Bit of a different between incitement to riot and what happened with the danish cartoons or with the low level of blasphemy required for ireland.
3 of the pictures said to be danish cartoons are the most egregious and conveniently not actually danish cartoons. And who outside of the danish would have even seen them if not for muslim clerics making a giant fit?
Meh,
People take this **** to huge extremes and then when stuff like this happens to show how utterly harmless it really is....
I agree that it is, at first blush, simply ridiculous to treat blasphemy as a criminal offense. But the right to free speech does not protect, even in America, incitement to riot -- and we now have ample evidence that certain populations of Muslims will go berzerk over any disparaging remarks or pictures sent the way of Mohammed.
Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.
And:
Citing Chaplinsky [the above decision], the court determined that the applicable test was whether the words used would "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What isn't shown on either edition was the condemnations shouted at passers by and the police requesting that they cease their preaching over the previous weeks. Mind you these people purposefully created the scene in full knowledge of the council's anti-preaching laws.
Those laws still haven't changed and if they did repeal them, I'd be down there with some others highlighting exactly why they where enacted, by espousing the virtues of paganism, satanism and others (not all on the same day mind you).
Is it just me or do only Christians go around doing this stuff?
Freedom of expression is one thing and it's what the whole day is about, but anything as loud and outspoken is too much and can't possibly be just in the spirit of a bit of a laugh at ourselves and others and I agree that belligerent outspokenness on the subject shouldn't be a part of this day or any day (for or against).
But I don't think anyone here (or in the other thread, except maybe the Hitler pic...) is trying such inflammatory things either (as I may or may not have stated before). So, I don't know, shouldn't we all let it slide as a bit of fun and leave it at that?
What isn't shown on either edition was the condemnations shouted at passers by and the police requesting that they cease their preaching over the previous weeks. Mind you these people purposefully created the scene in full knowledge of the council's anti-preaching laws.
Those laws still haven't changed and if they did repeal them, I'd be down there with some others highlighting exactly why they where enacted, by espousing the virtues of paganism, satanism and others (not all on the same day mind you).
Is it just me or do only Christians go around doing this stuff?
Freedom of expression is one thing and it's what the whole day is about, but anything as loud and outspoken is too much and can't possibly be just in the spirit of a bit of a laugh at ourselves and others and I agree that belligerent outspokenness on the subject shouldn't be a part of this day or any day (for or against).
But I don't think anyone here (or in the other thread, except maybe the Hitler pic...) is trying such inflammatory things either (as I may or may not have stated before). So, I don't know, shouldn't we all let it slide as a bit of fun and leave it at that?
No... its not just christians... Dawkins(think thats his name) group does it a lot. Also, regardless those laws are against free speech. F
Yeah, in WCT. That's why bLatch started this thread.
@Blinking Spirit: Well, obviously an instance of "blasphemy" could not today be reasonably thought to cause the average American to riot. It's just that, IDK... say there was some American citizen who made a little cottage industry out of producing caricatures of Mohammed and broadcasting them to Islamic countries just in order to "get a rise out of them," with the result that this man became a minor notorious figure on an international level; and a couple of deaths in certain Islamic nations were reliably attributed to protests of his blasphemy that got out of hand. Now, should such a person be allowed to hide behind American free speech laws; or would the gov't be justified in taking some action towards shutting down his enterprise?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
say there was some American citizen who made a little cottage industry out of producing caricatures of Mohammed and broadcasting them to Islamic countries just in order to "get a rise out of them," with the result that this man became a minor notorious figure on an international level; and a couple of deaths in certain Islamic nations were reliably attributed to protests of his blasphemy that got out of hand. Now, should such a person be allowed to hide behind American free speech laws; or would the gov't be justified in taking some action towards shutting down his enterprise?
No, I don't think the government should diminish our freedom of speech to please some nutjobs halfway across the world that probably want us all dead anyway. Even if someone gets hurt. It would be regrettable of course, but not at all our fault if people take things to the extreme.
Why is it socially acceptable to have an international blasphemy day, and not social acceptable to have (for example) an international make fun of people who have fat girlfriends/boyfriends day, or something along those lines...
Can anyone provide a justification for it? I can't think of any.
Well, it depends which society you're talking about. I'd imagine blasphemy day didn't get very much observance in those parts of the world governed by Sharia law, for example...
Also, your analogy falls flat in that your other examples are poking fun of actual people. Religion, itself, doesn't have any feelings that can be hurt, since it's not a person. If god exists, I doubt he's thin-skinned enough to have his feelings hurt either. And religious people who have the courage of their convictions have no reason to fear the criticism of unbelievers, so I don't see any reason for anyone to be offended.
I would say the purpose of the "day" was to point out that the concept of "blasphemy" - the concept that religious notions deserve special protection from criticism - is ridiculous. I would say the purpose of the day is to heap extra criticism upon religion in order to counterbalance the unearned forbearance it receives on every other day of the year. Sort of like how Black History Month is intended to counterbalance a lack of attention to the historical contributions of black people in the other months of the school year.
But I KNOW I'm not an atheistic agnostic. For one that requires BELIEF! *shudder*
?? No it doesn't. Not that I particularly *agree* with WP's definition, which I think is needlessly hair-splitting, but their definition describes a person who does not believe in any amount of deities. It says nothing about what that person might believe instead.
I would say that person is simply an agnostic, but perhaps that is driven by my desire, as an agnostic, to distance myself from the typical "belief in lack" form of atheism, which I find ludicrous. The WP article draws its distinction by also defining an "agnostic theist" who believes in an unknown number of unknowable deities, but I see no reason why this cannot be adequately described by the terms Theism or Deism, without any need to muddle the borderline between agnosticism and atheism, which was formerly quite clear.
Yes, I get in a bit of a snit about these things. I'm damn proud I'm not an atheist and it bugs me when people don't understand what the difference is.
The only reason to distinguish between the statements "There is no God" (which is unprovable under formal logic...) and "There very likely is no God" (which is a true statement based on empiricism) is if you have an a priori parti pris in favor of the God hypothesis. Agnostics are thus, by default, not neutral on the question but in favor of theism. They do not show the same deference to the possibility of the existence of faeries, leperchauns, or other mythic beings. None of them call themselves agnostic on the possibility of the existence of a monster under their children's beds.
The neutral position is atheism. Per the principle of parsimony.
The only reason to distinguish between the statements "There is no God" (which is unprovable under formal logic...) and "There very likely is no God" (which is a true statement based on empiricism) is if you have an a priori parti pris in favor of the God hypothesis.
None of them call themselves agnostic on the possibility of the existence of a monster under their children's beds.
The neutral position is atheism. Per the principle of parsimony.
I'm not going to say anything more than: "These statements are false. You should read my blogs."
Speaking ones mind is much different from trolling,
It can be: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional responseor of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Weak agnosticism often overlaps with, and is often confused with, weak atheism, as both are a lack of belief rather than a belief in lack (of either knowledge or existence, respectively).
Your link says agnosticism refers to knowledge and atheism is referring to belief, just like whatshisname was saying earlier.
Note that "often over lapping with" and "often confused with" is not the same thing as "are the same."
Also, yes I'm aware that one is about belief:
It is... for a particular definition of God, which is the one most currently in use, the theistic one. In particular, the Christian one. For which we don't even need to examine the evidence because it is logically inconsistent.
The deist god, OTOH, is useless, and can be dismissed simply as a futile thought exercise. Anything that cannot, by definition, be observed is the same as something that is non-existent, for all intent and purpose.
Agnostic atheists don't call themselves agnostics. They call themselves atheists. "Agnostic" in this case is a descriptor of "atheist", not the basis of their identity, unlike people who deliberatly call themselves agnostic.
Yeah, in WCT. That's why bLatch started this thread.
@Blinking Spirit: Well, obviously an instance of "blasphemy" could not today be reasonably thought to cause the average American to riot. It's just that, IDK... say there was some American citizen who made a little cottage industry out of producing caricatures of Mohammed and broadcasting them to Islamic countries just in order to "get a rise out of them," with the result that this man became a minor notorious figure on an international level; and a couple of deaths in certain Islamic nations were reliably attributed to protests of his blasphemy that got out of hand. Now, should such a person be allowed to hide behind American free speech laws; or would the gov't be justified in taking some action towards shutting down his enterprise?
Gotcha,
Anyway,
This situation, not the scenario but the idea that someone made you do something came up in my interpersonal communications class.
When its just talk, drawings, etc and no one is actually getting hurt no one is actually forcing this on you. Your situation is a bit weird since you've got some guy whose only goal in life is pissing off muslims. It makes him a troll, and does not excuse the murders other people did.
Warning for Image Leeching. Image Attached
Quote from Taylor »
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional responseor of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Why didn't you bold irrelevant?
Oh wai...
Cmon now.
Yes, but I read what was written on the thread, something I don't think you do.
I did read this thread, I didn't know we had 2 threads.
Quote from xdax »
It is... for a particular definition of God
Important detail,
The concept of god being unable to be discounted 100% is rather different from specific concepts of god being able to be refuted, how easy to invent an infinite number of things that are no true?
^ If its bad when they do it, it bad when you do it. Two wrongs don't make a right. And I don't think all kinds of RL trolling should be made illegal or something, I just don't feel it really does anything; other than make LOLs for some people and piss off others, anyway. (sometimes it pisses them off to the point were they do something WORSE; it's true. And that is a WORSE wrong, it's also true)
'Cuz its an inclusive "or" not an exclusive "or." I was picking the statements that make it true for this. Do I have to break it down into formal logic for you?
Agnostic atheists don't call themselves agnostics. They call themselves atheists.
Except this one(Mr. Stuff)just did. You might try reading more parts of this thread, then you would know whats going on.
________________
Anyway, I did some thinking last night, and I thought I would share it with all of you:
The one thing (almost?) all Theist have in common is the Deist belief. Most people, when they say "Theist" mean, "the kind of Theist I am" or "Catholic" or "Muslim extremist" or something. But, in my mind, a "Theist" is simple someone that believes there was a "Will" that created the universe. That is the belief all Theist share anyway. What that "Will" did after that is up for debate and dependent on which kind of Theist you are, but they all agree there was some kind of "Will" and it started everything we care about.
Now, many of you are claiming to be "atheistic agnostic." In my mind, an "atheistic agnostic" is someone that was an atheist (or wanted to be one) but realized it was impossible to disprove all of religion (AKA Deism in all of its forums) and/or understood why the negative proof fallacy IS a fallacy; however, with that knowledge, they still wanted to be an atheist.
Dawkins, for instances, WAS a "strong atheist" but switched to "atheistic agnostic," probably because he realized that "strong atheism" has about as much logical backing as some forms of "strong theism." That's all "atheistic agnostic" means to me "an atheist that knows something about proofs, and doesn't want to look stupid." (yes, I guess all kinds of agnostics could fall into the "knows something about proofs, and doesn't want to look stupid" category, me for example)
If atheist really wanted to get rid of theism, they would not be attacking "Southern Baptists" or "Orthodox Muslims" they would be going after the Deist belief. Once you disprove THAT then you will be rid of all Theism. But, in my mind, they KNOW they can't get rid of Deism. They know that Deism is just as believable and reasonable as Atheism. (basic Deism anyway)
This whole "Atheism vs Theism" boils down to "Did some WILL start the universe, or not?" Now, if I was going to pick between those two options, knowing full well there is the SAME amount of 'proof' for both, and the SAME amount of 'logic' behind either (since there is) I would go with the one that makes me feel better.
When logic fails, you're forced to go with emotion. I feel that it feels better to believe that Something did start the universe with a purpose, for me anyway.
______________
The deist god, OTOH, is useless, and can be dismissed simply as a futile thought exercise. Anything that cannot, by definition, be observed is the same as something that is non-existent, for all intent and purpose.
But you can't say "and is also not true" without using a fallacy.
But I agree that it does not really matter one way or the other, which is why I keep saying "I'm a weak agnostic," not "I'm an (atheistic)/(theistic) agnostic."
Cuz that other part don't really matter, yo!
But you can't say "and is also not true" without using a fallacy.
If something is unobserved, it can still theoretically be observed, and found true. If something is theoretically unobservable, it is the same as non-existent, or false. Only that which can affect us or our universe exists.
Only that which can affect us or our universe exists.
You're claiming there is no difference between and atheist and a theist(deist)?
I like that, and I would agree, in a practical sense, there is none. It really does not matter to me if someone is a theist or an atheist. All that matters to me is if that person is:
Holding huge posters of their (dis)beliefs, handing out fliers of their (dis)beliefs, making laws based solely on their (dis)beliefs, or otherwise figuratively screaming at me "I AM SOOO RIGHT EVERYONE ELSE IS SOOO WRONG!" be it by buying a billboard on a bus, or making a holiday.
Yeah, in WCT. That's why bLatch started this thread.
@Blinking Spirit: Well, obviously an instance of "blasphemy" could not today be reasonably thought to cause the average American to riot. It's just that, IDK... say there was some American citizen who made a little cottage industry out of producing caricatures of Mohammed and broadcasting them to Islamic countries just in order to "get a rise out of them," with the result that this man became a minor notorious figure on an international level; and a couple of deaths in certain Islamic nations were reliably attributed to protests of his blasphemy that got out of hand. Now, should such a person be allowed to hide behind American free speech laws; or would the gov't be justified in taking some action towards shutting down his enterprise?
Prominent citizens (e.g. the President) might use their bully pulpits to ask him to stop. But his offensive speech does not pose an immediate threat of violence, and the reaction to it is certainly not "reasonable".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The only reason to distinguish between the statements "There is no God" (which is unprovable under formal logic...) and "There very likely is no God" (which is a true statement based on empiricism) is if you have an a priori parti pris in favor of the God hypothesis.
No, one of those statements is a statement of fact and the other is a statement of probability. They're quite different.
Agnostics are thus, by default, not neutral on the question but in favor of theism. They do not show the same deference to the possibility of the existence of faeries, leperchauns, or other mythic beings. None of them call themselves agnostic on the possibility of the existence of a monster under their children's beds.
If they're wise agnostics who fully understand the nature of science and of logical proof, they do. As an agnostic let me be the first to tell you I extend the same degree of disbelief and uncertainty towards Leprechauns and under-the-bed-monsters as I do towards the Abrahamic god. If I mention my Leprechaun-agnosticism less often, well, perhaps it might be because I never encounter those who believe in Leprechauns and insist that others do so as well, but I *do* encounter the equivalent for "god" quite often.
The neutral position is atheism. Per the principle of parsimony.
How can a position which makes a statement on one side of an argument (atheism) ever be more neutral than a position that makes no statement (agnostic)? And it certainly can't be more parsimonious - what could be a better example of parsimony than saying nothing at all?
It is... for a particular definition of God, which is the one most currently in use, the theistic one. In particular, the Christian one. For which we don't even need to examine the evidence because it is logically inconsistent.
No one worth listening to is claiming there is any "evidence" whatsoever. One is expected to take the god hypothesis on faith. Naturally, empiricists such as we cannot do this. Therefore we choose not to believe in this hypothesis.
Where your logic fails in atheism is proceeding from there to a positive belief that there certainly is no such thing. There's no proof of that either. In fact, it's an even worse logical position to be in than theism, because it's logically impossible to prove such a negative statement of fact. (Ie., if there is NO god, you will never be able to prove it; whereas, if there IS a god, it may someday choose to reveal itself and then the theists will have their proof. Why would you want to put yourself in an even more logically indefensible position than the theists occupy?)
The deist god, OTOH, is useless, and can be dismissed simply as a futile thought exercise. Anything that cannot, by definition, be observed is the same as something that is non-existent, for all intent and purpose.
The same for intents and purposes may be fine for a day-to-day functional understanding which allows one to cope with life, but it's meaningless when we're cutting semantic hairs and trying to define the shades of our unbelief.
Something which cannot be observed cannot be assumed to be a "something" at all; but it also cannot be assumed to be nonexistent.
Agnostic atheists don't call themselves agnostics. They call themselves atheists. "Agnostic" in this case is a descriptor of "atheist", not the basis of their identity, unlike people who deliberatly call themselves agnostic.
And I'm joining Taylor in pointing out that there are those of us above in this thread who are covered by that WP definition and do indeed call ourselves agnostics (even though SOME of us also take issue with that WP definition). Though I wonder if Taylor read my argument, since he failed to list me among the agnostics on this thread.
Though I would tend to agree that the term "agnostic atheist" is very silly, unneccessary conflation of terms, and someone's horribly kludgesome way of "healing" a rift that no one on either side has any interest in healing. I'm quite happy as an agnostic and feel just as puzzled about and as much pity towards atheists as I do towards theists; NONE of you make any sense and I can't imagine how you can feel such certainty about things that are so far beyond the possibility of human comprehension!
If something is unobserved, it can still theoretically be observed, and found true. If something is theoretically unobservable, it is the same as non-existent, or false. Only that which can affect us or our universe exists.
I believe the term you are searching for is "falsifiability". As such, it is certainly true that the God hypothesis is not a scientific one, because it lacks testability and falsifiability (believers can always claim God is just hiding somewhere else, or invisible and intangible, or up in heaven, and can always explain away his absence). But this merely explains why we do NOT believe in it. And "there is no god" is equally and exactly as unscientific an hypothesis, because it, too, lacks any means for testing or falsifying it.
There is simply no empirical grounds for any certainty any way on the issue. Sure, I'll agree with Dawkins as far as his statement "there probably is no god", but I'm limiting that agreement specifically to the Abrahamic deity, and more because of the inconsistencies in his character as detailed in scripture and the sheer unlikeliness of such human foibles as jealousy and rage in a divine being, rather than any personal feeling one way or the other on a generalized version of the god hypothesis.
I'll sum up with my favorite quotation on the subject:
"I do not claim to know, where many ignorant men are sure. That is all that agnosticism means to me." --Clarence Darrow.
If something is unobserved, it can still theoretically be observed, and found true.
Agreed.
If something is theoretically unobservable, it is the same as non-existent, or false. Only that which can affect us or our universe exists.
Disagree. Physicists have recently (I think, I only heard in passing) discussed the possibility that there are other universes out there. So, you're saying they can't exist? Or, the dimensions, for example. If Mr. Dot lives on Mr. line he cannot know that there is a third dimension. You're denying possibilities that shouldn't be denied, rather set aside as highly improbable.
Dawkins, for instances, WAS a "strong atheist" but switched to "atheistic agnostic," probably because he realized that "strong atheism" has about as much logical backing as some forms of "strong theism." That's all "atheistic agnostic" means to me "an atheist that knows something about proofs, and doesn't want to look stupid." (yes, I guess all kinds of agnostics could fall into the "knows something about proofs, and doesn't want to look stupid" category, me for example)
Actually, I have read some excerpts from his latest book, 'The Greatest show on Earth: the evidence for evolution'. While reading that, I think I had some kind of moment of clarity on why he was so strongly atheist but not any more. He uses an analogy of a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, who is eager to learn students all about his subject. However, there are those who claim the Romans never existed and try to convince that teacher's pupils of that idea and even try to pressure the government into making their ideas an accepted theory that is to be taught at schools.
It would be understandable why in such a case, one would be tempted to attack the stance of those 'anti-Romans' at first to defend your own subject. However, when you think about it for a moment (which I think is what Dawkins did), is that it's much more sensible to show the evidence in favour of your own point of view.
It does not require that we must like religion, be polite about it, or refrain from protesting against it or making fun of it. Indeed, ridicule is sometimes necessary to get across how absurd a position or practice is. It's not a method that I prefer, but it has its place in public discourse, and engaging in it to make a political point to the effect that it does have a place, and should not be prevented, is, however undignified, perfectly legitimate speech.
Quote from taylor »
^ If its bad when they do it, it bad when you do it. Two wrongs don't make a right. And I don't think all kinds of RL trolling should be made illegal or something, I just don't feel it really does anything; other than make LOLs for some people and piss off others, anyway. (sometimes it pisses them off to the point were they do something WORSE; it's true. And that is a WORSE wrong, it's also true)
Why its being done is a point that is rather important here. This is about free speech, about exercising a right. Trolling is not simple being rude or controversial and the primary point was most especially not simply "with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response"
Why was it done? Because we still can. Because you get a fine of more money than my mom makes in a year for making fun of religion in ireland now, because people died because a gathering of clerics incited a bunch of other muslims with deceit and lies.
Your statement is, upon further thought, more of a false equivalency than anything else about the incorrect labeling of this as being simple IRL trolling.
If atheist really wanted to get rid of theism, they would not be attacking "Southern Baptists" or "Orthodox Muslims" they would be going after the Deist belief. Once you disprove THAT then you will be rid of all Theism. But, in my mind, they KNOW they can't get rid of Deism. They know that Deism is just as believable and reasonable as Atheism. (basic Deism anyway)
So?
Its not like there is much of a way we can get rid of the most basic deism. No facts to go over, nothing to mull over, just the premise of "the universe exists as a result of natural causes vs the universe operates as a result of natural causes that happens to have a supernatural instigator that then did nothing else outside of create something then step out"
More productive to focus on the nuts and bolts of actual belief systems, kinda like how you don't try to cure cancer, but specific kinds of cancer. Pun not intended, promise ;p
To not believe in something for which we have no evidence is as reasonable as believing in something for which we have no evidence?
Kas already used the good quote.
Eh,
If people didn't already believe in crazy stuff it would never even be a question for you guys to give nice convoluted explanations for why your not actually atheists while you still don't believe in a god.
So, if the whole world was atheist, or at least everyone that could see the sign, you would have still done it because you could?
It was ONLY done because you could do it? No other reason?
If you do everything you can do simply because you can, you must be a very busy man.
I guess we can assume that the Muslims in your picture have their signs for the same reason. I mean, we can't evaluate their motives any more than we can yours, right? They probably just rioted to prove they could too, no other reason either, I'm sure.
Physicists have recently (I think, I only heard in passing) discussed the possibility that there are other universes out there. So, you're saying they can't exist? Or, the dimensions, for example. If Mr. Dot lives on Mr. line he cannot know that there is a third dimension. You're denying possibilities that shouldn't be denied, rather set aside as highly improbable.
First of all we CAN know there are other dimensions, using the topography branch of maths there are certain observable characteristics of higher dimensionalities. For 'other' universes out there, if they can affect our universe then they exist (either through travelling from or to there, or how nearby universes would affect things in our universe) and if they can't they don't. Truth is that which can be empirically measured.
Except that is patently untrue. I enjoy eating BBQ Brisket. That is a true statement. It is also a statement that is impossible to empirically measure. THe ability to empircally measure something has absolutely no bearing on its truth.
Everyone else in this thread has pointed out, so I guess I will too, that unfalsifiable =/= false. By its very definition something that is unfalsifiable cannot be determined if it is false or true.
I'm pretty sure that enjoyment can be detected via brain scans and the like, too.
Fine, pretend we're 100 years ago. At that time it was an unfalsifiable statement. I'm not sure why you're arguing with this, since you already posted in agreement with it earlier in the thread...
All the time we're able to verify more and more of what people have proposed in the past, but none of this has given us even an inkling that there is a god or that a specific god of the hundreds of thousands of proposed gods is the real one.
Face it though, the argument that you can't empirically verify an emotion falls flat to modern science :-p
Based on current evidence, the basic atheist creation theory makes as much sense as the basic theist(deist) creation theory.
So, if the whole world was atheist, or at least everyone that could see the sign, you would have still done it because you could?
It was ONLY done because you could do it? No other reason?
If you do everything you can do simply because you can, you must be a very busy man.
I guess we can assume that the Muslims in your picture have their signs for the same reason. I mean, we can't evaluate their motives any more than we can yours, right? They probably just rioted to prove they could too, no other reason either, I'm sure.
What basic atheist creation theory, go wiki it up and you'll find multiples.
Your bolded part is still drawing way to much out of this, I explained why I did it. That there is more to it tan your bolded post. This is getting ridiculous taylor.
And no, the muslims have the signs out for different reasons. Their signs, btw, actually call for people to be hurt and killed and you really are trying to equivocate these? A peaceful political statement verse the 2005 muslim riots? Really?
Bit of a different between incitement to riot and what happened with the danish cartoons or with the low level of blasphemy required for ireland.
3 of the pictures said to be danish cartoons are the most egregious and conveniently not actually danish cartoons. And who outside of the danish would have even seen them if not for muslim clerics making a giant fit?
Meh,
People take this **** to huge extremes and then when stuff like this happens to show how utterly harmless it really is....
A summary of the judicial history of the American "Fighting Words Doctrine". Of particular interest: And:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6oHoC1OBZc&feature=related
and the media coverage of the same event (sympathetic):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBPDyeMFdbs
What isn't shown on either edition was the condemnations shouted at passers by and the police requesting that they cease their preaching over the previous weeks. Mind you these people purposefully created the scene in full knowledge of the council's anti-preaching laws.
Those laws still haven't changed and if they did repeal them, I'd be down there with some others highlighting exactly why they where enacted, by espousing the virtues of paganism, satanism and others (not all on the same day mind you).
Is it just me or do only Christians go around doing this stuff?
Freedom of expression is one thing and it's what the whole day is about, but anything as loud and outspoken is too much and can't possibly be just in the spirit of a bit of a laugh at ourselves and others and I agree that belligerent outspokenness on the subject shouldn't be a part of this day or any day (for or against).
But I don't think anyone here (or in the other thread, except maybe the Hitler pic...) is trying such inflammatory things either (as I may or may not have stated before). So, I don't know, shouldn't we all let it slide as a bit of fun and leave it at that?
No... its not just christians... Dawkins(think thats his name) group does it a lot. Also, regardless those laws are against free speech. F
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Yeah, in WCT. That's why bLatch started this thread.
@Blinking Spirit: Well, obviously an instance of "blasphemy" could not today be reasonably thought to cause the average American to riot. It's just that, IDK... say there was some American citizen who made a little cottage industry out of producing caricatures of Mohammed and broadcasting them to Islamic countries just in order to "get a rise out of them," with the result that this man became a minor notorious figure on an international level; and a couple of deaths in certain Islamic nations were reliably attributed to protests of his blasphemy that got out of hand. Now, should such a person be allowed to hide behind American free speech laws; or would the gov't be justified in taking some action towards shutting down his enterprise?
No, I don't think the government should diminish our freedom of speech to please some nutjobs halfway across the world that probably want us all dead anyway. Even if someone gets hurt. It would be regrettable of course, but not at all our fault if people take things to the extreme.
smoke_Killah
Well, it depends which society you're talking about. I'd imagine blasphemy day didn't get very much observance in those parts of the world governed by Sharia law, for example...
Also, your analogy falls flat in that your other examples are poking fun of actual people. Religion, itself, doesn't have any feelings that can be hurt, since it's not a person. If god exists, I doubt he's thin-skinned enough to have his feelings hurt either. And religious people who have the courage of their convictions have no reason to fear the criticism of unbelievers, so I don't see any reason for anyone to be offended.
I would say the purpose of the "day" was to point out that the concept of "blasphemy" - the concept that religious notions deserve special protection from criticism - is ridiculous. I would say the purpose of the day is to heap extra criticism upon religion in order to counterbalance the unearned forbearance it receives on every other day of the year. Sort of like how Black History Month is intended to counterbalance a lack of attention to the historical contributions of black people in the other months of the school year.
But that is merely my supposition.
?? No it doesn't. Not that I particularly *agree* with WP's definition, which I think is needlessly hair-splitting, but their definition describes a person who does not believe in any amount of deities. It says nothing about what that person might believe instead.
I would say that person is simply an agnostic, but perhaps that is driven by my desire, as an agnostic, to distance myself from the typical "belief in lack" form of atheism, which I find ludicrous. The WP article draws its distinction by also defining an "agnostic theist" who believes in an unknown number of unknowable deities, but I see no reason why this cannot be adequately described by the terms Theism or Deism, without any need to muddle the borderline between agnosticism and atheism, which was formerly quite clear.
Yes, I get in a bit of a snit about these things. I'm damn proud I'm not an atheist and it bugs me when people don't understand what the difference is.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
The only reason to distinguish between the statements "There is no God" (which is unprovable under formal logic...) and "There very likely is no God" (which is a true statement based on empiricism) is if you have an a priori parti pris in favor of the God hypothesis. Agnostics are thus, by default, not neutral on the question but in favor of theism. They do not show the same deference to the possibility of the existence of faeries, leperchauns, or other mythic beings. None of them call themselves agnostic on the possibility of the existence of a monster under their children's beds.
The neutral position is atheism. Per the principle of parsimony.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Right... agnostic atheists LOVE theism, you got them
I'm not going to say anything more than: "These statements are false. You should read my blogs."
It can be:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Yes, but I read what was written on the thread, something I don't think you do.
Note that "often over lapping with" and "often confused with" is not the same thing as "are the same."
Also, yes I'm aware that one is about belief:
I'll let wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Types_of_agnosticism
It is... for a particular definition of God, which is the one most currently in use, the theistic one. In particular, the Christian one. For which we don't even need to examine the evidence because it is logically inconsistent.
The deist god, OTOH, is useless, and can be dismissed simply as a futile thought exercise. Anything that cannot, by definition, be observed is the same as something that is non-existent, for all intent and purpose.
Agnostic atheists don't call themselves agnostics. They call themselves atheists. "Agnostic" in this case is a descriptor of "atheist", not the basis of their identity, unlike people who deliberatly call themselves agnostic.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Gotcha,
Anyway,
This situation, not the scenario but the idea that someone made you do something came up in my interpersonal communications class.
When its just talk, drawings, etc and no one is actually getting hurt no one is actually forcing this on you. Your situation is a bit weird since you've got some guy whose only goal in life is pissing off muslims. It makes him a troll, and does not excuse the murders other people did.
Warning for Image Leeching. Image Attached
Why didn't you bold irrelevant?
Oh wai...
Cmon now.
I did read this thread, I didn't know we had 2 threads.
Important detail,
The concept of god being unable to be discounted 100% is rather different from specific concepts of god being able to be refuted, how easy to invent an infinite number of things that are no true?
'Cuz its an inclusive "or" not an exclusive "or." I was picking the statements that make it true for this. Do I have to break it down into formal logic for you?
Except this one (Mr. Stuff)just did. You might try reading more parts of this thread, then you would know whats going on.
________________
Anyway, I did some thinking last night, and I thought I would share it with all of you:
The one thing (almost?) all Theist have in common is the Deist belief. Most people, when they say "Theist" mean, "the kind of Theist I am" or "Catholic" or "Muslim extremist" or something. But, in my mind, a "Theist" is simple someone that believes there was a "Will" that created the universe. That is the belief all Theist share anyway. What that "Will" did after that is up for debate and dependent on which kind of Theist you are, but they all agree there was some kind of "Will" and it started everything we care about.
Now, many of you are claiming to be "atheistic agnostic." In my mind, an "atheistic agnostic" is someone that was an atheist (or wanted to be one) but realized it was impossible to disprove all of religion (AKA Deism in all of its forums) and/or understood why the negative proof fallacy IS a fallacy; however, with that knowledge, they still wanted to be an atheist.
Dawkins, for instances, WAS a "strong atheist" but switched to "atheistic agnostic," probably because he realized that "strong atheism" has about as much logical backing as some forms of "strong theism." That's all "atheistic agnostic" means to me "an atheist that knows something about proofs, and doesn't want to look stupid." (yes, I guess all kinds of agnostics could fall into the "knows something about proofs, and doesn't want to look stupid" category, me for example)
If atheist really wanted to get rid of theism, they would not be attacking "Southern Baptists" or "Orthodox Muslims" they would be going after the Deist belief. Once you disprove THAT then you will be rid of all Theism. But, in my mind, they KNOW they can't get rid of Deism. They know that Deism is just as believable and reasonable as Atheism. (basic Deism anyway)
This whole "Atheism vs Theism" boils down to "Did some WILL start the universe, or not?" Now, if I was going to pick between those two options, knowing full well there is the SAME amount of 'proof' for both, and the SAME amount of 'logic' behind either (since there is) I would go with the one that makes me feel better.
When logic fails, you're forced to go with emotion. I feel that it feels better to believe that Something did start the universe with a purpose, for me anyway.
______________
But you can't say "and is also not true" without using a fallacy.
But I agree that it does not really matter one way or the other, which is why I keep saying "I'm a weak agnostic," not "I'm an (atheistic)/(theistic) agnostic."
Cuz that other part don't really matter, yo!
If something is unobserved, it can still theoretically be observed, and found true. If something is theoretically unobservable, it is the same as non-existent, or false. Only that which can affect us or our universe exists.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
I like that, and I would agree, in a practical sense, there is none. It really does not matter to me if someone is a theist or an atheist. All that matters to me is if that person is:
Holding huge posters of their (dis)beliefs, handing out fliers of their (dis)beliefs, making laws based solely on their (dis)beliefs, or otherwise figuratively screaming at me "I AM SOOO RIGHT EVERYONE ELSE IS SOOO WRONG!" be it by buying a billboard on a bus, or making a holiday.
The rest is more or less 'immaterial'
Prominent citizens (e.g. the President) might use their bully pulpits to ask him to stop. But his offensive speech does not pose an immediate threat of violence, and the reaction to it is certainly not "reasonable".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, one of those statements is a statement of fact and the other is a statement of probability. They're quite different.
If they're wise agnostics who fully understand the nature of science and of logical proof, they do. As an agnostic let me be the first to tell you I extend the same degree of disbelief and uncertainty towards Leprechauns and under-the-bed-monsters as I do towards the Abrahamic god. If I mention my Leprechaun-agnosticism less often, well, perhaps it might be because I never encounter those who believe in Leprechauns and insist that others do so as well, but I *do* encounter the equivalent for "god" quite often.
How can a position which makes a statement on one side of an argument (atheism) ever be more neutral than a position that makes no statement (agnostic)? And it certainly can't be more parsimonious - what could be a better example of parsimony than saying nothing at all?
You're just reaching here.
No one worth listening to is claiming there is any "evidence" whatsoever. One is expected to take the god hypothesis on faith. Naturally, empiricists such as we cannot do this. Therefore we choose not to believe in this hypothesis.
Where your logic fails in atheism is proceeding from there to a positive belief that there certainly is no such thing. There's no proof of that either. In fact, it's an even worse logical position to be in than theism, because it's logically impossible to prove such a negative statement of fact. (Ie., if there is NO god, you will never be able to prove it; whereas, if there IS a god, it may someday choose to reveal itself and then the theists will have their proof. Why would you want to put yourself in an even more logically indefensible position than the theists occupy?)
The same for intents and purposes may be fine for a day-to-day functional understanding which allows one to cope with life, but it's meaningless when we're cutting semantic hairs and trying to define the shades of our unbelief.
Something which cannot be observed cannot be assumed to be a "something" at all; but it also cannot be assumed to be nonexistent.
And I'm joining Taylor in pointing out that there are those of us above in this thread who are covered by that WP definition and do indeed call ourselves agnostics (even though SOME of us also take issue with that WP definition). Though I wonder if Taylor read my argument, since he failed to list me among the agnostics on this thread.
Though I would tend to agree that the term "agnostic atheist" is very silly, unneccessary conflation of terms, and someone's horribly kludgesome way of "healing" a rift that no one on either side has any interest in healing. I'm quite happy as an agnostic and feel just as puzzled about and as much pity towards atheists as I do towards theists; NONE of you make any sense and I can't imagine how you can feel such certainty about things that are so far beyond the possibility of human comprehension!
I believe the term you are searching for is "falsifiability". As such, it is certainly true that the God hypothesis is not a scientific one, because it lacks testability and falsifiability (believers can always claim God is just hiding somewhere else, or invisible and intangible, or up in heaven, and can always explain away his absence). But this merely explains why we do NOT believe in it. And "there is no god" is equally and exactly as unscientific an hypothesis, because it, too, lacks any means for testing or falsifying it.
There is simply no empirical grounds for any certainty any way on the issue. Sure, I'll agree with Dawkins as far as his statement "there probably is no god", but I'm limiting that agreement specifically to the Abrahamic deity, and more because of the inconsistencies in his character as detailed in scripture and the sheer unlikeliness of such human foibles as jealousy and rage in a divine being, rather than any personal feeling one way or the other on a generalized version of the god hypothesis.
I'll sum up with my favorite quotation on the subject:
"I do not claim to know, where many ignorant men are sure. That is all that agnosticism means to me." --Clarence Darrow.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
Agreed.
Disagree. Physicists have recently (I think, I only heard in passing) discussed the possibility that there are other universes out there. So, you're saying they can't exist? Or, the dimensions, for example. If Mr. Dot lives on Mr. line he cannot know that there is a third dimension. You're denying possibilities that shouldn't be denied, rather set aside as highly improbable.
Actually, I have read some excerpts from his latest book, 'The Greatest show on Earth: the evidence for evolution'. While reading that, I think I had some kind of moment of clarity on why he was so strongly atheist but not any more. He uses an analogy of a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, who is eager to learn students all about his subject. However, there are those who claim the Romans never existed and try to convince that teacher's pupils of that idea and even try to pressure the government into making their ideas an accepted theory that is to be taught at schools.
It would be understandable why in such a case, one would be tempted to attack the stance of those 'anti-Romans' at first to defend your own subject. However, when you think about it for a moment (which I think is what Dawkins did), is that it's much more sensible to show the evidence in favour of your own point of view.
Oh, by the way. Evolution is way beyond reasonable doubt.
(link to the except)
http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2009/10/tale-of-three-generations-cfi-and.html
one bit from the latter half
Why its being done is a point that is rather important here. This is about free speech, about exercising a right. Trolling is not simple being rude or controversial and the primary point was most especially not simply "with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response"
Why was it done? Because we still can. Because you get a fine of more money than my mom makes in a year for making fun of religion in ireland now, because people died because a gathering of clerics incited a bunch of other muslims with deceit and lies.
Your statement is, upon further thought, more of a false equivalency than anything else about the incorrect labeling of this as being simple IRL trolling.
So?
Its not like there is much of a way we can get rid of the most basic deism. No facts to go over, nothing to mull over, just the premise of "the universe exists as a result of natural causes vs the universe operates as a result of natural causes that happens to have a supernatural instigator that then did nothing else outside of create something then step out"
More productive to focus on the nuts and bolts of actual belief systems, kinda like how you don't try to cure cancer, but specific kinds of cancer. Pun not intended, promise ;p
To not believe in something for which we have no evidence is as reasonable as believing in something for which we have no evidence?
Kas already used the good quote.
Eh,
If people didn't already believe in crazy stuff it would never even be a question for you guys to give nice convoluted explanations for why your not actually atheists while you still don't believe in a god.
So, if the whole world was atheist, or at least everyone that could see the sign, you would have still done it because you could?
It was ONLY done because you could do it? No other reason?
If you do everything you can do simply because you can, you must be a very busy man.
I guess we can assume that the Muslims in your picture have their signs for the same reason. I mean, we can't evaluate their motives any more than we can yours, right? They probably just rioted to prove they could too, no other reason either, I'm sure.
First of all we CAN know there are other dimensions, using the topography branch of maths there are certain observable characteristics of higher dimensionalities. For 'other' universes out there, if they can affect our universe then they exist (either through travelling from or to there, or how nearby universes would affect things in our universe) and if they can't they don't. Truth is that which can be empirically measured.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Except that is patently untrue. I enjoy eating BBQ Brisket. That is a true statement. It is also a statement that is impossible to empirically measure. THe ability to empircally measure something has absolutely no bearing on its truth.
Everyone else in this thread has pointed out, so I guess I will too, that unfalsifiable =/= false. By its very definition something that is unfalsifiable cannot be determined if it is false or true.
You can dismiss unfalsifiable premises as being "irrelevent" yes, but not as being "untrue".
Fine, pretend we're 100 years ago. At that time it was an unfalsifiable statement. I'm not sure why you're arguing with this, since you already posted in agreement with it earlier in the thread...
All the time we're able to verify more and more of what people have proposed in the past, but none of this has given us even an inkling that there is a god or that a specific god of the hundreds of thousands of proposed gods is the real one.
Face it though, the argument that you can't empirically verify an emotion falls flat to modern science :-p
What basic atheist creation theory, go wiki it up and you'll find multiples.
Your bolded part is still drawing way to much out of this, I explained why I did it. That there is more to it tan your bolded post. This is getting ridiculous taylor.
And no, the muslims have the signs out for different reasons. Their signs, btw, actually call for people to be hurt and killed and you really are trying to equivocate these? A peaceful political statement verse the 2005 muslim riots? Really?
Cmon man