Why do you allow people to attack and ridicule Christianity?

[Singersong]

Time and time again I see people taking the absolute piss out of Christianity. Calling people delusional and saying it's made up bullshit etc. why do you allow this? I don't see this about any other religion.

It goes far beyond atheism and you claim to be against hate speech.

“don't see why religions or religious belief themselves should be protected from criticism or satire any more than any other opinion (e.g. political affiliation) should.”
Criticism is fine . Mockery is different- it reduces individuals who are believers into objects of scorn. Mockery of religious belief is not the same as legitimate criticism.

Just to clarify- I can cope with playground mocking expressions towards religion ( sky fairy etc) but when I hear that type of language it reduces any chance of a meaningful conversation. I’m not really interested in an exchange of insults.
I accept that my beliefs might seem ridiculous to many people but civilised people should be able to refrain from mocking others publicly ( unless they’re responding to an offensive comment)

This is reasonable, but I'd ask you for a moment to put yourself in the position of someone who does not believe in the existence of deities, yet is offered a "meaningful conversation" about the matter by someone who does. Also, take into account this is unlikely to be the very first time such a "conversation" has been on offer, and it may well have happened countless times previously.

I can not discuss the nature of something I fundamentally deny exists. It simply isn't a conversational topic. Where can you go with "this doesn't exist" beyond reiterating that it does not exist? You can not debate the nature of something which does not exist.

Now imagine this is the umpteenth time someone has tried to prompt this conversation with you. You will understandably be sick fed up of hearing it, so I think by that point it's perfectly reasonable to adopt a dismissive, condescending demeanour simply through sheer frustration. It is a literal impossibility to have a "meaningful conversation" about something you do not believe exists, especially with someone who does, because it is impossible to lend any credence to their position without totally suspending common sense and your basic powers of logic.

This is why, atheistic people act with complete incredulity and start chucking around terms like "sky fairy". It's sheer exasperation, which leads to contempt and ridicule.

What is it about religiosity that makes you believe believers should not be objects of scorn, or that religion should be exempt from mockery?

Obviously it's preferable to have civilised, respectful debate, but this is partly the problem. You can not have an honest, respectful debate with people who demand that you throw logic out of the window and are selective about which empirical facts they choose to acknowledge. Religious adherents are fond of ignoring commonly held principles of sensible debate and "argument", so where can you go beyond mockery and satire.

Sometimes it's the mockery that emphasises and highlights the contradictions and the hypocrisy, so to that end it clearly serves a purpose and is perfectly legitimate.

If someone persists in discussing something you are not interested in then fair enough- you might need to be quite firm in rebutting their attempts.

What is it about religiosity that makes you believe believers should not be objects of scorn, or that religion should be exempt from mockery?

Because it is basic manners not to pour scorn or ridicule someone?

Yes, agreed, but what else can you do when that person insists on being completely and utterly ridiculous?

Yes, agreed, but what else can you do when that person insists on being completely and utterly ridiculous?

Change the subject?

Yes, but like I said, I'd far prefer the matter just wasn't discussed in the first place.

I don't see where I'm in the wrong when I'm engaged on a topic by an individual, that individual adopts a plainly ridiculous position or argument, and then I ridicule that position as a means to highlight how preposterous it is.

If you don't want to hear my view, don't ask, and if you don't like being ridiculed, don't be ridiculous.

This is primarily a Christian country, OP. The majority of people have some experience with Christianity. Most people who mock and criticise it are former Christians.

Thanks @XDownwiththissortofthingX for summing things up well in your first post (and the follow ups).

I think you’ve got a point in that most of the people who are mocking are former Christians but I don’t think it’s true that this is primarily a Christian country.
I think criticism is absolutely ok ( and necessary) but mockery is divisive and unhelpful

May have been true not so long ago, but Christianity is clearly in decline, and as I said previously, even being the single largest religion does not grant Christians any right or legitimacy when they try to claim the entirety of the UK for Christianity.

In England I think it was 52% or around that who claim to be Christian, and in Scotland it's 38%. This obviously includes all the people who notionally claim to be Christian but do not actually practice the religion. The single largest group in Scotland is those who profess "no religion", so even if Christians still want to insist England is a "Christian country" due to that 52% number, it's clear that by the same measure Scotland is no such thing.

I think the concept of "former Christian" is interesting, because I've always considered myself an atheist for as long as I can recall, including standing in religious observance as a child and thinking to myself "this is all nonsense and I don't believe a word of it", yet, I was actually Christened as a child, bafflingly, since both parents are also atheists, so I suppose technically I could be described as a "former Christian" even though if I ever was a Christian t was only ever notionally and before I could express my own view.

This is why I'm sceptical of those 52% and 38% numbers. I don't think it's even an accurate picture of the reality of religion in the UK. There will be a large number of people who still lazily scrawl down "Christian" without giving it any thought whatsoever, simply because their history, family, and perhaps upbringing was notionally Christian.

Do (some) christians also not lack basic manners when they force others to listen to their evangelism then?

Again, a difference of opinion is not mockery.
I'd argue that religion itself is often the divisive factor.

The UK is not predominantly a christian country.
Speaking out about the clear shortcomings of christianity isn't mocking, it's speaking honestly and factually.

“don't see why religions or religious belief themselves should be protected from criticism or satire any more than any other opinion (e.g. political affiliation) should.”
Criticism is fine . Mockery is different- it reduces individuals who are believers into objects of scorn. Mockery of religious belief is not the same as legitimate criticism.

Do you think the same is true of any type of belief or opinion? Are there no beliefs or opinions you think it's ok to mock?

I've asked this several times in different ways on this thread and not really got an answer. None of the defenders of Christianity seem to be keen to say 'Yes, I will respect literally any belief of any kind' or admit 'No, actually, I probably would ridicule a belief in unicorns or the idea that the world is flat or dinosaurs were made up'.

I think this is an important point, because either unsubstantiated beliefs must be respected, or not. Given that there is no proof that any gods exist, why should religions command any more respect than any other belief?

No - a difference of opinion is not mockery.
its true that religion can be very divisive. I think history teaches us that tolerance - including religious tolerance- is necessary if we are to live together in peace because there will always be different views and different beliefs.

I don’t believe in loads of stuff - crystals, homeopathy, etc etc
But 🤷‍♀️ I don’t think it’s my job to tell them why they are wrong and I am right.
I don’t evangelise but am happy to talk religion with people who are interested.

This is a great point.

There used to be a joke that in Scotland "Loch Ness Monster denial" should be a criminal offence. Seems ridiculous on the face of it, until you realise that there is no more proof either way regards the LNM than deities. Why should one demand and be granted special status and the other not?

The same with pre-existing special status already given to religion, which I personally believe should have been ended decades ago. In the census prior to last, the rules were quite unambiguous that if more that 300,000 people claim to be adherents of any group, then that elevates said group into the status of an officially recognised religion in the UK. Approximately 600,000 people claimed to be Jedi adherents, yet the previously declared rules were simply ignored. Jedi'ism is still not an officially recognised religion, yet fewer than 600,000 people in the UK claim to be Jewish, and yet Judaism is an official religion without question. Why the discrepancy?

OK, I have deliberately selected one particularly trivial example of religious privilege for the sake of making a point, but there are plenty of other, far more egregious examples whereby religion is granted privilege on a completely arbitrary basis.

My view is that all religion is man made and gods are mythical beings, essentially designed to control and/or give (false) purpose.
I accept that humans can and do follow a whole host of belief systems, l but I do not have to incorporate anyone else's belief system into how I live my life.

I mean, it's probably more likely that a Nessie type creature might exist!
That's not meant to be offensive, just honest.

I do understand that for you religion is ridiculous. And that’s your right and it’s a more scientifically logical position than mine. But comparing the adherents of Jedi’ism to the Judaism is, in my view , ridiculous ( your word)
Judaism is a very old religion with a long and rich and torturous history. Jedi’ism is a product of Star Wars .
Ok - you’re equating the two to show how ridiculous religion is - but religion, history, politics and culture are closely intertwined so my plea for courtesy in a discussion about religion is not an attempt to ask for a special favour . I truly believe that refraining from mockery ( not criticism) is an important principle when discussing other people’s religion or culture.

How many times are we going to have to say that pointing out the flaws in most religious systems is not mockery, but merely stating actual facts?

Ok … I think I was trying to argue that it might be better for social cohesion to accept that you don’t need to always point out flaws in other people’s beliefs

I do accept that you HAVE to point out the flaws in other people’s beliefs if there is a chance they become law or affect your quality of life …
But otherwise- live and let live