Hi

[Boreasos]

Of course you are as entitled to ridicule the ridiculous as anyone else.

I'm not really talking about "entitlement" or "rights", but whether it is morally right to ridicule someone you believe to be ridiculous.

I believe that it is morally acceptable to ridicule a person or group of people if they hold views that are irrational (will get to what I mean by irrational below).

I am an atheist, as are many on this board, but it's a very broad term. Some atheists just don't believe, others actively oppose theism (closer to anti theist) and others occupy the entire spectrum in between. Being a critical atheist means I go a step further than a simple lack of belief, but not quite as far as to openly and actively opposing theism. I find that theism, or the belief in a god/gods is irrational (as there is no evidence to support the notion) and should ideally be rejected by all, though I freely admit that the existence of a god/gods isn't impossible.

Thank you for a very clear explanation of your view. I am a bit puzzled as to why you choose the word "critical" to describe it, but that is neither here nor there. Why do you think that theism is irrational, and what is "irrationality" on your view (is it a normative standard of right-thinking that all humans are held to, for example?)? And given that you believe it to be an irrational belief (and obviously one that is widely held) why do you not actively oppose it?

I chose the word critical because I feel it most aptly describes my views and opinions. I am not the first to use this label though, and I do feel at home using the common definition of it as it is almost exactly as I wrote it.
In my view irrationality is simply the lack of rational thought, where a rational thought is one that is backed up by evidence and/or valid logic. An irrational belief would therefore be one that is believed even when there is no demonstrable evidence to support it, or there is demonstrable evidence that contradicts it.
Under this definition I therefore classify theism as an irrational belief, since there is no demonstrable evidence to support it.
As for active opposition; I am a believer in a persons right to believe what he or she wishes, even if said belief is irrational. I only take issue with such beliefs if it is forced on others or if it's detrimental to society and progress. As such my "opposition" is mostly reactive.

That said though, I am human and not entirely above ridiculing those I find to hold beliefs that fly in the face of all available evidence, logic and reason.

---

---

Thanks Maria, LastPoet, lilphil1989 and Boreasos.

LastPoet, lilphil1989, Boreasos: If I consider one of the things you say in the future to be ridiculous, will it be right for me to ridicule you for holding those views?

Boreasos, from your "Religious Views": What is the difference between a critical atheist and an uncritical (or non-critical) atheist?

Of course you are as entitled to ridicule the ridiculous as anyone else.

I am an atheist, as are many on this board, but it's a very broad term. Some atheists just don't believe, others actively oppose theism (closer to anti theist) and others occupy the entire spectrum in between. Being a critical atheist means I go a step further than a simple lack of belief, but not quite as far as to openly and actively opposing theism. I find that theism, or the belief in a god/gods is irrational (as there is no evidence to support the notion) and should ideally be rejected by all, though I freely admit that the existence of a god/gods isn't impossible.

---

Just being curious, what evidence would you accept for the existence of God?

Any demonstrable scientific evidence.