There are a lot of things that will never be understood about the religious folk, YJ. A lot of things...

It's used all the time. But it's usually part of a longer piece of literature. The religious are less well represented on the internet. There's also the fact that, in direct dialog, there is a desire to be caring and respectful to a reasonable degree.

http://piloseo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/baiting-seos.jpg

That's great, Semck, but I specifically said satire. Satire is in no way designed to be caring or respectful, in fact it's designed to be as infuriating as possible to the target. Since we know religious people are no less willing to use whatever tools are available to make their case, I again suggest it is because they cannot. Satire is not part of the arsenal of the faithful.

On or off the internet, it simply does not exist. If you care to provide a counterexample, I am, of course, all eyes.

it exists on the 'net, I've seen it

I usually laugh and think it's stupid, just as I expect most religious people do when faced with satire from the faithless

serious answer: confirmation bias

honest response to thread: http://piloseo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/baiting-seos.jpg

really, PE? Can you show me some? I would, of course, be a fool to not have looked before I made this post, but I don't doubt that you or Semck could find something I would have overlooked easily.

If it exists.

"That's great, Semck, but I specifically said satire. Satire is in no way designed to be caring or respectful, in fact it's designed to be as infuriating as possible to the target. "

Occasionally I wonder if you try at all to understand what I say before the fifth iteration, Yellowjacket. :-) I understand that satire is not meant to be caring or respectful. I was suggesting precisely that this is part of why it's not a major tool in the arsenal of the faithful *in dialog with unbelievers.* Believers are supposed to try to be caring and respectful, ergo, they don't use satire very often in dialog.

As for an example -- as I said, most that come to mind are in literature somewhere. Here is one from the internet. As PE said, how funny you find this kind of thing probably depends partially on what side you're on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNZyijC-aS4

Secular humanism has less of a rational basis than Christian belief and thus is easier satirized. Perhaps the reason it is not so often satirized is that it is the dominant cultural presupposition of our time, going unchallenged in the formative years of children's' education in the public school system. In addition, satire is not a form of rational discourse which respects the position of the other as a legitimate position capable of being held by a rational person, and as such is not used by people who want to engage in real debate.

To say that because secular humanism is not often satirized proves that it is inherently less ridiculous than a religious system of belief is very simply a non sequitur. It does not follow that because a particular form of bad discourse is not used against a position means that the position is inherently better than any position which is often subjected to a form of bad discourse.

In fact, if any point is to be made, it is the opposite: that because secular humanists so often resort to satire rather than rational discourse, then perhaps they have trouble engaging with other views on the level of logic and rationality. And if they do, then perhaps religious belief is more logical and rational than secular humanism.

"Non-religious" just doesn't seem specifically defined enough to be satirized. Too vague.

Well, case in point, semck.

I only had to listen to the first minute to agree that it is, indeed, satirical.

Horribly unfunny, but satirical. I suspect you agree :)

My premise is rot, and I shall retreat forthwith.




@Ramsul I take issue with a lot of what you said, but I've already ceded the main point.

OK I admit I did laugh when he said, "If a Dawkins designed the books, then who designed the Dawkins?" Mostly because the accent is so good, but still.

Too bad I'm supposed to have trouble engaging with logic and rationality, eh?

What is the straw rant of the week

I didn't say you had trouble engaging with logic and rationality, YJ -- but perhaps you're responding to somebody else.

"Horribly unfunny, but satirical. I suspect you agree :)"

Actually, I find parts of it pretty hilarious -- in no small part, as you mention, because it's an awesome impression.

Yeah that was for Ramsul.

Because believers don't think there's anything amusing about disbelief. They believe the fate of your eternal soul is on the line. To poke fun at that would be crass at best, cruel at worst.

However we unbelievers feel about religious people, they're rarely as condescending to us as we are to them. Sometimes closed-minded, occasionally pushy, often excessively earnest, frequently heavy-handed, but rarely, rarely condescending.

@Rasmul,
"Secular humanism has less of a rational basis than Christian belief and thus is easier satirized."
That's one hell of an assertion.

@ hecks - Is it? I think that everyone can point to the epistemological foundation of Christian belief, that is, the revealed word of God as presented in the Scriptures. Of course, people can question whether that is a legitimate epistemological foundation, but at least it's there in the open.

But can anyone really point to an epistemological foundation for secular humanism? Is there really a good grounding to believe what secular humanists believe about the cosmos and human beings? It seems to me that secular humanism is itself epistemologically grounded on an unverifiable assertion that is itself unclear. To pin down the exact nature of this assertion is difficult because secular humanism doesn't seem to have a coherent structure.

"can anyone really point to an epistemological foundation for secular humanism?"

Aristotle

I'll concede that Christianity has a much more identifiable, concrete, unified basis. Secular humanism encompasses a diffuse range of views based largely on the individual reasoning of the individual, making it far less uniform as a belief structure. But the difference between coherent and rational is not self-evident to me.

Christianity certainly has a more uniform basis than secular humanism, but it does not follow from that that the basis is more rational.

@hecks ... Christianity is rarely condescending? I think the entirety of Africa and parts of Asia will disagree.

Allow me to explain what I mean more fully. The reasons given by the Christian tradition for placing one's faith in the Scriptures as the divinely inspired word of God and as the epistemological basis for belief about the cosmos, are at least coherent and have the appearance of rational arguments. On the other hand, the fact that there are in fact various different foundations for all different sorts of humanism seems in and of itself to be one reason to suppose that there is no legitimate rational basis for it.

SYnapse makes my point by claiming that a good basis for secular humanism is found in Aristotle. But many humanists would, I imagine, take serious issue with Aristotle's claim that human beings have a "characteristic activity" and that that characteristic activity is "activity of the soul in accordance with virtue." At least, they would definitely quibble with Aristotle's understanding of what virtue is.

The small point that I am making is that it counts as a reason against secular humanism that it does not, and perhaps cannot have a single rational basis in any solid epistemological claim.

@Rasmul,
"On the other hand, the fact that there are in fact various different foundations for all different sorts of humanism seems in and of itself to be one reason to suppose that there is no legitimate rational basis for it. "

That's a tenuous claim. After all, the apocrypha is accepted by some branches of Christianity and not by others. The papacy is a key founding concept to some branches of Christianity and not to others. Predestination is the basis for salvation in some concepts of Christianity, and vehemently rejected by others.

The fact is that humanism is based solely on one's inferences based on observation; that is, based solely on logic. While this provides room for divergence of conclusion, I find it far more rational to accept one's own observation than to begin with the assumption of the infallibility of a single ancient source.

^ It does make Christianity a lot *easier* to accept, but ease of acceptance and rationality of conclusion are not the same thing. In fact, they're frequently diametrically opposed.

@Bo_Sox,
"Christianity is rarely condescending? I think the entirety of Africa and parts of Asia will disagree."

Are you referring to imperialism? I'd argue that Western imperialism was an economic concern with a veneer of religion, and that it's religious appearance was an excuse. When you get to Central and South America, for example, most of the sympathetic and admiring descriptions we have of the Aztecs and Inca come from priests, whereas the condescending ones come from the military and mineral prospectors. Capitalism is often condescending.

Sbyvl leaves, Ramsul enters

thingsthatmakeyougohmm.jpg

Is that an accusation? Do I need a mod?

The religious appearance was an excuse. No doubt about that. That doesn't make it excusable. Is that what you're saying? A massive portion of the world believed and supported it based on religion. That's not just out of genuine earnest for the African people.