Religion is human nature

[Husker_x]

You like John Stewart? I don't think we're exactly comparing apples with apples, but ridicule/mockery/satire/whatever you want to call it is actually pretty effective at making entire arguments crumble. Stewart is a master of that, penetrating absurdity with what could often be interpreted as 'insulting rhetoric'. I'll just go ahead and speak for myself, but I was brought up in an environment where Christianity wasn't scrutinized at all, much less criticized. One of the biggest shocks to the system was the day that I found there was someone who not just thought differently than me, but who thought the things I believed were ludicrous. Was it pleasant to hear someone spouting off against my religion? No. But it got me thinking.

 

For me it comes down to how it's done. My ideal is to attack the idea not the person. Problem with religion is the two are so intermingled on a personal an nonobjective level a lot of the time that any attack against a belief is considered an attack against a person. Right or wrong, it complicates things.

 

My two cents. Could be wrong.

 

I love John Stewart. But John Stewart is a professional comedian, and his writers are among the best satirists in the business. Joe Schmoe on the internet can't compare, and frankly shouldn't try any more than I should try tight-rope walking from skyscraper to skyscraper because I saw it on TV. Satire by amateurs typically ends in disaster.

 

The key phrase you used was "got me thinking." Do you really think trying to back someone in a corner on their beliefs is the best method to make them think about your words? What's more likely - that the person in "trapped animal" mode will calmly and rationally think about what you're saying, or that they'll devolve into "fight or flight?" There's a thread around here talking about this, and in my experience it's true that for 99.999% of Internet conversations and arguments, the more belligerent the conversation the more entrenched the discussion, and the less likely people are to consider another point of view.

 

Interestingly enough the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody was started by an amateur and is one of the more effective satires of religious thought I've come across. Funny is funny, and a good argument is a good argument. I would qualify that by agreeing with bennychico about the limitations of the internet. John Stewart's biggest advantage isn't his experience or his writing staff. It's that he gets to preform his comedy in a way people can actually see and appreciate the roles of timing and inflection among a number of other things. Anyway, more to the point.

 

I don't know what most people would do when their beliefs are challenged––er––feistily. I'm not most people. I can only speak for myself. In my case, I'm glad––glad, I say––that I, or my beliefs at any rate, were subjected to some hard, unflinching criticism. It wasn't effective the first time. Or the second. Or the third. But then neither were the more polite conversations I was having with atheist friends. All I can say is that in my experience that shock to the system I was mentioning might not have happened if not for the sharper tone. I'm not one for beating around the bush. I want people to cut the crap and tell me what they really think. The hotter the debate the more I tend to get out of it. But I also think there's both room and time and place for all kinds of approaches. Maybe you're right. Maybe the interent is not the place for the uber-satirical. But when bennychico called Yahweh a sky fairy, should he feel bad for insulting someone? Who, exactly, did he insult? He didn't call Po Belini a sky fairy. This is what I mean about believers being confused with beliefs.

 

Part of it is about forum. The internet is a funny middle ground, not entirely one-to-one and not entirely public spectacle. When William Lane Craig debates someone like Christopher Hitchens in front of a thousand people, no one seriously thinks either of those two heavyweights is going to see the light on stage. I wouldn't expect anyone here to yoink off their crucifix after reading one of my posts. But when you post online, there are also people who will never post a sentence that are reading. Maybe they get more out of it than the participants do. Hard to say.

 

I for one wouldn't rule out using satire in my argument. I would hope to be tasteful about it. No guarantees of success, but a lot of that is in the eye of the beholder. I also wouldn't want to flatly insult someone. On that we agree. There's no use or place for it. As a believer I don't think I was stupid. I think I was in error. Parody––in part, not whole––helped what I perceive to be correcting that error.

[zoogs]

Jon Stewart is professionally funny, but by no means does he own a monopoly on any way of advancing an argument.

 

And it's not like his rowdy satire make for he best arguments either. When he goes on Larry King or has a long and serious discussion, that's when his real debating acumen shines through.

 

I agree with knapp that offending people isn't a great idea. Although, "you think I'll burn in hell, I think you believe in silly things" -- to me, that's even. There is such a thing as being too lenient in a debate too though, and it's a fine line. Bluntness can either push people further into their own shielded world, or cause them to re-evaluate.

 

Po, it's great that you got out of that rut. I just wonder why it is necessary to have it tied to your thoughts on our origins. I suppose we all need structure in our lives to keep them stable and fulfilling, but structure =/= beliefs. And while I can understand that beliefs can grant access (or even feel necessary) to the structure and comfort we all seek, that doesn't strike me as a good reason to suppose something is so.

[redout22]

What a silly debate that would be. Atheism, by definition, is not a religion. True fact. It's not up for debate.

 

Why?

Because they don't try hard enough to control their congregation?

 

 

Court rules atheism a religion

 

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”

Like I said, by it's very definition atheism isn't a religion. That court ruling doesn't change that. Everyone on earth is born atheist until someone convinces them there's a magical, invisible sky fairy.

 

How about that big explosion from nothingness? That is just as ridiculous to believe. Or that we evolved from monkeys. How come we aren't evolving now? Or how come there are still gorillas in the zoo? How come they don't become human. You don't know til you die, so stop insulting billions of people. Thanks!

There is actual evidence that suggests we evolved, and are still evolving. There's absolutely zero evidence a magic sky fairy exists. Fact. I wasn't insulting anyone. Why would gorillas become human? They've made it this far with the evolutionary advantages they've adapted. Much like humans. It's not like we evolved from modern day gorillas or chimps. We just share a common ancestor. Evolution isn't a straight line. There's tons of literature about evolution at your finger tips, but if you're happy remaining ignorant to the subject then you're just insulting yourself.

Uhmm how bout Bernadette seeing the Virgin Mary, and her talking to her at Lourdes.. That was proven.

[knapplc]

But when bennychico called Yahweh a sky fairy, should he feel bad for insulting someone? Who, exactly, did he insult? He didn't call Po Belini a sky fairy. This is what I mean about believers being confused with beliefs.

 

If you are unable to answer this question it's clear that you are not nearly as good at satire as you seem to think.

[The Dude]

What a silly debate that would be. Atheism, by definition, is not a religion. True fact. It's not up for debate.

 

Why?

Because they don't try hard enough to control their congregation?

 

 

Court rules atheism a religion

 

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”

Like I said, by it's very definition atheism isn't a religion. That court ruling doesn't change that. Everyone on earth is born atheist until someone convinces them there's a magical, invisible sky fairy.

 

How about that big explosion from nothingness? That is just as ridiculous to believe. Or that we evolved from monkeys. How come we aren't evolving now? Or how come there are still gorillas in the zoo? How come they don't become human. You don't know til you die, so stop insulting billions of people. Thanks!

There is actual evidence that suggests we evolved, and are still evolving. There's absolutely zero evidence a magic sky fairy exists. Fact. I wasn't insulting anyone. Why would gorillas become human? They've made it this far with the evolutionary advantages they've adapted. Much like humans. It's not like we evolved from modern day gorillas or chimps. We just share a common ancestor. Evolution isn't a straight line. There's tons of literature about evolution at your finger tips, but if you're happy remaining ignorant to the subject then you're just insulting yourself.

Uhmm how bout Bernadette seeing the Virgin Mary, and her talking to her at Lourdes.. That was proven.

Not sure if serious but "the church says so" ≠ proven.

[knapplc]

Jon Stewart is professionally funny, but by no means does he own a monopoly on any way of advancing an argument.

 

Yes he does! John Stewart is the shizzle.

 

I agree with knapp that offending people isn't a great idea. Although, "you think I'll burn in hell, I think you believe in silly things" -- to me, that's even.

 

Absolutely. Cracking on someone's religion is the same as "you'll burn in hell." Wrong is wrong, no matter which side of the debate you're on.

 

Far too often it seems like people have no interest in actually debating something, they just want to bash the other guy over the head with their point of view. I think it's often cathartic in nature, and the guy on the receiving end is largely irrelevant - they're just there to serve as the receptacle for all the derp the angry person wants to spew. That can be couched in whatever descriptor we want (educating, saving, satirizing), but the reality is it's often just one person venting their spleen at another. Nobody ever wins in these kinds of "debates."

[bennychico11]

But when bennychico called Yahweh a sky fairy, should he feel bad for insulting someone? Who, exactly, did he insult? He didn't call Po Belini a sky fairy. This is what I mean about believers being confused with beliefs.

 

If you are unable to answer this question it's clear that you are not nearly as good at satire as you seem to think.

 

btw, for the record, it was The Dude who stated the "sky fairy" phrase. Not me.

[knapplc]

But when bennychico called Yahweh a sky fairy, should he feel bad for insulting someone? Who, exactly, did he insult? He didn't call Po Belini a sky fairy. This is what I mean about believers being confused with beliefs.

 

If you are unable to answer this question it's clear that you are not nearly as good at satire as you seem to think.

 

btw, for the record, it was The Dude who stated the "sky fairy" phrase. Not me.

We've all agreed to blame you anyway.

[Husker_x]

But when bennychico called Yahweh a sky fairy, should he feel bad for insulting someone? Who, exactly, did he insult? He didn't call Po Belini a sky fairy. This is what I mean about believers being confused with beliefs.

 

If you are unable to answer this question it's clear that you are not nearly as good at satire as you seem to think.

 

I repeat: this is what I mean about believers being confused with beliefs. Sky fairy for someone's deity out of the blue is probably going to be taken as insulting. But as a believer growing up in a non-critical environment, there was nothing anyone could have said even in theory––if it was derogatory about my god or religion, it was offensive. Period.

 

I don't use satire much in written arguments. Nothing I said on any point anywhere at any time was supposed to get me Stewart's job.

[knapplc]

I repeat: this is what I mean about believers being confused with beliefs. Sky fairy for someone's deity out of the blue is probably going to be taken as insulting. But as a believer growing up in a non-critical environment, there was nothing anyone could have said even in theory––if it was derogatory about my god or religion, it was offensive. Period.

 

I don't use satire much in written arguments. Nothing I said on any point anywhere at any time was supposed to get me Stewart's job.

 

You may repeat until you are blue in the face. Your problem is that you fail to empathize with those you persecute. You're so intent on denouncing their beliefs based on YOUR past that you fail to even try to put yourself in their position. Their experiences likely weren't yours, and they may never change their beliefs like you. That doesn't make them wrong or bad or in any way mean your tone needs to be aggressive or attacking when you speak to them. But too often it is. You are all stick and no carrot. Try being more carrot.

[Husker_x]

Where's the stick been in this conversation? Who's been persecuted?

 

Oh, and by the way, trotting out the word 'persecute' for the second time in this context of this board is disgraceful and you have publicly embarrassed yourself by using it. I never have nor would under any circumstances persecute someone for their beliefs.

[knapplc]

Where's the stick been in this conversation? Who's been persecuted?

 

Oh, and by the way, trotting out the word 'persecute' for the second time in this context of this board is disgraceful and you have publicly embarrassed yourself by using it. I never have nor would under any circumstances persecute someone for their beliefs.

 

Oh my goodness. Is your memory so short? Have you forgotten past conversations?

[Husker_x]

Christians were thrown into a colosseum in Rome. Jews were censored and tortured and murdered in camps in Nazi Germany. Black people were blocked from voting and harassed at their homes and places of business and made to fear for their safety and the safety of their children. Others throughout history were not allowed to share their ideas publicly for millions of reasons. This is persecution. Maybe you picked the wrong word or meant it in a tamer sense (even still, I would probably disagree with you). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that because that's just the sort of easy going gent I am.

 

If you want to debate religion on a message board, you're opening your ideas to scrutiny. You are actually asking for scrutiny. You or anyone else are welcome to talk to me about whatever you want for as long as you want. I welcome whatever ideas people want to put out there. If either party decides to end the conversation for whatever reason, I respect that, conclude my thoughts, and no longer direct posts at that person unless they post again. I would expect the same courtesy. I would never want anyone to feel like they are being harassed. I have never PMed anyone unless asked to talk about religion. In short, I have never persecuted anyone and would thank you not to insinuate that I have.

 

It doesn't matter to me that you don't know the difference between saying "You're stupid" and "Your beliefs are stupid." I do. I respect religious people. I respect them enough to advance the best arguments I can, even if there's a danger they might offend someone, because I take them and their beliefs seriously. I would hope they would respect me enough to do the same. I happen to know for a fact many Christians share my experiences because I was brought up in a pretty typical Christian environment. Some of what I see in conversations is rooted in those experiences. I'm guessing you have your own experiences that matter to you. Can't be helped.

[knapplc]

Your conveniently self-serving and narrow definition does not encompass all forms of persecution. You do not have to cast a person to the lions to persecute them. It can be as simple as posting bills around the neighborhood that are anti-_______ religion. Persecution encompasses the manner, frequency, nature and intent of the action. Words alone can persecute.

 

You may attempt to insult me all you want by claiming I don't know the difference between "You're stupid" and "Your beliefs are stupid." It's not the first time you've stooped to such things, and I doubt it will be the last. I have been exceedingly lenient with you in these kinds of conversations, but as you are aware my patience has limits. I would counsel you not to explore those limits.

[The Dude]

Ehh... when I said invisible, magical sky fairy I meant it quite literally.

 

fairy: "a type of mythical being or legendary creature, a form of spirit, often described as metaphysical, supernatural or preternatural."

 

I wasn't bashing, insulting, or using satire. Theists literally believe in an invisible, magical sky fairy.

 

 

If someone actually feels persecuted by me calling a spade a spade, then they most likely have a martyr complex. Which, again, has more to do with them than me.