But it is self evident that you are wrong.
When people tell their kids about Santa Claus they know it’s not true. It’s a little play acting, a fantasy, meant to enhance enjoyment of Christmas. The adults wink at each other and play along, with the understandingly that the child will eventually get in on the joke.
With God, a lot of people genuinely believe it. They are not play acting when they teach their kids.
Attacking another person because of their beliefs (and ridicule is an attack) is unacceptable behavior from a sane and rational person.
The belief itself may be ridiculous, but the person isn’t.
People don’t think they choose their beliefs. They believe they are GIVEN to them by something outside of themselves. In many cases, that means their parents. When you ridicule those beliefs, you ridicule their parents. That is NOT what kind and loving people are supposed to do.
I am not a Christian. I think Christianity has become a destructive force on average. But, Christians? Those are people. People worthy of respect no matter what their beliefs are. Most of the Christians I know are good people despite their weird (to me) religion. My mother is a Christian. I would never ridicule her. Not just because she is my mother and I love her, but also because I have watched her be kind and loving in Jesus’ name. As Oakminster more eloquently earlier, there is a great deal of good done in the name of religious beliefs. Yes, there is also evil done, but that is the nature of the game. If we were to magically remove the ‘disease’ of religion from the minds of humans, would we suddenly become more ethical? Would we reach out to help others on an organized basis?
I don’t have answers to these questions. But I can tell you that ridicule is just another form of bullying. And bullying is just wrong. Always.
Stewart and Colbert aren’t trying to build a world with the people they’re ridiculing. They can afford to have Fox or Chris Christie think they’re assholes. The everyday atheist is going to have to live with the people they try to argue out of their faith based positions. We’re not all playing to an audience. Using ridicule may be effective at convincing third parties a position is a poor one to hold, but it’s not particularly good at winning the heart and mind of the target.
If you’re willing to sacrifice any hope of reasonable relations and productive future collaboration with the person you’re trying to argue out of their position, by all means, use ridicule. If you are expecting to have a productive future with them helping advance the cause of reason-based decision making and maybe some hot atheist on atheist action on the side I wouldn’t advise ridicule.
Enjoy,
Steven
Ridicule CAN be effective, though it will almost never work on its target. It works only in the public sector, and only for marginalizing people whose beliefs are well outside the range of the people whom you are hoping to persuade. Frex, it would probably be safe to ridicule Truett Cathay’s (owner of Chick-Fil-A restaurants) beliefs about gays and Christianity in San Francisco, or with a young crowd, or really, anywhere outside the Bible Belt. Most Christians who are not fundies are not so invested in such bigotry, and so Cathy’s viewpoint can be safely ridiculed, and marginalized, making his brand of Christianity less popular and successful in the minds of those who are not so invested in it.
Something along these lines: “Cathy does not believe that gays are acceptable to Christianity, well hey, he seems to think this random Old Testament stuff should be taken at face value. Well, the Old Testament also says you can beat your wife with a rod so long as it is no thicker than your thumb. It says when you conquer another people in war you should kill all the men over 12 years old and enslave the women and children. That’s in the Old Testament too, and it’s ridiculous! What kind of idiot takes every last thing in the Old Testament at face value?”
Nice bit of ridicule, makes Cathy look like a nutjob and also points out the lunacy of some of the stuff in the Bible. Ridicule can be VERY effective, but you have to do it carefully and know your audience.
That is incorrect.
Mostly incorrect. People thought cats brought disease because they were demonic. Of course, they made this association because cats have fleas which did and do cause disease, so there was a connection between “demons” and disease, though indirectly. It’s a mix of faith and logic.
Alcohol and drugs aren’t delusions. They are real, tangible chemicals with real, measurable results.
Then there are the times atheists wander into a forum and completely make stuff up, like claiming that alcohol is a delusion. And you wonder why you get called arrogant and pedantic. You are.
I’m with Thomas Jefferson:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligble propositions” (in reference to the concept of the Holy Trinity).
When a particular position is objectively ridiculous, it’s difficult to demonstrate the falsity of the position without falling into ridicule. From the point of view of someone who holds to a ridiculous position against all reason, even the most sympathetic attempt to point out the flaws in their reasoning is perceived as ridicule.
How many arguments can be made in support of the athiest position that cannot be construed by devout theists as direct or indirect ridicule? Some, certainly, but the attitude of many theists seems to be that merely admitting to be an athiest in public is a dick move.
I have seen this attitude expressed by many, many believers. If you are an unbeliever, you are by default ridiculing their beliefs. This is why I do not argue religion with my family members who are religious, which is to say, almost all of them. They would all see it as ridicule.
I can see how an honest expression of a personal opinion could be seen as ridicule. In a discussion if an atheist says " I think all religion is useless and holds society back " or “Believing in God is like believing in Santa” that honest opinion will likely be seen as ridicule.
I think both believers and non believers have to ditch the certainty and allow that we don’t really know all the answers.
Which amounts to demanding that the unbelievers lie and bash themselves to make the believers feel better. Religious belief is that obviously false and nonsensical; even the believers themselves typically feel that way about other religions than their own. Pretending to some equality in plausibility is the unbelievers undercutting their own position, while strengthening the opposition; it is also pretending to a false doubt in their own position. It’s both humiliating and arguably unethical, depending on how you feel about lying.
And it’s pointless; trying to suck up to the believers has never made them feel more positively about atheists, nor convinced them of anything except the rightness of their cause.
What does that? Admitting you don’t have all the answers?
Except that’s not what I’m suggesting. It’s simply a fact that there is no evidence to support religious belief. There’s zero reason to back off of that. We keep religion and faith in the arena of personal opinion, but acts of compassion and charity are still that. Acts of bigotry still that.
It’s also a fact that no atheist knows what does or does not happen when we die. Is there something else, something more? There’s still a lot left to discover about how the universe we live in works. We can challenge religious myth based on the facts we have, and still be aware of what we do not, and can not know at present.
I never suggested any such thing. I’m suggesting all people , not all ideas and opinions , but all people deserve basic respect and consideration , and there’s no need or purpose served in ridiculing people who help the poor and sick based on their religious beliefs. I’m suggesting we recognize the difference between opinion and fact. There’s a difference in " I don’t believe in God. It’s like believing in the Easter Bunny" and “People who believe in God are gullible fools and harmful to society” Both may be an honest opinion but the latter goes the extra step to insult a large group of people. It’s unnecessary IMO.
This isn’t about knowing all the answers. It’s about knowing that a particularly silly and obviously false set of beliefs is just that.
Religion and faith are not personal opinions. They are blatant falsehoods and the denial of both reason and objective reality.
Yes, we do know; we shut down, we no longer exist. There’s plenty of evidence to demonstrate this, we know enough about how the brain works to say this.
And I think it is necessary, because they do harm society. And false respect help them perpetuate their dangerous fantasies.
Of course it’s acceptible. When you are dealing with people who operate from a position of faith and superstition, you can’t sway them with reason and logic. You have to use fear and shame.
You mean their dangerous fantasies that God wants them to help the poor, the homeless, the sick? Should we ridicule them for that until they stop?
I completely support asserting facts and chipping away at the mythology in that way. I don’t believe religious beliefs deserve any special respect or untouchable status. They need to stand against the facts and be challenged because they do affect society. Religion is a created by and made up of humans. It has the mix of positive and negative that humans have. There’s no way to objectively judge the scales of good and bad regardless of your personal opinion.
All people have a belief system that is made up of intellect and emotion and uses faith in some way. I don’t see any reason to give religion any special condemnation either.
There’s nothing like fear and shame to create a great society.
“Help” them by preaching about their god, quite often. And using their supposed* charitableness to push agendas like homophobia. And supporting the attitudes that justify and promote more dangerous beliefs; if faith can justify feeding the poor, it can justify killing people just as easily, since it isn’t based on any factual or rational basis.
*“Charity” designed to make your religion look good isn’t charity; it’s advertising.
Religion has more negatives than positives by far, and is worse than the average human by a large margin. It is parasitic upon humanity.
I’m in advertising and marketing, so I have a little experience with considering the logic of selling. In this case, I would say “no.” Religious beliefs are not logical (being based on faith) and are often programmed into us from childhood. Insulting such belief would, in my opinion, only serve to reinforce. I think respect is called for, followed by a clear counter-position on one or two key facts. The “audience” here has to be given something to consider, something that doesn’t make sense up against the almost emotional, illogical faith in the supernatural. This takes patience. But you’re on the right side.
Aggressive, stubborn, loud and destructive ignorance may not significantly be curbed by ridicule. However, embarrassing the ignorant may keep some of their brain turds from stinking up the public square.
Besides, ridicule can be fun. 
You are not a mind reader and it’s silly for you to think you can speak to the motives of all religious people who participate in charity.
I’ve heard this opinion of yours many times. It can’t be objectively proven to be factual, and I have no interest in going down that road again.
Repetition doesn’t make your opinions any more factual than the number of believers make theirs.
I agree. IMO, what deserves respect is the individuals right to choose their own path and priorities. An understanding of the human element and the slow process by which attitudes and understanding changes. We all have our flaws and blind spots. Why single religion out as much worse than the rest. And yes, persistently present the facts in certain areas , or a reasonable argument repeated often, can in time change attitudes.
and Lastly, I tend to judge people as people , not associated with any labels. Kindness is kindness , compassion is compassion, and a jerk is a jerk. Believer agnostic or atheist.
Something I didn’t do.
That argument invalidates your own claim as to the nature of religion, the one I was responding to.