I am starting a new thread, because I do not want to be blamed as an alleged monster making fun of cripples and this accusation was getting out of the scope of the discussion about soulmates.  

I claim:  Every religious and other irrational belief and every behavior based upon such beliefs are so preposterous and ludicrous, that this justifies ridicule and making fun of it.   This is independent of who is afflicted with the irrationality and of the reasons to behave irrationally.   

This ridicule is principally justified by the irrationality.   Hurting the feelings of the misguided believers is not justified, so the ridiculing has to be restricted to be done in a way, that they do not know it.

I told about having been to Lourdes and discreetly having a good laughter about the weird spectacle of the irrational religious behaviors.    This does not imply laughing about the unfortunate and tragic situation of cripples and sick people.    They have my compassion and my sympathy.    

The evaluation of a person's situation and the evaluation of a person's method of coping with a situation are independent.   Compassion with a person's unfortunate situation does not require automatic respect for weird coping, no matter if the coping is the belief in a miracle at Lourdes or in homeopathy or any other woo-woo.   

The availability or lack of having a choice is the decisive difference:   Becoming sick and crippled is not a choice.   Making a fool of oneself by going to Lourdes is a choice.   It is this choice, that justifies the laughter.   

What about the Darwin award?   Are the people, who have invented it also monsters?   Does their laughing at weird ways of getting killed really preclude their having compassion with the dead persons and those grieving?   

Views: 1381

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

RE: "Making a fool of oneself by going to Lourdes is a choice.   It is this choice, that justifies the laughter."

I view going to Lourdes as an act of desperation, and fail to see any humor in it. The actor, Steve McQueen, died of cancer in the hospital of the little town in Mexico that was once my home. He had gone there to receive Laetrile treatments, which are not approved for use in the US. Laetrile is controversial, in that there is insufficient evidence that it is an effective treatment for cancer, yet it has appeared to have had some effect on some tumors. McQueen was desperate; I found nothing humorous in his effort to prolong his life and alleviate his pain.

As I read your posts on your own website, one thing struck me as a bit unusual - there appeared to be a complete absence of any humor whatever. I began to wonder if perhaps humor was, in your opinion, just another of those instincts you'd managed to overcome. Now I see that you DO have a sense of humor, albeit a rather dark one.

I claim:  Every religious and other irrational belief and every behavior based upon such beliefs are so preposterous and ludicrous, that this justifies ridicule and making fun of it.


I disagree. I know many people who use their faith as a vehicle to do very positive things. While I do have theistic discussions [and arguments] with them where I point out to them that they could still do those things without that vehicle, I add that their behavior is admirable and I respect it.

I see the value of an act within the results of the act, and within the act itself. The result of ridicule is emotional pain, and little else. It is not an effective method for persuasion, and effectively destroys communication, bringing results of negative value. The act of ridicule in itself only reflects a quality of arrogance, and a lack of empathy and respect for others in the person performing the act. Again, making it an act of no redeeming value.

I claim that ridicule is best shelved as an outdated and useless tool, much the same way as religion should be, and that more effective techniques should be considered.

Just my 2 cents.

The result of ridicule is emotional pain, and little else. It is not an effective method for persuasion, and effectively destroys communication, bringing results of negative value. The act of ridicule in itself only reflects a quality of arrogance, and a lack of empathy and respect for others in the person performing the act.

You are absolutely right.   You overlooked this sentence:

"Hurting the feelings of the misguided believers is not justified, so the ridiculing has to be restricted to be done in a way, that they do not know it."

I am only defending the moral and rational justification of sharing the ridiculing of beliefs with another non-believer in a discreet way, the absence of or unnoticed by the believers.   

BTW, I have reformulated this topic on my blog, maybe it has become clearer there:

http://egalitarianrationalcommitmentparadigm.blogspot.com/2012/08/5...

I see that as simply being a caveat allowing the act to be done in a rather gutless manner.  I don't see how doing something that you admit is unjustified is somehow made valid by doing it in whispers behind the target's back.

This means:  Would I tell a praying person into his face, that he is a weird idiot, I would have guts but be immoral, when I tell this out of his ear shot to someone sharing my opinion, I am a coward???? 

Why are rational people supposed to submit and give so much power to the irrational majority?

Are you defending the validity of irrationality on an Atheism forum?

This means:  Would I tell a praying person into his face, that he is a weird idiot, I would have guts but be immoral, when I tell this out of his ear shot to someone sharing my opinion, I am a coward???? 

I wouldn't say immoral, but by your own statement it would be unjustified.  You would be a coward only if you are unwilling to do the former, while being willing to do the latter.

Why are rational people supposed to submit and give so much power to the irrational majority?

Why are you asking?  Nobody has stated that they should.  I have simply stated that ridicule is a method of communication with no positive value.

Are you defending the validity of irrationality on an Atheism forum?

Not at all.  Are you inventing straw-man arguments because you realize that you cannot morally or logically defend your initial claim?

In your logic, it is only acceptable to think, that praying people are weird idiots, while I am a coward, when I indulge in the joy of consent by sharing with someone the reinforced propinquity of telling each other, that praying people are weird idiots, as long as they cannot hear us?   

ridicule is a method of communication with no positive value.

Sharing the ridicule for praying weird idiots without their knowledge is a very valid method of communication between likeminded people creating closeness.  

In your logic, it is only acceptable to think, that praying people are weird idiots, while I am a coward, when I indulge in the joy of consent by sharing with someone the reinforced propinquity of telling each other, that praying people are weird idiots, as long as they cannot hear us?  

Not being willing to say something to somebody’s face that you are saying behind their back is generally seen as being craven. Not liking the term for the behavior doesn’t change the accuracy of the term.

Sharing the ridicule for praying weird idiots without their knowledge is a very valid method of communication between likeminded people creating closeness.

Gutless people getting close by talking smack behind people's backs... somehow I'm missing the moral and intellectual strengths of it.

I give up.  This is getting too controversial and I experience controversies as very unpleasant. 

I have started this thread to clear myself from the unjustified accusation of laughing at cripples, when I am in reality laughing at weird religious behaviors, no matter who applies this behavior.  I have attempted to explain my point of view as well as my insufficient English allows me to do.

I came to this forum to find and enjoy consent and agreement about rationality and against irrationality.   I have no mission to convince disagreeing people.  

I've read nearly 60 of the posts on your own website, and can personally attest that you grasp of the English language is far from insufficient.

It's my belief that mocking anyone for their religious beliefs or their hope of finding a cure for an infirmity via those beliefs, while if done discretely, does not harm those mocked, but rather greatly harms the one who mocks.

but rather greatly harms the one who mocks.

It does NOT harm me.   Period.  

The impossibility to convey this message to anyone can have two reasons.   Either my English is insufficient to explain it or the recipient has a problem with the comprehension.    I choose the polite version and attribute it to my English.  

Nobody except myself is qualified to evaluate, what harms me and what not.  

Any debates about alleged effects upon my person are futile. 

RE: "It does NOT harm me.   Period."

One has only to read your posts, to know that something has. You've been hurt deeply, and even though I don't know you, I'm sorry that whatever it was, happened to you.

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 28 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service