Oh… You’re So Funny! … January 1, 2014

Mock me not, heathen.

Should atheists mock christians? Some people indicate we shouldn’t as it makes us look bad, and thereby hurts our cause.

But what’s an atheist to do when the mind-locked christian displays a stubborn ignorance to recognize reason and logic? What can you do when logical fallacies and warped semantics are all you are given to chew upon?

When, after destroying an opponent with flawless reason, that opponent fails to notice that they have been destroyed and continues to use the argument you just invalidated, what course can you take?

I think when it’s clear that the christian simply has inadequate knowledge and intelligence to know that they have been annihilated it’s time to reach into your bag of derisiveness. If after you have already intellectually blown them out of the water and they fail to leave it’s time to ridicule them out of the town on a rail.

No, it’s not pretty, and sometimes I admit I feel sorry for the so and so. I will not argue ignorance with ignorance, they have too much experience. No… I will make fun of them, I will berate them, I will make them so uncomfortable they will wish they never came.

Does this make me mean? Does this hurt the cause of atheism? Does atheism have a cause? Maybe it does display my humanity a little too much, but what’s an atheist to do? After all, I speak only for myself, and no one else. Who knows… perhaps the christian will sit down and realize later on that he came to the battle unarmed, having left his reason, his logic, on the dresser at home.

 

A SPECIAL NEW YEAR’S MESSAGE:

closetAre you still in the closet? Don’t you think it’s time for atheists everywhere to consider getting out of there? It’s the only way to stop the crazy.

This entry was posted in Religion and Reason and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Oh… You’re So Funny! … January 1, 2014

  1. john zande says:

    Humanism has a cause, atheism doesn’t… not really. Not in and by itself. And I say mock away! If someone has chosen willful ignorance then they have brought any and all derision on themselves.

  2. drenn1077 says:

    Sometimes, for the Christian, when they come to argue it must truly seem like they come with a cardboard knife to a machine gun fight.

  3. john zande says:

    The truly infuriating part is they argue tiny details while ignoring the larger picture. Presently i’m throwing together a post on how historians know the Pentateuch is myth. Taken as a whole the findings are conclusive and beyond question, but i guarantee you a Christian will come and say, “the dates are wrong…. the exodus REALLY happened in the 1500’s BCE.” It’s the game they play. It’s a game the have to play to maintain their belief.

  4. drenn1077 says:

    A game of desperation.

  5. fred2levins says:

    This is a subject with far reaching implications.

    In my view, the answer to the first question is, briefly, “No.”

    Putting aside my own reaction and leaving myself out of it, I am convinced that those who mock look bad in the eyes of those who are the best amongst us; those who are first rate and possessed of high character do not engage in ad hominem argumentation in all its forms, including mockery.

    I am convinced that not only does it look bad to those who are the most powerful potential allies for any cause, those who have displayed high character and succeeded as leaders (that’s not me), it is bad, in part because it is self-defeating, no matter what the cause. There are other important reasons, too, beyond effectiveness toward an immediate particular end, to not indulge in mockery.

    However, mockery, a derisive retort, or a clever comeback might result in a temporary emotional lift in the short term, even if its effect is destructive with respect to promoting one’s adopted cause in the long term. If one wants to feel good in the short term and is willing to accept the likely negative effect or effects, an ad hominem argument may serve that purpose.

  6. drenn1077 says:

    In my view the answer to the first question is “sometimes”.
    Does this hurt “our” cause? Perhaps, but only infinitesimally so. How does one’s image descend below “you’re destined for hellfire and brimstone”?
    In many ways an emphatic “no”, in my opinion, leaves one vulnerable. There are some theists who will not quit no matter how much you destroy their assertions with cold hard fact. If you decide to just leave it be and walk off they immediately assume a superior posture and exclaim they have won the argument. Then you are faced with the decision to either mock them, lowering possible image status, or having them claim victory, yet another lowering of image status. Yes, most likely your friends and comrades in arms will know who the victor is, but that is not the “choir” you are trying to convince.
    In fact, refraining from ridiculing an opponent who has already been beaten but continues to wave about the same arguments is not unlike the submissive and slave-like ad-vocation of “turning the other cheek”.

  7. fred2levins says:

    This is an important subject worthy of my additional attention.

    If I had intended my answer to be an “emphatic” no, which I did not, I would have made it explicit by using an exclamation mark or by some other method. My original and intended answer, in its brief form, to the first question is simply and briefly, “No,” not some embellishment. I seldom give emphatic answers. It is not my chosen style of writing.

    I am going to be less than brief by adding to my original post in light of your response. Yes, there might conceivably be an exchange where at some point (“A”) mockery or derision in some form can be part of a response in a given moment, all things considered, that advances one cause. However, despite my having read through hundreds of online threads over the past five years, not a single example has yet come to mind.

    My view is that such instances, points such as A, if they exist, are the rare exception in the actual practice that I have seen. Therefore, although “sometimes” is indeed a more precise response from me, as well (in addition to you), as detailed in this post, it is a response I give only after having qualified it for clarity, to convey my chosen meaning, and is less than brief.

    I have not yet commented upon the various parts of your description and explanation of the basis for your view. I would have to write one or more new posts for that.

    Lastly, I am interested in Ron Stephens’ answer to the first question. I presently respect his judgment. What does he think?

  8. drenn1077 says:

    Ron Stephens response to the first question is easy to determine: all you have to do is ask him.
    I would like to clarify something for you, however, and that is the separation I place on my private activities as compared to my membership in Mid-Ohio Atheists. I do not take an aggressive stance when under the Mid-Ohio banner as I do in my private affairs. What I do outside of the club membership is not affiliated with the membership and I do not claim it does represent the membership on my blog.
    I do not subscribe to your philosophy on how to treat those who do not seem to have the sense to know they have been defeated in debate. Those that graciously agree that they do not have anything to counter my arguments are treated with respect. The others are treated like unwanted house guests. I do see how your stance does fit nicely with your agnostic stance, however.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s