[ManInAShed]

Do you agree with Richard Dawkins view?

 

[Mabel Pines]

I don't believe so. It would be like mocking one's culture. Religion, to many, are just what you subscribe to, just like one's culture. Most people subscribe to their own culture but some subscribe to others such as Weebos if they subscribe to it exclusively, etc.

 

[Mabel Pines]

And to religious reasoning and the religiously-minded, religion is factual, meaning that they take what their religion says as facts as much as we take scientific laws as facts because based on religious reasoning, they are factual. Their evidence is based on, say Christianity, the Bible, while scientific reasoning's evidence is based on sense perceptions to figure out a working model of something, such as how the observable universe works.

 

[CNikki]

It's not so much on whether they should, but more like whether they can. There is a difference and it's often dictated by whether theocracy and the power of governance is involved. This is where free speech comes in, which I have invested some time in on this forum the other day about what is permissible to say and what isn't. I believe that one should have the fundamental right to say whatever they want about anything, no matter how vile it may be. It's a basic if not 'the' basic human right that changed discourses throughout history, and unfortunately many of which people helplessly died and fought for blood over. Times where speech has been limited resulted in totalitarian dictatorship.

Basic answer - yes. It's free speech.

 

[ScorchedEarth]

I consider it mildly rude to do so, in the same way you don't necessarily want to mock everyone you meet who believes in astrology or dowsing; even though their beliefs are factually wrong, it's not your business to confront them about it. Then again, I'm less amenable to religions since most of them are fundamentally sexist, homophobic, superstitious and generally incompatible with a modern society that values rationalism and equality. Plus unlike dowsers, they have the numbers and will to change society for the worse, and do so wherever they can get their grubby paws into government. So I don't mind at all if someone like Dawkins drops some truth bombs on them without mercy.

 

[Nekobasu]

I don't believe so. It would be like mocking one's culture. Religion, to many, are just what you subscribe to, just like one's culture. Most people subscribe to their own culture but some subscribe to others such as Weebos if they subscribe to it exclusively, etc.

Umm do you mean weeaboos? Not Weebos lol. Noun. weeaboo (plural weeaboos) (slang, derogatory) A non-Japanese person (especially one of Caucasian ancestry) who is obsessed with Japanese culture and behaves in a stereotypically Japanese manner.

 

[Mabel Pines]

Umm do you mean weeaboos? Not Weebos lol. Noun. weeaboo (plural weeaboos) (slang, derogatory) A non-Japanese person (especially one of Caucasian ancestry) who is obsessed with Japanese culture and behaves in a stereotypically Japanese manner.

I guess that you didn't realize what I said. I was talking about a non-Japanese person that subscribes to Japanese culture but to the extreme, so much so that he or she adopts it as his or her exclusive culture.

 

[the cheat]

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Nekobasu]

Ok so a weeaboo. Basically someone like Ken-Sama.

Of course, what does that have to do with religion? Most Japanese people that I know are atheists anyway. Yet they do not usually talk crap to people who are religious. My mom is actually christian, and I am atheist, yet we still have friendly debates about the nature of the universe and stuff like that.

 

[Mabel Pines]

Of course, what does that have to do with religion?

Did you even read my post? You will find the answers to your question in it.

 

[WillYouStopDave]

What I think about religion in this context? I think if religious people never bother anybody and never try to convert anyone who doesn't want to be converted and never try to pass any laws that oppress people who don't believe the way they do and never start arguments with friends or family members who are not religious, then they have the right to ask that their religious beliefs to not be ridiculed.

In the real world, it's just as unrealistic to expect an atheist to STFU as it is to expect a Christian to STFU. People are simply going to pollute the world with their personal views as they see fit. To try and silence any of them is to try and silence all of them.

 

[Nekobasu]

What I think about religion in this context? I think if religious people never bother anybody and never try to convert anyone who doesn't want to be converted and never try to pass any laws that oppress people who don't believe the way they do and never start arguments with friends or family members who are not religious, then they have the right to ask that their religious beliefs to not be ridiculed.

In the real world, it's just as unrealistic to expect an atheist to STFU as it is to expect a Christian to STFU. People are simply going to pollute the world with their personal views as they see fit. To try and silence any of them is to try and silence all of them.

^this. so much this, on so many levels.. :frown2:

 

[Sus y]

Not so sure if mocking is the appropriate way to go, it can be a sensitive topic as so many people have died because of religious people/socio-political structures etc. Much less would think it's good to mock religious people.

You cannot fight hate with hate, it will be a war that will never end, but if it does will never end well.

 

[Alex4You]

I think religion should be mocked just like anything else. It shouldn't be put on a special joke free pedestal. I will gladly make fun of religion because I think it's ridiculous!

 

[Wren611]

Do you agree with Richard Dawkins view?

Yes and no. I mock/ridicule the religious and religion in the way I mock/ridicule sports fans and sports. Both have people who are casual followers, they're very tolerant of others, and it makes them happy being a part of the community, which is fine. Then you have the deranged few who think their favourite is the best and will fight constantly with others, which is stupid.

I know when to draw a line so it doesn't become bullying and nastiness though. Some atheists push it a bit.

 

[Tetragammon]

I do my best not to mock individuals (and sometimes fail), but I very strongly believe that all beliefs (and by extension religions, as well as political and social views) should be open to criticism and, yes, even mockery. I know a lot of people won't even understand the difference but it's important to me, and to the whole religion debate. Because beliefs are not people -- they do not have, nor do they deserve, any kind of protection from defamation or slander. "Blasphemy" is an incredibly dangerous and foolish concept.

 

[Nekobasu]

I do my best not to mock individuals (and sometimes fail), but I very strongly believe that all beliefs (and by extension religions, as well as political and social views) should be open to criticism and, yes, even mockery. I know a lot of people won't even understand the difference but it's important to me, and to the whole religion debate. Because beliefs are not people -- they do not have, nor do they deserve, any kind of protection from defamation or slander. "Blasphemy" is an incredibly dangerous and foolish concept.

Honestly I guess I agree with you m8 I am a proud atheist

 

[zonebox]

On a personal level, I do not like to ridicule religion unless that religion is being used in a manner to justify cruelty to others. Even then, I don't like to do so because there are a lot of cool people who identify with that religion and they get caught in the crossfire.

It is hard not to, when you are in a discussion with someone who uses their religion as the context for their entire argument, and they are absolutely right on with regards to their religion. If their religion were the absolute basis of reality, there would be no argument. That is when their religion is called into question by me, if I decide to take it that far. I am the sort of individual who likes to get right down to the point, to bypass everything else and drive to the fundamentals of any one particular subject. Which in the past, resulted in many arguments trying to show the validity of the Bible is flawed. Doing so is just a pursuit of frustration usually, as the religious person will often resort to conspiracy theory, and claim an agenda is in place to discredit the validity of their religion.

The thing is, I always come out feeling bad. A lot of people need their religion to find purpose in their lives, they think they are going to be reunited with loved ones, that all of the struggle they go through in life will eventually come to an end and they will live in an eternity of happiness. I don't like to feel I am taking that away from them.

I don't have anything to offer them in place, that would bring them the same comfort so I tend to shy away from religious topics now, or I try to be as open minded as possible even though I do not believe in the things religious people do. I don't want to hurt them, I would rather they remain happy. When the religious use their texts to justify cruelty, is when I sometimes slip up. I just don't like to do it, there are a lot of religious people that I respect out there, and I don't like hurting them in the process.

Should religion be ridiculed? I think cruelty to others should be, if it comes down to religion being used to be cruel then yes, in certain circumstances there is no other way than to go after the religion and show that their cruel behavior is not necessary, that they are hurting others based upon a false premise.

 

[WillYouStopDave]

His point that starts at about 3:57 made me almost fall out of my chair laughing.

 

[blue2]

Probably not I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but I'm gonna do it anyway, I'm responsible for the personal wrath that I incur on myself, I'm not responsible for anyone else's, so if we happen to end up in hell together for eternity & you're on fire or something & it hurts or whatever, not my fault : /