those who are seen as insufficiently 'pro-life'. And I do mind if they seek to restrict women's rights, or to justify economic and social injustice, in the name of religion.

[humblebum]

70. Who said you did? nt

[Silent3]

74. Not that people won't blur issues here anyway to avoid difficult questions...

...but here's some of what I see getting all confused in this thread:

(1) Whether or not someone takes offense when you ridicule their beliefs, regardless of whether you ridiculed the person directly or not.

Of course many people take offense when you ridicule what they believe, even when you're as careful as you can be to make it clear you're criticizing only the beliefs themselves, but a believer's readiness to become offended should hardly be treated as conferring immunity from ridicule upon their beliefs.

(2) The effectiveness of ridicule as a strategy vs. whether something is worthy of ridicule.

The effectiveness of ridicule is worthy of discussion, but whether ridicule is effective or not is a tangential issue to whether or not a particular belief is ridiculous or not.

(3) Live and let live!

Whether or not you choose to keep it to yourself when you think a belief is ridiculous is a separate issue from whether the belief is ridiculous.

(4) How ridicule is delivered.

There's a big difference between whether you use a public forum where a particular topic has been put on the table to make fun of the stuff you think is ridiculous and whether you, say, bring it up all of the time, any time, any context, right in a believer's face. But when people get all defensive about religious belief and religious sensitivities, they treat any mockery of religious belief as it has been delivered by chasing down believers at a funeral to taunt them.


And what many people who use all of the above diversions and deflections refuse to see is how they typically don't use these same diversions and deflections when political views they disagree with are subjected to ridicule, ridicule that many of them happily join in on themselves.

[ZombieHorde]

92. In my opinion, it is partly because theism is really easy to ridicule

while atheism is really hard to ridicule. Atheists can call God "sky daddy" and "imaginary friend," but theists can't really make fun of no-God in the same, easy way. Theists have to get pretty creative to mock a non-belief.

There is no turn about. No fair play. I think many (but not all) theists would be cooler with the mockery if they has a good comeback to "sky daddy."

Or maybe I am completely wrong.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. That's true, it may also be why so many of them resort to personal attacks. n/t

[deacon_sephiroth]

102. here's one take on this issue

Darkmatter here, postulates that the reason theists get so defensive when you reject their beliefs or deity is because deep down inside they know it's all made up. Since the personal savior they have internal dialogue with is nothing but themselves, a rejection of said diety, is in their subconcious, a rejection of the believer themself.

Sub the word "reject" with "ridicule" and you quickly see the same thing happen. Ridicule the beliefs and immediately offend the believer as if you had ridiculed them personally.

[LeftishBrit]

103. I doubt it...

I think people tend to be pretty bound up with their ways of life. The main reason IMO why many religious people get offended when their beliefs are challenged is that these are not just beliefs, but (at least in their perceptions) closely linked to their courses of action, and ways in which they lead their lives. For that matter, the main reason why some people campaign against religious influence, is not (in most cases) because they feel so strongly about the beliefs, but because they feel that the beliefs are being used to restrict others' actions.

It would be a good idea if philosophical debates about beliefs could be separated more from moral/political debates about how people should act, and whether the moral rules of some religions should be translated into law. But as long as the Palins and Santorums and Ssempas and Ahmadinejads and Khameneis and Al-ash Sheikhs of the world recommend, or actually implement, the establishment of religion-based law, and use beliefs as a justification or excuse, it can be difficult to separate the two.