A False Impression of the Religious as Humourless?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Are religious people unfairly maligned as humourlessly pious, and/or perpetually offended? Do you expect them to be? Do you expect on introspection that your expectation is biased? Why or why not?

There's a lot of finger-pointing at Christians because they forgive rather than retaliate, so in media depictions, they may absorb some of the negative traits that are more rightly associated with other religions. So, while even the least fair stereotypes don't grow out of nothing, it's not Christians. It's not Hindus. It's not Jews. It's not Buddhists. In the case of humourlessly pious, it's Muslims. And maybe Puritans.

Whether religious people are fairly or unfairly maligned for being humourless also depends on the function of humour. There seem to be some jokes which are simply cruel, but many people don't find them very funny, and you could argue that digs at a person's appearance if they are simply ugly, for example, don't really rise to the level of a joke. If humour only exists to poke fun at things which are allowed to exist, but perhaps should not be, like tyranny, it's possible that to a thinking person, if a joke attacks something unworthy of being attacked, the joke simply won't land. It's important to at least consider why things are funny - why humour exists - because if religious people are humourless, they're coming from intelligent design and there being a very intentional reason for everything, and I think there are enough sins to make sure everyone is a sinner without adding humour to the list. Even coming from that perspective, it seems in a different category than the urge to hurt people, doesn't it? It's pretty well diametrically opposite.

[1213]

Question for debate: Are religious people unfairly maligned as humourlessly pious, and/or perpetually offended? ...

No, it is fair if people make generalizations and judge others without even knowing the individuals. As we all know, also atheists are all the same.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

Religious folks can be hilarious. For instance, this morning I heard that the Pope was speaking on the ethics of AI at the G7 summit. Nuff said.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't think its possible to make sweeping generalizations about religious folk, especially since such a group would include billions of people. Many Christians draw the line at certain types of humour . The Apostle Paul warned against "obscene and foolish talking or crude joking" the Amplified bible puts it this way ...

EPHESIANS 5:4 Amplified Bible

Let there be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse [obscene or vulgar] joking, because such things are not appropriate [for believers]; but instead speak of your thankfulness [to God].

That said , a sense of humour is, I believe, a gift from God and anyone that has ever laughed gives evidence they have one. And that includes religious folk.



RELATED POSTS

Does God have a sense of humour?
viewtopic.php?p=883863#p883863

Do religious people have a sense of humour?
viewtopic.php?p=1040870#p1040870

Why is there no humor in the Bible?
viewtopic.php?p=849747#p849747

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

GOD, THE DIVINE NAME and ...THE TRINITY

[Purple Knight]

No, it is fair if people make generalizations and judge others without even knowing the individuals. As we all know, also atheists are all the same.

I actually think that in general, many of the criticisms leveled against atheists are fair, whether any particular individual embodies them or not. And it's helpful for me to see these very nearsighted, bigoted, full-of-themselves atheists (who don't represent everybody but there is a trend) who throw out words like reason, science, and evidence, but the way they use them is very-I'm-right-and-you're-not-see-my-Pope-hat. It's helpful for me because I see it, recognise it, and can take action against that part of myself, which very much does exist, before I'm making a fool of myself by demanding faith-like levels of trust because I use the words reason and evidence and say I hate faith.

There's a difference between bias and taking that bias out on an individual who doesn't deserve it. Stereotypes don't grow out of nothing. Even for those that are misinformed and don't represent statistical reality, there is some reason they exist. People don't, for example, decide one day that Asians are likely to be child molesters. Personal opinion here, but I think being honest about bias and why we have it, and when it is based in statistical reality, will help fight discrimination, not instill it.

That said, a sense of humour is, I believe, a gift from God and anyone that has ever laughed gives evidence they have one. And that includes religious folk.

To me, this is the religious position of maximum logic. If this wasn't the case, and humour was a demonic trick of some sort, how on Earth could anyone possibly know that? It brings joy. Isn't that the right way? If someone thought it was some sort of devilish intrusion, so too could be something like a back rub, charity work, or making someone a really delicious meal. The kind of chaotic universe where things that bring joy and don't hurt anyone are somehow evil is not navigable enough to entertain. It's a kind of irrational fear the areligious aren't immune to. It seeps in if you wonder too much about it. Maybe the back rub is evil because that energy could have been spent on helping somebody who deserved it more. Maybe the delicious meal is evil because likewise, somebody is starving.

I used to have a job where nobody got offended. People ripped on everybody for everything. Somebody was calling this one lady fat, and she says, "Yeah I'm so fat I sat on [Purple Knight] and an on-key note came out." I laughed so hard my sides hurt.

Religious folks can be hilarious. For instance, this morning I heard that the Pope was speaking on the ethics of AI at the G7 summit. Nuff said.

I wonder if there's an anti-ad-vericundiam where you assume someone has negative authority.

For example, whether Terminators can/will take over the world is a question for those with the best knowledge of computers and programming. I don't see why the Pope shouldn't comment on whether or not they should. Same for other, more realistic issues like job loss and how AI will change the economy, education, and the arts, which it already has.

It used to be that in basic logic training, you'd learn you don't appeal to inappropriate authority. It seems like, in modern day, authority has usurped debate, and the assumption is that nobody should speak about anything unless they're the grand duke of it. This has even bled into right and wrong, with people saying that it is unethical to force people to take vaccines being called wrong because they're scientifically illiterate.

Science flourished because it dared to tell the Authority it was wrong, sometimes. That's why it's important to realise that when you start growing into your own Authority, the wheel has turned, nomenclature doesn't matter, and you're growing into a Church.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. Whatever laughter is for, it is an instinct and has dome evolved survival purpose. Like fear of the dark, flinching from threats and fight or flight. Oh - and reverence for Authority, Patriotism and religion (name your own - T-shirt slogan, order yours now)

To ascribe it to a god merely shows blinkered thinking if not claiming any Unknowns for a god (name your own).

JW, you crash and burn yet again, so I'll talk in general. Fact is that the most jovial people become stuffy as soon as one makes jokes about things they consider important. I have to battle with myself when hearing religious comedians making fun of atheism. Instead of laughing "That was a good one" ,I start arguing with them in my head. I get Stuffy. And you can bet that is the same with the religious. Except they don't stop at being stuffy; they get resentful and abusive and luckily the days of the rack, stake and bonfire are gone, or it could be much worse.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1

In the case of humourlessly pious, it's Muslims.

They might beg to differ.

[Purple Knight]

They might beg to differ.

Those two videos show that they can dish it out, but they don't show that they can take it. Maybe they can, I don't know. But there's something off about, "Yeah I'm a fat girl whose name is Fatia but you're going to Hell." I think it misses being funny, the same way humour directed at Muslims would simply whiff, because they know, 100%, that they are right about everything. There's no interplay. It's just her sitting on the other guy. If she's right (I mean, that's possible, a logical person must admit that) then the fact that someone pokes fun at her for a physical happenstance while she points out the simple fact that he's going to be damned for all eternity for not choosing the correct religion... is just sad. It's no part of a joke, it's just sad.

Anyone can be a pro boxer if the other guy is tied up. Likewise, there's something ugly about humour if you can only punch down.

It's why I think humour may disappear, and rightly so, if we ever reach Truth. It may be happening now. It's already less funny.

I hope people do watch those videos because I actually think they show I'm onto something, and the heart of it is that you can't be funny if you're perfect. People who are too moral might not hit this mark.

You need to believe you can be wrong, on a very deep and real level, to be funny. You need to believe anything can be.

[Purple Knight]

Fact is that the most jovial people become stuffy as soon as one makes jokes about things they consider important. I have to battle with myself when hearing religious comedians making fun of atheism. Instead of laughing "That was a good one," I start arguing with them in my head. I get Stuffy. And you can bet that is the same with the religious. Except they don't stop at being stuffy; they get resentful and abusive and luckily the days of the rack, stake and bonfire are gone, or it could be much worse.

Basically, this. Exactly this. I think, maybe, being really funny, not just funny when you have the upper hand, means you have to let go of that stuffiness. I do have it for one thing and I can't seem to let go. Everybody has something. Mine just doesn't happen to be atheism and I can laugh at jokes about it. I make jokes about it. Even skepticism can be funny.

With a skeptic, a girl made a tiff.
She told him and told him that if,
He went any further,
He'd be a flat-earther,
...And he tumbled right over that cliff.

You see this interplay? One side is not just right, and the other side is not just wrong and going to Hell and that's the end of it. That's why I didn't think what the Muslim comic was saying, was funny. The issue of when you pause and listen to someone who very well could know better even though you have no evidence they do, is extremely complex. It's tied up with tribalism and survival strategies, but I'd really like to think that here on this forum, we're all on the same side, and that's Truth, whatever that might happen to be.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #8

Those two videos show that they can dish it out, but they don't show that they can take it. Maybe they can, I don't know. But there's something off about, "Yeah I'm a fat girl whose name is Fatia but you're going to Hell." I think it misses being funny, the same way humour directed at Muslims would simply whiff, because they know, 100%, that they are right about everything. There's no interplay. It's just her sitting on the other guy. If she's right (I mean, that's possible, a logical person must admit that) then the fact that someone pokes fun at her for a physical happenstance while she points out the simple fact that he's going to be damned for all eternity for not choosing the correct religion... is just sad. It's no part of a joke, it's just sad.

When do any of these Muslims tell anyone that they're going to hell?