Hi Grizz,
How is mocking anyone a proper response?
There is a noble tradition in both my country and yours, of mocking those in positions of Power. This stretches all the way back to ancient Greece, with writers such as Aristophanes and continues to this day, with magazines like
Private Eye and programmes like
The Daily Show. Satire is mockery and I don't think that we would be better off without it.
Mockery is a necessary way of pricking the egos of the self-important and the deluded and I feel that anyone who thinks that they are physically consuming the body of Christ of a weekend falls into both categories.
Sometimes, making people laugh at an idea helps them to see how ridiculous it really is. This was Mel Brooks' intention when he encouraged us all to laugh at the Nazis in his wonderful film
The Producers. Chaplin had the same intent in
The Great Dictator. Is it somehow wrong to ridicule Nazis? (Please note, I am not trying to compare Catholics to the Nazis, I'm just trying to establish a baseline of what you consider acceptable.)
Just how idiotic does someone have to be before we can call them an idiot? Is there any circumstance where it would be appropriate? Is religion somehow more protected against mockery than politics?
What does it do to gain respect and acceptance of ones own views?
Nothing. But sometimes an opposing view point must be worn down at the same time as one's own view is promoted.
To see a prominent academic lose his composure like this is embarrassing.
Perhaps you might consider it an own goal, but it is Myers' mistake to make. We have no real way of knowing the effects. He remains free to argue in his way and you in yours.
This is the part about the 'post-modern' atheist humanist movement that I just do not get and I care not to be associated with. Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment.
I would agree with this if hurling insults were all that the theism/atheism debate consisted of, but that isn't the case. Mud-slinging may not be very nice, but it is part of human nature and an unfortunate inevitability in any debate or argument.
Dawkins and company in-your-face brand of proselytization will not work. Telling people they are stupid deluded fools is not going to win any converts or gain acceptance. Anyone who thinks it will is out of touch with reality.
Calling someone a fool is unlikely to persuade them, for sure. Some people however, cannot be persuaded. There is no point in trying to reason with His Holiness and persuade him that God is a silly fiction and that he might as well give up the whole gig. Pointing out how ridiculous he is on the other hand, might just persuade someone else to reappraise their beliefs. For some it might have the opposite effect, but it's up to each individual to phrase their argument as they please.
The problem here is, what exactly can one say to a person when it is your honest opinion that their beliefs are foolish? (I prefer to think that religious believers have some foolish beliefs, rather then that they themselves are fools.)
If I believe that a person is deluded, then it is my duty to argue that (in the appropriate forum of course, I'm not talking about lurking outside the local Church waiting to browbeat the congregation.). To make any other argument would be dishonest.
There is no nice way to say "You are deluded", but sometimes, that is what must be said. To do otherwise would be patronising.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2
