Mr. Bean gets it. Do you?

[cleanhippie]

[TheMastersNemesis]

1. Rowan Atkinson's Proof How Brilliant Funny Men Are

Rowan Atkinson is one of the most brilliant funny men of our time. His Mr. Bean was brilliantly funny and I am sorry that he retired the characters. He was also brilliant in Thin Blue Line and the Black Adder. He is Charlie Chaplain, Stan Laurel and Ernie Kovaks all rolled into one.

He most reminds me of a Stan Laurel routine when Stan does ten minutes trying to thread a needle. It was hilarious. It takes true genius to take something commonplace or that is absolutely nothing and blow it up into something hilariously funny.

We need more characterizations like Bean to keep us laughing in such a dark time.

And there is another reason to really hate Reublicans, they have NO sense of humor.

[cleanhippie]

3. It is sad that Mr. Bean is no more.

Maybe he will rise from the dead and make an appearance now and then.

[qb]

2. Smart and funny. That's a good combination.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. The man knows what he's talking about.

He painted Whistler's Mother.

[mactime]

5. I have enjoyed

almost everything I have seen by Rowan Atkinson and would say Black Adder is one of the best shows ever.
Also agree with the above quote.

[calimary]

18. "Black Adder" is one of my husband's favorite DVD series EVER.

Mine, on the other hand, is "The Thin Blue Line." More than a few times I've actually pissed him off because we'd be watching it late at night, he'd have fallen asleep, and then the show would made me laugh out loud so hard that I'd wake him up!

We played the "Mr. Bean" DVDs for our kids and really enjoyed how we COULD do that - it's scathingly funny AND still clean enough for kids. One time we gave a "Mr. Bean" DVD set to my son's best friend for I think either his 7th or 8th birthday - the kid's whole family got into it, with great relish!

[elias7]

6. My criticism of atheism is that

Most I read here (if they are representative) reject religion because it is used as justification of non religious aims, and reject god on the basis of inability to believe in the invisible man in the sky theory. I feel this is like rejecting American culture based on your high school experience. In other words, I see the atheist posts here seeming to push off of and rebel against the most unsophisticated views of god and religion imaginable.

The starting point is not whether you believe in god, it is rather what do you mean by god which you have decided you don't believe in. Any meaningful discussion about god must start with definitions, and really only unsophisticated redneck Christians think about god as an invisible man in the sky. If that is all you have to push off of, you need to get past high school with regard to the world of religion.

[trotsky]

7. Have you read this?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

[progressoid]

8. I would posit that nearly all atheists HAVE considered what the definition of God is.

We aren't just rejecting the redneck version (although it might seem that way). Since they are probably the most visible version of believers, they tend to get the most attention. But, trust me, we've been through the gamut of definitions of God and haven't found one yet that passes muster.

[CrispyQ]

9. ~facepalm.

"The starting point is not whether you believe in god, it is rather what do you mean by god which you have decided you don't believe in."

So we are supposed to define what we don't believe in? If I state that I don't believe in unicorns, must I then define all the types of alleged unicorns I don't believe in, pink ones, flying ones, mutated ones with two horns? Why can't you simply accept that we don't believe in god - no matter which version?

[unblock]

10. great! you've managed to insult both atheists AND a whole lot of believers at the same time!

is the idea that those who believe in an intrinsic god sip chardonnay while those who believe in an extrinsic god chug ripple?
meanwhile, atheist drink, what, soda?

enjoy your "sophisticated" belief system!

[dmallind]

11. You stepped up to the plate. Now swing

Define a god for us, as sophisticated a one as you can, and see if it will not fail on the only criterion that matters to the vast majority of atheists - the lack of evidence for it.

"High school" concepts of God are what apply in the real world by the way. Nobody ever got a majority of voters to reject equal marriage by spouting off theories of Kung or Spong.

You think you're the first to try that pretentious "oh you poor atheists have never considered a sophisticated concept of God before" shite here?

[usrname]

16. Well, what is YOUR definition of god?

I'm an atheist because I have yet to find a definition of "god" that is well-defined. And in the case(s) of well-definedness, it's clear that there is no existence of such a being (under the definition given).

Hence for me, a mathematician, there is no god.

The second step, then, is to realize that anyone promoting any social or legal initiative based on the existence of a god is, well, unsubstantiated. No leg to stand on.

To me, there's either a religiosity component or no-religiosity component. There is no god, accept that. There is religion and there's no-religion. People who believe in a supposed god are just being religionists. People who don't bother with a god are non-religionists.

[SemperEadem]

17. No, the starting point *is* whether one chooses not to believe in god, period.

it isn't fit for you to expect/demand/insist that others to define for you what their beliefs are so you can tailor your argument to negate their stance. All you need do is accept that they don't believe. Period. End of story. Move on.

[Taverner]

24. Once again, the "all other religions are silly except mine" canard

[rug]

12. Conflating criticism and ridicule is ridiculous.

It makes for bad ridicule.

[dmallind]

15. How are they conflated? I see an "and" in the quote

Which one should not be allowed by law, since that's the point of the quote?

[rug]

20. Criticism of a position is usually based on sound reasoning and established facts.

Ridicule is one of the numerous logical fallacies.

The "and" presents the use of both criticism and ridicule as valid argument.

If someone attacks a position using both, it is the attacker that becomes ridiculous, not the object of the ridicule.

The point of the quote is not that both ridicule and criticism can be used but that religion is not exempt from either, nor should the law (blasphemy laws, e.g.) prohibit it.

[eqfan592]

21. It's too bad so many around here think "sound reasoning" also equates to "ridicule."

But I thank you for providing the definitions for us. They are sure to come in handy.

[Goblinmonger]

22. You do know that reductio ad ridiculum

is not about ridicule but about taking something to ridiculous ends, right?

Don't hurt yourself trying to identify fallacies.

[rug]

25. Invisible sky daddy is a sober logical step.

And here's a fine example of a thought-terminating cliché:

"Don't hurt yourself trying to identify fallacies."

[Goblinmonger]

28. What a splendid response to the fallacy point I was making.

Oh, wait, no it isn't. Some may think you "snappy" but most of us realize it is just a diversion when you are so blatantly proven wrong.

[rug]

29. Argumentum ad populum.

&feature=related

[Goblinmonger]

30. argumentum e silentio

Is this name a random fallacy time?

And your diversion isn't working for anyone following along.

[rug]

32. No, that's a non sequitur.

Keep up.

[dmallind]

27. Yes I know the definitions. Where's the conflation?

The law would ban both. It should ban neither. Seems clear to me. I can definitely supply instances of Atkinson doing both.

Ridicule as a logical fallacy is highly specific. Showing an argument to be ridiculous by demonstrating the complete absence of evidence for it, or by demonstrating its absurd nature is not ridicule. Not everything claimed to be ridicule by believers is either.

[rug]

36. It mixes two completely different genres that have two completely different purposes

Ridiculing an argument is not rebutting an argument. Especially since each argument is based on at least one premise, or datum, as a given.

The quote, misattributed to Gandhi but made by the labor leader Nicholas Klein, is "And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America."

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Satirists would disagree with you

Good satire can both ridicule and criticise its target at the same time.

Political satire uses ridicule and irony to criticise politics and politicians in an entertaining way through caricature.

http://www.parliament.uk/worksofart/collection-highlights/political-satire

[rug]

35. I value good satire. It serves a purpose. But it does not make a good argument.

That's why I said mixing the two only makes bad ridicule.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. You said criticism and ridicule should not be mixed

and yet satire, which you say you value, does mix them. It may not be a formal argument; but criticism is far larger than just formal arguments.

[bananas]

13. So atheists shouldn't complain when their beliefs are criticized and ridiculed - Cool!

Great point, Mr. Bean!

[dmallind]

14. They'd have to exist first.

I cannot think of a single belief that is necessary to or even unique to atheism.

[2ndAmForComputers]

19. Did you see what the quote was about?

It was a proposed ant-blasphemy law. Look that up. Then please tell us your opinion on THAT, if you'd be so kind.

[eqfan592]

23. You're more than welcome to try.

But that doesn't mean your criticism will have any validity.

[Silent3]

26. The fact that you think that's a ROFL gotcha...

...just shows how poor your understanding is of what's being said in the OP, and how poor your understanding is of what atheists complain about.

Atheists (generally speaking -- this caveat added just in case you hope to dig up a counter-example and employ your gotcha! style of argument again) do not attempt to establish atheism itself as off limits to criticism or ridicule. The fact that it's not off limits, however, doesn't mean that specific incidences of criticism and ridicule won't be found worthy of criticism and ridicule themselves.

In other words, saying I'm open to criticism doesn't mean I'm going to quietly accept all criticism without response. When I do respond, that's hardly tantamount to some imagined hypocritical reversal where I'm suddenly declaring that no criticism is allowed at all.

Many people, however, do treat religious ideas as off-limits from criticism and ridicule as a general rule, or, if not totally off limits, they expect religion to be treated as a subject matter that must be approached with the utmost care and sensitivity, above and beyond what's expected when dealing with other areas of human beliefs, philosophies, practices, and ideas.

Do you really not understand the above, or do you understand it, but you're happy to spring on anything that can be twisted into apparent hypocrisy anyway?

[cleanhippie]

31. As soon as I HAVE a belief about gods, sure.

[mike_c]

34. please...

...let's hear some of that vaunted criticism of atheists' "beliefs." What is it you think we're so attached to that we cannot have a critical dialog about it?