AuldSoul:
You have confused statement of belief with statement of fact. Your statement regarding the etymology of a word is akin to my frequently erroneous posts for which Narkissos and Leolaia patiently smack me on the head. If I understand how it works correctly, in order for a belief to be untenable it must first be framed as a falsifiable construct.
Many statements of belief are falsifiable (for example, the belief that the universe was created 6,000 years ago) and are therefore suitable targets for correction. Unfalsifiable beliefs are little more than daydreams and can only be discussed in terms of how likely they might be given what we know.
In the case of whether God exists to my knowledge there is no such construct, just as there would be none for whether pink unicorns exist.
Agreed, and that is why I view a belief in God as identical to a belief in pink unicorns. I can't see why that would be considered a plus point.
I would be delighted at any effort you might similarly muster against my personal belief in God.
Can't do it. He's in the pink unicorn category, unless you want to venture some falsifiable belief about him.
How about comfort? Have you considered that as a possible reason? Nostalgic desire to stay connected to something, a desire to not have been entirely wrong about everything could be considered pride, if you're a judgmental ass. But you don't strike me as one, so that could be another reason aside from pride. I don't think you really strained too much to come up with other reasons.
Fair point. For some, belief is indeed a crutch or a security blanket, and in certain circumstances, I would refrain from challenging a person's beliefs. (I would not, for example, question someone's belief in an afterlife at their spouse's funeral.) But, when having a rational discussion with someone I consider intelligent and mature enough to deal with it, I would not accept comfort or nostalgia as a valid reason for believing in anything.
Either way, ridiculing a belief is not the same as ridiculing a person for having the belief. All too often that line is crossed. There are thousands of reasons a person may have acquired a specific belief and very few of those reasons (comparatively) are actually deserving of ridicule. Even more rarely is the person who has the belief deserving of ridicule.
It can be a fine line, and where it lies can be a matter of individual perception. Some people take a challenge to their beliefs very personally, even though the other person may be highlighting the absurdity of the belief only to show them there's no real reason to believe it.
Ridicule is the stuff of scorn. Scorn presumes that you are better than others, that you are superior. With the possible exception of pride I cannot see why anyone would prefer to be scornful and correct. I have really tried hard to come up with alternate reasons and I cannot. If there are others, please share them with me.
It can sometimes be a useful tool in helping people see that the only reason they hold a belief is because they used to hold it, and have kept it (for the sake of comfort, nostalgia or pride.) This is especially true for unfalsifiable beliefs (as falsifiable beliefs will be rejected by rational people based on contrary evidence). For example, a belief without evidence in a giant invisible man who created the universe and spoke to Bronze Age goatherds and is very concerned about what we do with our genitals cannot be falsified but can be ridiculed because it is ridiculous. A belief without evidence that somewhere in our universe other than earth there is intelligent life is also unfalsifiable, but is much less open to ridicule.
