Lately, you’ve been raving a lot about how wrong it is that some posters mock religious beliefs. Most recently, in this thread, you wrote:
when called on it, you responded:
Now personally, I don’t go in for cheap shots at religious belief. I’m a raving atheist, who believes that religious belief in innately irrational and simply incorrect. But I also recognize that I also am a maze of irrational and incorrect beliefs; if your irrationality and incorrectness differ from mine, more power to you. Besides, I find the nuances and variations in religious belief fascinating and most of their adherents sincere and well-meaning, which counts for a hell of a lot.
But that brings me to my point. Your religious belief is a belief. It is not innate; it is a choice you have made. To my mind, there is nothing wrong with mocking people for what they choose to believe, or those beliefs themselves. It happens all the time around here - just take a gander at any of the innumerable “liberal suck/conservatives are evil” threads. Many people adhere to their political ideology quite as strongly as you adhere to your religious belief, yet insulting another’s political belief is considered par for the course.
There is no difference between “[X religion] is a pile of steaming contradictions wrapped in a gooey mass of platitudes” and “[X political ideology] is a pile of steaming contradictions wrapped in a gooey mass of platitudes.”
If there is a difference, please let me know. But until then, I wish you would just pipe the fuck down. You have given no reason why religious belief should be accorded special protection, other than it hurts your feelings when people insult it. Well, ya know, I’m sure people aren’t happy when they are called exploiters of innocent children because they support globalization. I don’t see them calling for the mods to ban posts mocking the WTO.
Well, it’s kind of interesting that nobody here seems to use curses like “Mohammed’s bunghole” or “Ganesh’s gonads”. Perhaps it’s time to lay off the big JC for a bit and use some other diety. If not for respect to the Christians here then because it is getting old.
Geez, Sua, you missed the best part. Here’s the comment that set Libertarian off in that thread:
Know who posted that? Guinastasia, who’s a Catholic. He’s pissed off at other Christians for being disrespectful to Christ. Plus, and this is even better, he’s angry about people being factually accurate about Jesus. Jesus was on a stick. (Or a crucifix, anyway.) That’s the whole point of Christianity!
However, at least he’s stopped pretending he’s Atticus Finch to TubaDiva’s Tom Robinson. Self-martydom is annoying enough.
*the “you” in that quote is actually Hamadryad, for reasons totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
Personally, I’d think that “Sweet Issac’s Foreskin!” would be a great swear phrase.
I know it sounds trite and cliche` to say this, but stooping down to your opponent’s level raises no one up. Libertarian, if you feel so strongly about your belief that no one should insult a figure you find to be of great import, then don’t do it to others. Don’t do it to say “now you know how we feel.” It didn’t work in another not-to-be-named situation and it won’t work here.
Imagine Ghandi smashing a guy’s head in with a rifle and then saying “now perhaps you understand why I have chosen a path of non violence.”
The problem, as I see it Sua, is that atheists do not have religeous beliefs, thereby placing those of us who do in an inequitable position when debating and we are therefore unable to respond in a likewise manner to something stated that might be offensive.
What I don’t understand is the reason why so many atheists I know (and here I am in no way refering to you personally, or to anyone else on the board, but it might apply) feel the need to make fun of other people’s beliefs, even in context. I think some of it has to do with the fact that there is no possible way (as I explained before) in which somebody might reply to them. This places them in a position where mocking is OK, since you cannot be replied to in a similarly offensive manner.
Just don’t give someone who you’ve never met, and probably are never GOING to meet, apart from here on a computer screen, the power to fuck with your head.
As a wise person once observed… we choose our happiness in life, but we also choose our sadnesses.
All of you right now could flame me from here to the moon and back, thereby burning up all the databases in the SDMB, but unless I allow you to fuck with my head, it’s all just water off a duck’s back. I still shake my head daily seeing how many people get in a tizzy on the internet…
Peace to you all my friends. I love you all you crazy bunch!
I’d actually argue with this point. Is saying, “conservatives are lying cheating piles of dog poo,” the same as saying, “Jews are full of bunk, they don’t know their diety from their own behinds”? No, it’s not really. Religion is more than belief, it’s a way of life, or even culture, if you will. You don’t call Hispanics stupid for listening to Latin music, even though it’s a choice. It’s kind of late and I can’t think of any other wonderful examples, but do you get my point?
Jezus Christ (meant ironically), that’s absurd. First, there is an incredibly rich tradition of (particularly fundamentalist) Christian mockery of atheism. Start with “monkey’s uncle” and go from there. Second, the fact that atheists do not have religious belief is irrelevant. Indeed, that’s my thesis.
Atheists have beliefs. Indeed, (and I know I’ll get flamed for this) the lack of belief in a diety is a belief, as the question is unanswerable. In any event, atheists are conversatives or liberals or White Sox fans. Mock them all you want for those beliefs. Figure out the right insult, and trust me, an atheist will be offended. Third athiests are constantly mocked, including on this board. I can’t count how many times I’ve been informed that I, because I don’t believe in a diety, have no moral sense, and are only prevented from rampages of rapine and slaughter by the vigilance of the police. I find such mockery deeply offensive - but I don’t try to get the post deleted or the poster banned.
Quite frankly, neither do I. But more broadly, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to mock others for their beliefs. ('Course, you try to present belief - any belief - as fact, and I say, mock away.) But hell, mocking beliefs which we don’t hold is part of the human condition. And what I really don’t understand is the argument that certain beliefs are privileged, simply because they happen to be about whether someone or thing created us.
Sorry, I don’t. A “way of life” or a culture is also a choice. Nothing innately makes a Mexican listen to mariachi music.
In any event, your analogy is wrong. I specifically limited my comparison to the belief, not the persons holding the belief.
If someone comes on these boards saying that “Roman Catholics are all pedophiles,” ban the fucker. If they come on and say " Roman Catholicism is just a ruse to con a bunch of dolts into giving up their money for the privilege of kissing the ass of an out-of-touch hierarchy," well fine. I don’t agree, and I understand why Catholics would be offended, but so what? We all get offended when are beliefs are dissed.
Hey, some of us atheists have religious beliefs…I strongly BELIEVE that God does not exist. It’s not simply that I do NOT believe in God. I do not have a lack of belief, it’s just that I believe something different.
I guess what I mean is that for many many people, their religion is such a part of who they are that you cannot attack the religion without attacking the person. Whether objectively there is any difference between a belief held so personally and one not so personal, and whether one has a responsibility to diferentiate between the two is certainly up for debate. I just think that your original comment trivializes the importance of religious belief to many people.
Eonwe, I think that the onus of responsibility should NOT rest with the person who presents a challenge to or ridicules a persons beliefs. Should I refrain from taking the mickey out of a ’
Flat-Earther’s’ closely and sincerely held beliefs? Or those of a Biblical Creationist? Or an Engelbert Humperdink fan? Why should some ‘cows’ be more sacred than others?
If a person feels threatened by challenges to their belief system then I suggest that they need to develop a thicker skin, or re-evaluate just how committed they are to such beliefs. IMHO of course!!
You say that atheism is unmockable. Anything inaccurate is mockable. What does that say about atheism exactly? And can we quote you if you ever get involved in a debate about the existence of God?
These boards are a fairly robust place. There is simply no way that we are going to leave off from a reasonable level of mockery just because someone deploys a human shield around their religious beliefs. If they don’t like that, this is the kitchen, they are beginning to sweat, and perhaps they should think about doing the obvious?
Yeah, well, um, I’ve been on the boards longer than you, so I win
No, I suppose you’re right. I guess I just have a problem with disrespecting someone else’s beliefs. IMO, telling someone their religion is, “a pile of steaming contradictions wrapped in a gooey mass of platitudes,” is nothing more than a personal insult, especially as most people (at least most rational people) will readily admit that Christianity/Judaism/whathaveyou is rife with contradictions, but that fact does not lead to the fact that it’s a wrong belief, which is the connotation of the affore-quoted statement, IMO.
I recently had an arguement with a friend about faith. He claimed it was just as big a leap of faith to believe that god does not exist, as it is to believe god does exist. Since ‘believing’ god does not exist while it is unproven is in his view, faith. I have thought a bit about it and came up with a hyperthetical to illistrate that while an atheist cannot prove absolitely that god does not exist in some way, an atheist can prove well beyond reasonable doubt that god does not exist.
Imagine I claimed that a 12 foot tall invisible, silent, traceless pig with a big butcher knife, that created all the universe, was always standing other you where ever you went. Can you prove otherwise? Obiviously you can not sence him, but maybe he whisphers silently in your ear, affecting your decisions. Should you now act as though the pig is always with you, watching, manipulating you for an end unkown to you? No, only a child would believe such a claim. While it cannot be proven beyond any doubt at all (and what is?) the pig doesn’t exist, There is no reason at all to think it does. So belief in the ‘Great Holy Knifie Piggie’ would be an a ‘leap of faith’ at first faith in the claimer, than the claims. Not believing in ‘Piggie’ would of course not be a leap of faith, it would simply be reasonable, a judgement made on the balance of probabilities.
