Skip to main content

What's the point of lampooning religion? To upset the religious?

Here is my latest blog post over at CFI: link.
 
In the wake of the horrific massacre at Charlie Hebdo, debate has focused on the issue of causing of offence to religious people. Is that the point of lampooning religion? Is causing offence to Muslims the aim of someone who draws a cartoon of Mohammad? No, usually it's not (though this point is usually lost on the offended).

Comments

martine said…
Thanks for that, not the first time you have managed to articulate so succinctly for me something that I felt intuitively.
L.Long said…
No the point is to wake up the others..which is worse!!

Sacranie said he ‘would not dare’ to insult a member of your close family with the intention of hurting your feelings. He added that if he did, ‘I would perhaps get a punch on my nose’.
What a load of BS!! His comment proves that the reactions of people are ignorant BS violence. There by saying isLame men are thin skinned Aholes!!!

I had this argument with an idiot a while back as he got all heated after I said that jesus was a bastard by his own rules, and he finally said, "and how would you like it is I called your mother a lying whore bitch!!!!"
NO I did not hit him in the nose--how utterly stupid!!!
I smiled and pointed out that you then have demonstrated to every intelligent person listening what an idiot you are. For one she is as truthful as any human, she has to work for her money, and she does not have a long tail and does not walk on all four limbs, so your intelligence is not very high!!!
The others listening laughed and he walked off.
Yes ridicule is how you handle the stupid and ignorant, but remember they are not smart enough to use words in combat so be prepared for violence.
But the isLame violence is not for the reason I show above as they recognize the ridicule for what it is (truth they cannot fight) and to keep their people from listening and to quiet others that threaten their political power (cuz they care about Mo just about as much as preachers care about jesus-meaning not at all) the 'insult to Mo/allah/karan' must be put down hard!!!
Faith is what one has about the belief of some invisible imaginary friend, religion is the gathering of like minded bigots for the exercise of power usually over others not like you.
= MJA said…
Western Philosophy: Never tease a rattlesnake unless you are trying to get bit. =

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...