Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-11-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(21-11-2014 12:58 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 11:54 AM)CleverUsername Wrote:  There's no reason to not mock religion. It's a ridiculous belief. Ridiculous beliefs get mocked. Just because you really really really believe it doesn't mean it's worthy of being exempt from ridicule.

But ad homs and ridicule show a lack of respect for the believers and for one's self also.

Uh huh.
[Image: atheistbash.jpg]
Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
21-11-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(21-11-2014 10:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I trust many of you know Ravi Zacharias was an atheist before he was a leading Christian apologist.

While I can agree that Dawkins says mock belief, not the person with an ad hom, the way he avoids certain debates with certain apologists, it looks almost like he mocks them. I would like to see more debates whether between Presidential candidates or atheists and Christians to inject fresh air into the issues. And The Q agree!


Insult, per se, is not an ad hominem - you need to look up what an Ad Hominem Fallacy is, but I expect you'll understand it about as well as you understand the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Drinking Beverage

I respect people's rights as human beings to hold whatever beliefs or opinions they care to, but when someone believes twaddle, I neither respect the twaddle nor the believer of the twaddle.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
21-11-2014, 05:34 PM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(21-11-2014 01:58 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

When I see that on THIS website, respect for the believers if not for their beliefs, I'll change my tune.

And there is plenty of cases of that, and cases of not respecting believers who don't deserve respect. Almost every regular member here has respected KingChosen on this board. Not as many respect his belief at all, and that still frequently gets ridiculed or mocked at him.

You being taught a way to engage socially isn't any statement on whether anyone should actually engage in that manner socially. What is any rational basis for it?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2014, 06:05 PM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(21-11-2014 01:58 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

When I see that on THIS website, respect for the believers if not for their beliefs, I'll change my tune.

A persons indentity is made up of and informed by their beliefs. You can't mock of a component of somebodies identity without mocking their identity.

People need to respect other peoples right to hold a certain belief. A belief, like any other idea, stands on it's merit and does not automatically deserve respect.

That is all.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
24-11-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(21-11-2014 02:05 PM)microterf Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 01:58 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

When I see that on THIS website, respect for the believers if not for their beliefs, I'll change my tune.

I don't think I've every shown you any disrespect. I would however like you to answer my earlier questions of why you believe please.

When did you ask me? Sorry if I missed it. I'll clarify. Why I believe what, specifically? God? Jesus? The gospel? The Bible? That atheists are wrong? What?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(21-11-2014 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 10:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I trust many of you know Ravi Zacharias was an atheist before he was a leading Christian apologist.

While I can agree that Dawkins says mock belief, not the person with an ad hom, the way he avoids certain debates with certain apologists, it looks almost like he mocks them. I would like to see more debates whether between Presidential candidates or atheists and Christians to inject fresh air into the issues. And The Q agree!


Insult, per se, is not an ad hominem - you need to look up what an Ad Hominem Fallacy is, but I expect you'll understand it about as well as you understand the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Drinking Beverage

I respect people's rights as human beings to hold whatever beliefs or opinions they care to, but when someone believes twaddle, I neither respect the twaddle nor the believer of the twaddle.

Wikipedia - An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

I constantly see you and others on here calling people #$#@%$^ and etc. Are those statements not a call to character? Be honest.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(24-11-2014 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Insult, per se, is not an ad hominem - you need to look up what an Ad Hominem Fallacy is, but I expect you'll understand it about as well as you understand the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Drinking Beverage

I respect people's rights as human beings to hold whatever beliefs or opinions they care to, but when someone believes twaddle, I neither respect the twaddle nor the believer of the twaddle.

Wikipedia - An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

I constantly see you and others on here calling people #$#@%$^ and etc. Are those statements not a call to character? Be honest.

Does your obliviousness come naturally to you, or did you have to work at it?

A fallacy of argumentation must be related to argumentation. Do you understand this?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
24-11-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(24-11-2014 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Insult, per se, is not an ad hominem - you need to look up what an Ad Hominem Fallacy is, but I expect you'll understand it about as well as you understand the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Drinking Beverage

I respect people's rights as human beings to hold whatever beliefs or opinions they care to, but when someone believes twaddle, I neither respect the twaddle nor the believer of the twaddle.

Wikipedia - An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

I constantly see you and others on here calling people #$#@%$^ and etc. Are those statements not a call to character? Be honest.

You left out the next statement from that article, "When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

But this is typical of your inability to engage in honest debate or intelligent discussion.

Pro tip: The preceding sentence is insulting, but it is not an Ad Hominem Fallacy. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
Thomas Jefferson "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions".

The guy said "I dare you to go to Saudi Arabia"..........No dumbass, they would kill an apostate in their own country leaving Islam for Christianity, you don't have to even call names there, all you have to do is deny the existence of Allah.

Dawkins wasn't saying be a dick just to be a dick. Dawkins was advocating the ability to challenge claims. In Saudi Arabia not even Christians have the ability to challenge the claims of the majority.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: Dawkins, Ravi on Mockery and Ridicule
(24-11-2014 10:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  When did you ask me? Sorry if I missed it. I'll clarify. Why I believe what, specifically? God? Jesus? The gospel? The Bible? That atheists are wrong? What?

All of the above. You can send it in a pm if you want. I'm just curious because for most people it's because of ignorance, but I know you've seen many great reasons of why believing isn't necessary.

Remember, just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Yes, even if you have faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: