Post by creature386 on Jan 18, 2015 14:39:58 GMT 5
I had a debate about that at school. Just about everyone in my class was against it. I guess I am in favor of "Yes, with some restrictions" (like not depicting God), looking at how sensitive the people in my class were. Some of them even criticized me for my position (I argued for it) after the debate.
I can understand that people who take their religion very seriously can be insulted by it, and there really is a lot of tasteless stuff out there that’s just supposed to make people angry.
On the other hand, that they do is their own decision (it’s not as if being religious was fundamentally something one has no choice about), and they have to deal with the consequences. What others think about it shouldn’t matter. Otherwise what about science? Should scientists be forced to agree with some religion, because religious people might feel insulted otherwise? Fundamentalists who think so surely deserve to be mocked.
Satire makes fun of pretty much everything, so I can’t see why there should be a special restriction of the freedom of speech and press just for religion.
Some atheists on YouTube will deliberately mock religions (usually either Christianity or Islam) to get a reaction out of people. No prizes for guessing who I'm talking about. I am against that, because it makes all of us atheists look like obnoxious smartasses. On the other hand, fundamentalists and extremists deserve to be ridiculed for obvious reasons.
The biggest problem though, is that non-theists will look at these few delusional lunatics, and assume that they are representative of all religious people. Therefore, they make fun of religion and their religious scriptures, which gets a reaction out of casual Christians and Muslims who are otherwise great people. It's a vicious cycle of hate.
Last Edit: Jan 23, 2015 0:40:36 GMT 5 by Vodmeister
Well, satire is not necessarily going out and insulting people. But I agree that satire should not be used for provocation (in case that is your point). Or at least it shouldn't be the main intent, entertainment of the audience and possible critique should be in the foreground. What I wondered is where the limits are, i.e. should Muhammed be depicted? The question is particularly interesting because I am not even sure if that is actually forbidden in Islam.
IMO it should almost never be acceptable to turn something verbal into something physical. I say "almost" because I'm sure that if I made a generalized statement, someone would come up to me with an extreme case of where it is justified.
Last Edit: Feb 5, 2015 9:44:23 GMT 5 by Vodmeister
Has anyone watched darkmatter2525's videos? I've been a regular viewer of his videos for years now, he's one of my favorite atheist YouTubers (no idea why his name slipped has my mind on this thread) His are actual sarcasm that is actually criticizes certain questionable (to put it mildly) religious ideas by making a lot of very valid points - in witty ways.
Last Edit: Feb 26, 2015 6:16:50 GMT 5 by Vodmeister
Post by creature386 on May 19, 2015 20:50:12 GMT 5
A somewhat relevant question when talking about Islam (it should be absolutely obvious that this thread was more or less a reaction to Charlie Hebdo anyway):
Does the Q'ran even prohibit depicting Muhammed? All the Muslims I know say yes, but there are apparently hints for the opposite, such as depictions of Muhammed by the first Muslims and the fact that no verse explicitly says so.
Yes, with no restrictions or exceptions at all, depictions of gods or other religious characters should be managed as any other fantasy characters.
We can bash fictional characters like Superman, Batman, Hulk, etc... all we want. The problem is that fictional characters do not have the emotional attachment and backing of billions of people around the world, like Jesus or Mohammed do.
I have yet to hear of any Marvel fan murdering a DC fan for mocking Spiderman.
One simply cannot compare fantasy characters to religion. Yes, to an agnostic atheist such as myself, they are both equally relevant, but the real world unfortunately doesn't work that way.
Actually, isn’t there some sort of religious group based on Star Wars that call themselves jedi? I don’t want to insult anyone, but it has to be said: Nobody would take that (or pastafarianism for that matter) seriously. So, why do people take other religions that seriously then? It’s ridiculous how even many atheists still feel the need to walk on tiptoes when discussing religion to avoid hurting anybody’s feelings, as if those feelings themselves were something that deserves special protection, when the subjects of those religous beliefs are, for all we know, about as real as "the force" (or the flying spagetti monster).
Somebody makes fun of a work of pop culture, or of the notion that our universe was created by a sentient pile of noodles–everybody laughs and agrees that it’s ridiculous. Somebody makes fun of religion—everybody considers them insensitive and tactless, some people even shoot them or behead them.
It’s time to get rid of those double standards that force society to be over-careful about not insulting any religous beliefs.
Last Edit: May 22, 2015 17:51:23 GMT 5 by theropod
Infinity Blade: I'm not sure. Freshwater plants certainly grow from the underwater sediment upwards, but I don't know if they support the same kinds of diverse ecosystems seagrass meadows do.
Mar 25, 2022 21:40:57 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Is there a freshwater equivalent of seagrass meadows?
Mar 24, 2022 22:17:28 GMT 5
hypezephyr: IN DROWN, WATER WILL CHIMPS
May 27, 2021 22:33:21 GMT 5
kekistani: IN WATER, CHIMPS WILL DROWN.
Mar 18, 2021 11:18:01 GMT 5
roninwolf1981: I wonder why is it that the greater apes would drown if they fell into water from the trees?
Mar 16, 2021 22:25:11 GMT 5
kekistani: The virgin and bluepilled Mokele Mbembe versus the CHAD and REDPILLED Water Elephant
Mar 4, 2021 22:31:57 GMT 5
Ceratodromeus: Considering even the most terrestrially inclined extant crocodilians are also very good swimmers, i see zero reason for sebechids to not be.
Feb 25, 2021 21:09:18 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Virtually every terrestrial animal can swim if it needs to. I don't know about tail flexibility, though.
Feb 21, 2021 22:17:14 GMT 5
jhg: Probably not. Terrestrial crocodiles stayed on land for a good reason.
Feb 21, 2021 11:17:16 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Do you think sebecids and other crocodile-like terrestrial animals were good swimmers and if so, would they have used their tails to swim or would they have been too stiff?
Feb 21, 2021 6:16:35 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Welcome to World of Animals.
Jan 31, 2021 5:06:24 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Any idea how well pterosaurs would have fared in extremely cold climates? I can't help but assume that their wing membranes would be more vunerable to frostbite than a bird's wing.
Jan 23, 2021 9:38:14 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Turns out there is a study: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08812-2 fresh bones provided 63% more energy than dry bones but what I find intresting is that dry bones that are between 3-12 months old is still a viable food source for them.
Jan 4, 2021 9:18:34 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I think they might get calcium from the bones, but those might be harder to digest as well. For bone marrow, I'd say however long it's around before it completely decays.
Jan 4, 2021 6:23:06 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Question: I know a bearded vulture's diet consists mainly of bone marrow, but are they able to derive nutritional value from old bones or do the bones have to be relatively fresh?
Jan 4, 2021 2:59:21 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Happy New Year mudda fuggas.
Jan 1, 2021 10:02:06 GMT 5