I wouldn't say that athiests don't have faith. You had faith that your parents would take care of you when you were a kid, right? And you have faith that your neighbor isn't going to murder you in your sleep.
There are many different definitions of faith. We are adressing that which is applicable to beleif.
faith:
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
While the first definition is what you are referring to, it is not the kind of faith we are actually discussing. We are looking at definitions 2 and 3, as in; believing something without that thing needing to be proved first.
No, that's agnosticism. An atheist (or at least a gnostic atheist) makes a strong claim that they believe there exists no god or gods.
Agnosticism is claiming that the existence of God/Gods is unknown/unknowable. It has nothing to do with belief. It is an epistemological position, not a statement of belief.
Theism and Atheism relate directly to belief. i.e. Lacking belief in god/s is Atheism, that being said there are Atheists who would make a strong claim that there is no god, but it is incorrect to label all Atheists as being in this group.
Quote from Illusionist »
Rallying against theism is rallying around atheism since atheism isn't a belief but an absence of a belief in God.
This is too broad. One does not have to be an atheist to be opposed to religion/theism, and being an atheist does not by default make someone opposed to theism.
Well, the exact number would be a Sorite's Paradox, but I was speaking more about an actual societal group, such as "Muslim" or "homosexual."
This grants greater rights to a group over an individual, plus at what point a groups size constitutes this special treatment would be largely arbitrary.
Well, what if they just so happen to be walking the exact same direction as you're going? It's kind of an all-or-nothing deal; either free speech is always allowed or there are times when it has to take a back seat to other freedoms.
The issue is that there is a strict freedom pretecting your ability to say what you want. There is no such protection from hearing/seeing things you dont want to hear/see. There should certainly be conventions of what is appropriate in public, but considering he was doing it for its humour value, as presumably the Zombie Pope were, it seems like a stretch to say that he should sacrifice his freedom of speech ebacuse there might be someone there who would be offended.
This confuses me, I don't believe anybody was speaking about conforming to anybody's world view. Was the part where the Muslim tried to convert the man in the mask to Islam in the video?
No, I was incorrect to use the term world view, I should have simply said values. i.e. The Muslim man assumed that because the other guys actions contravened what he considered to be accptable behaviour he was justified in taking in upon himself to attemplt to remove the offending material. I'd say that this attitude in general is a large issue as it implies that a groups moral/social values can be imposed on others even if the other party is acting entirely legally. i.e. While it would not force a reverance for Muhammad, it essentially bars dissent.
Striking someone, no. But can you counter-harass them? You seem to imply in your earlier statement that if someone is shouting at you, you can shout back (as it were), why should I be able to non-physically harrass them if I can't physically do so?
It would obviously depend on the content of the language. If it was a shouted discussion about religion/politics etc.. then I'd say its all fine. If it were a long stream of profanity then it would be causing a public menace, though I'd still say neither party has commited an offence against the other.
Ah, but I don't necessarily believe it's a good outcome, just a fairer one. Truth be told, I wish we could all just get along, which is why I choose to side with the Muslim man; he was just hanging out on Halloween, not looking for any trouble, it wasn't his fault someone had to strut down main street insulting his religion.
It seems we have to agree to differ on this. I don't think its fairer simply because its one party lossing their freedom because another party doesn't like what they are doing with that freedom. In terms of the OP I do actually think the defendant was a foolish. While I'd defend his right to act in that manner, I wouldn't condone it because it doesnt actually advance a secular agenda in a good way, it simply portrays atheists as antagonistic.
That's the thing: whether or not you agree the man in the mask should have been punished for it, was doing anything wrong by it, or was even thinking about the ramifications of his actions, it's pretty clear that this wouldn't have happened if he'd just chosen to wear a different costume.. what was wrong with the ol' standby zombie Jesus? It would have even gone better with zombie Pope!
There was already a zombie pope at that event as I understand it. I suspect a large part of the decision to wear it was because the large stigma attached to images or disrespecting of the Prophet Muhammad. While there certainly wouldnt have been the issue if he chose something else, the issue is that he shouldnt have to wear something else. Its his right ot be as much of a spaz as he chooses.
What I mean by 'removal of offence' is to take it off of them without harming/harrassing them. Sometimes this is going to be possible, others it is not, such as with the silence bubbles again.
I understand what you mean, its just that policing what is offensive is not only impossible in a practical sense, as I mentioned earlier that I don't know what everyone else is offended by, but is also fundamentallty limiting everyones ability to act as they please regardless of social stigma. e.g. If we conformed to the norm of what is offensive by and tried to remove the offense where possible, then what is socially acceptable would not change, e.g. homosexual people would not be able to be affectionate in public, or going further, all women would have to cover up because fundie muslims might get offended.
Ah, a little clearer, but still pretty opaque. Your suggesting, I think, that if you don't believe in anything, you can't be insulted, right? But everybody believes in something. Maybe not a religion, sure (or if they do, not enough to be offended), but everyone has something they care about.
No, I'm saying there is no legal protection which makes it an offence for anybody to do something which offends you. There are loads of things which I find offensive, but I know that I don't get some special protection from those things just because I find them offensive, its just something you have to deal with. For example, if someone said something exremely bigoted about Australians I would be offended, but that is just part of life, it doesnt give me special rights because I am offended by it, nor can I get special protection to prevent people from makling such statements in the future. In essence, being offending isnt like being assaulted or robbed, people too often use the term offence as if they were actually slighted in some way which grants them rights of compensation or the ability to seek punishment for the offender, when it simply doesnt.
Ah, see, "mockery" is fine. Let's go with that.
Next question: if I mock your beliefs in front of an audience, is it still fine? What if you are the lone atheist at your school and I mock your lack of faith in front of an audience? Of course mocking other people's beliefs have a time and a place.. I just don't see how a Halloween party on an open street with lots of drunk people around and women wearing beads for some reason is the correct venue. It's a party, why bring that crap up in there? It's just going to be a downer and piss off that one guy in the crowd more.
Presumably he thought is was funny. This is more of an issue of what is socially appropriate rather than what is legal, and while it certainly may have been in bad taste it was also legal for him to wear it. The same goes for the mockery, I'd normally welcome mockery because I quite like talking to people about these issues and good mockery can actually be thought provoking and raise issues. While I don't think dressing up as Zombie Muhammad is good mockery, it has certainly raised several intersting discussion points.
Of course, that depends on your definition of "acceptable practice." I don't believe it's acceptable practice to tell schoolkids graphic stories about what you did with their mother, for instance; other times, such as here, I'm fine with it, even if it means I'm getting mocked.
This again is an issue of social acceptablity vs legality. It is certainly a faux pas to talk to schoolkids in that way, and doing so on school property would get you kicked off, but it isnt illegal, and trying to make it so is once again an infringement of freedom of speech. So while its certainly not 'acceptable' to act that way, that fact that people think your a tool for telling schoolkids those stories of for dressing up as Zombie Muhammad doesnt impact the legality.
I'm gonna level with you: we should probably back off of this. You made an effort to understand what I was saying (for which I am still grateful), I've tried (really, really did) to stop being so snide in my response, and we probably just don't want to get into spouse abuse here; I have some strong feelings about that. We can continue if you'd like, but for my part I think we have enough on our plate as it is.
Obviously this has become fair tangential, but I am curious what the issue is. The only issue we seem to be having on this topic is the distinction between an offensive remark not directed at the spouse/person to whom you owe a duty of care and one which is clearly designed to be hurtful. I'd reiterate that a remark which the spuse finds offensive is not in the slightest 'abuse', on the other hand continually raiaing the issue to illicit a respose is clearly antagonistic, or if the issue is only raised in the first place as a way of harming the other party then its clearly just a way of trying to harm the other person. Intent seems like the determining factor.
But you admit that verbal abuse is a form of attack? Why not ban them both, then?
They are both breaking the law depending on the nature of the verbal attack. The issue is that saying/doing something which is legal (dressing up as Muhammad) but which someone takes offense at does not permit an illegal act to remove the offending object/person.
I was refering back to the original case, that the Muslim man taking offense at the guy dressed up as Muhammad is being offended by something not directed at him and to which he received no personal harm. i.e. He had no more claim to personal offense than me being offended by something I saw on TV.
Okay, again, stop misconstruing my stance. Here, let me outline it for you:
1. I believe that the Muslim person, who harassed the man in the mask, was not attacking them as a form of vengeance, I believe that they were trying to remove the mask and thereby end the man in the mask's offence.
2. As such, I have been trying to determine the difference between "an attack" and "removal of offence"; I provided the examples of 1. a person outside a AA meeting distributing information on where to get alcohol; 2. a person in a school wearing a shirt telling people where to download free porn, and 3. a person entering Crips territory while wearing Bloods colors. (#2 was shot down.) I posited the stance that all of these, including the original story in the OP, were situations where it would be considered the best course of action to remove the offending material/action, rather than face the possibility of harsher consequences, usually including damage to innocent parties (the man in the mask being one of them).
3. I AM NOT advocating using violence; rather, I am positing the idea that there is a difference between violence and using physical means to remove offensive materials/situations. You appear to have taken my earlier phrase "Violence is such a worthless, unsavory thing that it should never be excused, then?" and taken it to mean the whole of my argumentation. That was not my intent, and if you insist on doing so I'd appreciate it if you could clear up for me why you feel my argumentative stance invariably ends with people punching each other in the face all the time get some.
Forcibly removing the offending object is violence. He ran up and tried to tear of things the man was wearing, if I did that to you in the street you would probably hit me and be justified in doing so since you're defending yourself.
What if the offense was written on a T-shirt and he tried to tear it off? Or if he was saying it and he tried to forcibly shut him up? etc...
He thought it would be funny to represent a well known religious figure as a Zombie. Considering ther were others doing the same thing they presumably also found it amusing. The fact the you don't share their sense of humor doesnt remove their right to make the joke in the first place.
And why do you assume that it would be taken to an extreme? If you insist on using a slippery slope, please follow through at least some of the steps so I can at least make connect a few of the dots.
Because of the legal precident it sets. Future cases can refer to thuis one as setting a precident that trying to forcibly 'remove an offense' in ok. What happens when the case is someone is destroying artwork or literature or infringing on others freedom of speech because they find it offensive. Its a slipperly slope because this is a small issue which can be used to support the claims and justify the actions of offenders in much larger dispute.
But what if the only way I can get you to stop saying things that offend me is to forcibly stop you talking? Would gagging you or knocking out your teeth then be justified as a way of 'removing the offense'?
I'd like to address this thing you got goin' on with conflating "hurt feelings" and "taking offense." While both are natural reactions to being insulted, "hurt feelings" implies ownership, and is only personal, where "taking offense" implies, to me, a more universally, communalist basis.. "My feelings are hurt when you call me a toad-face," vs. "I take offense to you saying that homosexuals will burn in Hell." Perhaps it is only a semantics issue, and one based in personal bias to boot, but to me there is a wide berth between the two terms; if you wish to continue using them in such similar contexts, it might behoove you to explain why you feel they are so similar.
How many people does it take to make it a communal offense? If I can find 5 people that think your hair is an offensive colour and goes against our religion can we then jump you in the street and cut it off? Maybe we'd need 10-20. A group taking offense is just lots of people with hurt feelings about the same issue. I can be personally offended about something someone says without first having to check thats lots of other people are also offended.
And, now really, you don't see the problem with this?
And what if they follow?
And if they're as thick-headed as I am?
You do these things because to try and force them to shut up with violence is against the law. If they follow you then its harrassment because it then becomes a personal attack. If you cannot aggree then you walk away. I find the hate-speech fundamentalist preachers offensive, that doesnt mean I get to run up to them and hold my hand over their mouth to 'remiove the offense'. I can tell them their wrong, argue with them, or walk away. Its isnt passive aggressive to not try to physically force people to conform to your world views.
W...t....f? I know it's been a while since I was in second grade, but when did they add the line "so if someone says something punch them in the fa-a-ace."
I'm not implying they did. I'm pointing out the simple fact that being offended is not something which you can use to justify striking someone or physically harrassing them in any way.
We're not still talking about the schoolyard couplet, are we?
No I'm just curious how you think physically forcing people not to offend anyone is going to lead to a good outcome. If I'm saying something offensive and you try to physically force me to shut up I'll press charges, and if the judge isnt a moron you'd be punished and still be offended by what I said.
Now you realize that neither will actually work, right?
Again, I'm obviously having a lot of fun here but please address my point: I think there's a difference between removing offensive material, by physical means if necessary, and violence.
Well they are the only two options. One infringes the other persons freedom of speech, the other doesnt.
What constitutes 'removing offensive material, by physical means if necessary'? Again, if I'm saying something offensive, and the only way you can get me to shut up is gagging me, is that justified? How does that differ from your definition of violence?
The case in the OP is an example of violence in the form of phyical harrasment, he tried to forcibly remove part of the mans atire. If the man resisted he would have had to use more serious violence to 'remove the offense', would that be ok? There is no line between 'using physical means' to remove and offense and using violence, neither is allowed because they both infringe on the other persons rights. Just as I couldnt tear off your shirt if it had an offensive logo, you couldnt knock out my teeth if I was saying something offensive.
I'm saying there is no legal protection which gives you the right to never be offended by anything. i.e. If I say something which you find offensive I am in no way infringing on your rights.
Criticized? CRITICIZED? What, exactly, does a zombie Mohammed costume do to criticize the Muslim religion? What grand, overarching problems with the works of the Koran does it imply to be fallacious? What religious upheaval is it meant to bring about, what shadow politick does it set in motion?
I was responding to this statement from you.
"How, exactly, is expecting everyone to respect everyone else's rights, even their religious rights, utterly senseless?"
I'm saying that religious rights don't mean your religion is immune from criticizm or mockery. You have the freedom to practice your religion, and I have the freedom to say its a load of crap and funny crap taboot.
I'm not advocating that we restrict people's freedom of speech.. merely that when that freedom of speech is squandered on silly things like zombie Mohammed, it should be alright to forcibly eject that silliness from polite gatherings, such as a Halloween parade.
Oh I see. Its not that you want to restrict freedom of speech, its that unwanted speech should simply not be allowed and should be forcibly removed if it doesnt conform to predefined definitions of acceptable practice. It so much clearer now.
Care to weigh in on the difference between "offended" and "abused?"
This is a legal definition;
Abuse;
To mistreat or neglect a person, particularly as to one for whom the actor has special responsibility by virtue of a relationship, e.g., spouse, child, elderly parent, or one for whom the actor has undertaken a duty of care, e.g., nurse-patient;
You might want to choose your words more carefully while we're discussing spouse abuse. Your example would be a pretty good example of an abusive relationship, especially if it's used repetitively.
Perhaps if its was known that this was going to hurt the other person and used over a sustained period of time then maybe. Its still one person taking offense at something the other said which was not directed at that person. (If you could show that it was intended to be used to antagonize that person then it would be another issue, but in the case in the OP it was as a joke in a parade and there was no connetion between the two parties)
Or, as has been my stance from the beginning, she could have the abusive partner removed. You know, physically.
If that person was sown to be abusive. But that isnt the issue, the issue is if a stranger, i.e. someone to whom you owe no duty of care, takes offense at something you say/do, then they do not gain the right to forcibly stop you, regardless of how much force is used. i.e. putting you hand over someones mouth to stop them saying offensive things, or knocking out their teeth if they wont stop.
The issue of schoolyards/banks etc... are different because they are private premises and you are obliged to abide by their rules.
It does? But you go on to say that you can also verbally attack someone, or at least that it can be construed as such; are you sure you don't mean that it only implies a physical attack to you?
I am saying that the common usage of 'attack' is physical, and that while verbal abuse is legally an 'attack/offense' it is not one which allows you to attack them back in physical way, unlike a physical attack would (self defence)
No. Is this even a question? You cannot legally say "they did it to me so its only fair!". Even disregarding the legality, its just moronic to try to repay every slight against you in equal measure, made even more rediculous by the fact its a perceived offence. No property has been damaged, money lost, person injured, it is a purely personal feeling of insult and to repay hurt feelings with violence takes eye for and eye (which it already stupid) and trusn it into a justification for assaulting anyone who you dont like the opinions of. e.g. The fact that you beleive in God X is offensive to me, so I'm going to punch you in the face etc...
How does it imply that [that anyone making a joke about any religion could be persecuted or attacked without repercussion]? I'm just saying that insulting someone, for whatever reason (not just religious reasons, mind you), shouldn't be tolerated anymore than retaliating against someone for doing so. You're the one who seems to be enamored of the slippery slope idea that our society falls apart if people keep themselves from being able to say whatever they want, whenever they want.
Because he didnt directly insult him. He was making a joke by dressing up, the guy found it insulting. Taking this case as a precident, if I make a joke about Christianity and someone takes it as an insult then they, can physically harass me. Taken to the extreme this means that anyone who causes anyone offence, whether intended or otherwise, whomever it is directed toward, can be physically harrassed by the person who was insulted. Essentially saying that by exercising your freedom of speech and expressing an opinion you are possibly giving someone the ability to attack you as long as they are offended enough.
And again, why shouldn't I be rightfully enabled to retaliate against something I find offensive? I'm just supposed to sit there and take it whenever anybody pisses me off? That seems a bit too passive-aggressive for my tastes.
I find what you just said offensive. Can I now punch you in the face? Is that ok? From what you just said, if I am offended by something I am allowed to use violence, so it should be ok for me to punch you in the face right? If I'm really offended by something on tv can I send a letter bomb to the channel? This is the precident that you are suggesting is accpetable. That having your feeling hurt by an indirect offense is not only not acceptable (again, see Freedom of Speech), but makes a violent response acceptable.
Basically yes, you sit there and take it. Or you walk away. Or you argue with them. Its a seriously sick society in which violence is an acceptable response to feeling offended by something. You can retailate with words, use your mouth for talking and not your fists.
No. Its relevant to everyone because its a lesson about how to respond to offence. Violence doesnt resolve the issue. You still have your feelings hurt and end up in jail and they have the crap kicked out of them. So who wins? What was resolved? Did anyone learn anything? What happens to society when everyone who is offended by something thinks its ok to use violence to resolve it? Should political/ideological differences be resolved in a debate or with a brawl?
How, exactly, is expecting everyone to respect everyone else's rights, even their religious rights, utterly senseless?
Because nobody has the right to not be offended. You don't have the right to not have your religion criticized. There is a difference between respecting a persons ability to prcitce their religion freely, and forcing people not to criticize those beliefs. One is the protection of rights, the other is an infringment. (freedom of religion vs freedom of speech)
Yes, you're right. But two conclusions can be drawn from this: either that we, both societally and individually, stop doing anything because it will offend someone else, or that we accept that our actions can be hurtful when the situation arises.. which of those does "dress up as zombie Mohammed and then call the cops when I get jumped" fall into?
Get off this slippery-slope strawman, please. I'm advocating the removal of offensive material/situations, not breaking people's legs for keying up your car.
Again. What if I find your hat really offensive. Can I use violence to remove the offence? If your hair colour is offensive to me because my prophet had that hair colour and it blasphamous for anyone else to have it, can I tear it from your head because I am offended and I'm just 'removing the offence'.
It is a slipperly slope because it sets the precident that being offended gives you special rights and the ability to freely infringe on the rights of others. Mandating that people not say because other might not like it is the definition of not having freedom of speech.
I see.. no, wait, what? So you're saying that emotional abuse is "equivalent to having your feelings hurt"? Well, I'm sure that there are many people in abusive relationships that will be glad to hear that it's apparently impossible to have someone else inflict emotional pain on you if you just, you know, ignore it until it goes away.
Srsly?
How is being offended emotional abuse? People in abusive relationships are not offended by their partner, they are abused by them, i.e. physically or verbally abused. If my partner were muslim and I said 'The Prophet was a total jerk', she wouldnt have much of a case for an abusive relationship would she? She could tell me I'm wrong, argue with me, or just go away, but she certainly could not stab me in the eye with a pen.
Care to weigh in on the difference between what "an attack" and "is offensive" is?
An attack implies a physical attack, while verbal abuse could be decribed as an 'attack' it would not excuse someone else breaking the law. e.g. If you vandalise my car I dont get to break your legs. Verbal abuse can be considered a offense (as in, breaking the law), but it would be a big stretch to say that mocking a religious beleif constitutes a personal attack. It would imply that anyone making a joke about any religion could be persecuted or attacked without repurcusions.
Yes, hence my accusation (or rather, implication) that it was flawed logic. Question is, where is the line drawn? You seem to be making the case that it is "absurd" to take any sort of physical action against something that you find offensive, but where does that leave us? You couldn't take legal action against the offensive material (I doubt the cops would even get there in time), nor emotional for obvious reasons, or spiritual, or intellectual.. how to retaliate against something you find offensive without being offensive yourself?
You can tell them you find it offensive, you can argue with them, point out how they are wrong and explain to them why it is offensive and why they shouldnt do it. i.e. You can grow up and realise this isnt a schoolyard. Having your feelings hurt happens, and its just something that people have to deal with. When did 'sticks and stones may break my bones' stop being relevant?
Please, people, don't stonewall me like this! Give me reasons you feel it isn't excusable! How else am I supposed to learn?
Because it sets an insane precident. Offense is a personal thing. What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another, and I cannot know what is offensive to everyone. Plus its implies that using the right to free speech can grant special privelages to others. e.g. If I say Karl Marx was a moron, under the principal that violence is excusable if someone is offended, it would be ok for a socialist to punch me in the face. Or if they are really offended can they go even further? So a minor offense excuses physical harassment while being really offended would let you put someone in a wheelchair.
Being offended is essentially the equivelant to having your feelings hurt, it doesnt give you special rights, in this case the ability to freely infinge on the right of others without persecution.
Well, sure, sometimes coming at your date with a toothpick is an an attack of the most serious nature, but not always. By that logic the man in the costume was just as guilty of a crime as the Muslim man: both were invasively put into situations they did not agree to. Or is physical attack the only sort of attack there is?
How someone chooses to dress or what they say isnt an attack. It can be offensive, but that doesnt give the person who is offended special rights. i.e. The right to physically harrass the person. e.g. If I was walking down the street and saw you wearing your normal clothes and talking on a mobile phone, and I found that how you dressed and what you were saying extremely offensive (because of my religious beleifs) it wouldnt give me the right to take youer phone off you or try to tear off your clothes. Its an absurd precident to be setting that the use of ones right to freedom of speech can in effect reduce that persons other rights or grant special rights to others.
Great link! Also, I think it's important to say that it seems likely that bakgat just doesn't understand why anyone would want to be an athiest since he's perfectly happy as a Christian. I don't see him as being hostile in any sense of the word. I do see him as being perhaps a little confused or not sure on some things.
When you spend a lot of time ingesting a lot of information about ANY topic, it's easy to not see the logic of the opposing viewpoint. Many Christians are told that Athiests have no morals and no happiness... when in reality it's not the case at all.
A Christian won't rob a bank because God tells them it's bad and they don't want to burn in eternal hellfire.
An Athiest won't rob a bank because they don't want to be a douchebag.
I suspect the motivations for not doing obviously wrong things are much the same between a theist/atheist. We all feel a compulsion to adhere to what society views as acceptable behaviour, e.g; not breaking the law/being a douchebag. The differences arise in how we justify our actions to ourselves. i.e. Religious people will be prone to attributing their own and others good deeds to an adherance to the rules of their deity(s), while atheists will treat it for what it is, adherance to your personal moral compass and your inherent and culturally developed understanding of right and wrong. In short, people will mostly be good or bad for exactly the same reasons, but they validate those decisions to themselves in different ways. We are really good at finding an excuse for our wrongful/immoral actions, be they religious or secular reasons. Unless you're a sociopath, then you can do whatever the hell you want.
Why does bakgat have a problem with athiest countries wtf, it just proves how ignorant some people are. lol where do i start? do i want to get started hahah? this is probably going to go nowhere but i really do think religious people have deaf ears. They shut of to whats really going on and make up magical excuses wtf... How is the world ever going to be peaceful if there are people like bakgat? They dont even know what they are fighting about, hoy land... what makes it so holy, all the oil there no dowt. Grrrrrrr i could go on forever, Sk ignorant religious pplz, cant we all just get along¿
He didn't say he has a problem with 'atheist' countries. He didn't even identify any country as atheistic; instead he highlighted the prevalence of secularism and a decline in religiosity in certain countries. I think it is no coincidence that those countries which have relatively low levels of religiosity are also fairly affluent with high levels of 'happiness', though the definition of happiness can vary significantly based on the questioning (typically defined by health, economics and satisfaction/fulfilment). This certainly suggests that the citizenry of these countries are not suffering in any significant way for their lack of organised religion/belief in a personal god, though it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of a 'spiritual' element in their lives (however they choose to define spiritual). At the very least the fact that these countries apparently show no ill effect for their low levels of religion suggest that Bakgat can relax in the knowledge that people are able to live fulfilling lives without believing in a deity. That is of course until they die and spend eternity in hell, but at least that means we'll have a bunch of cheery Scandinavians to keep us company.
You are all right, of course, in the main. There was an overly emotional impetus behind the OP, which was my reflection on the following:
Many people, particularly children, have been deeply grieved by hearing religious fundamentalists claim that their deceased loved ones have gone to hell because they did not believe in the right God. But as religion rolls back a bit before the advance of secularism, I foresee similar grief being stoked by claims from fundamentalist atheists (i.e. the adherents of "strong atheism") that the dead have irrevocably ceased to exist, there's no chance of meeting them ever again, and that's all there is to it. Such claims are less devastating than the claims of hellfire, since oblivion is not nearly so awful a fate as eternal suffering; yet they may also be more devastating for being presented in the guise of an ironclad scientific truth (rather than as the article of faith that they are).
Please point to where non-religious people have done this. There is a difference between not playing along with someones delusion to make them feel good and going out of ones way to take away what gives greiving people comfort. i.e. I am not going to make an attempt to take away what gives someone is a difficult situation comfort, but I am also not going to lie to them, as lying to prolong a delusion is the more reprehensible act.
I mean, really, doesn't a person have to be either wholly blinded by their convictions, or else just be an all around total dick, to want to proclaim a message that can only be received with pain by those who are already hurting? And to what end, anyway? What is gained by statements such as this:
You mean like telling children that there is no Santa? Sure, telling a five year old that would probably just be for the sake of being nasty, but if a 20 year old still beleived in Santa would it be reprehensible to break their delusion rather than just saying 'they get comfort from beleiving that Santa exists, so it would be mean to point out to this adult that there isnt one'.
Those stories give meaning to people's lives! They are a comfort and an encouragement! What should it matter whether they are *factually* true? For we humans are not mere facts, but also the stories that we tell ourselves; there are many stories that can make life good, or at least bearable; and not all of them are amenable to each sort of mind. All of you here are clearly very logical people; well, not everyone has an equal capacity or propensity for logic. Does your understanding of statistical coincidence, confirmation bias, &etc. -- and your corresponding rejection of God on the basis of such understanding -- make you better than those who believe? Should you count it as your duty, in the quest for "furthering enlightenment," to rain on their parade, or to add lightning to their rain?
The problem with this line of thinking is it makes anything permissable as long as that delusion makles people happy. Is it ok to spread a lie because it makes people feel good, if thinking the moon was made of cheese made someone happy and gave meaning to their life as they one day how to eat some moon cheese, would it be wrong to point out that the moon is not in fact made of cheese, and they should instead devote their effort to something that can actually be acheived? Granted it would be cruel to try to crticize the afterlife beliefs of a greiving person, but it is an absurd suggestion to say that just because certain delusions make people happy that those delusions become sacrosanct and enter a relam of ideas beyond criticism/questioning.
Why should anyone ever feel the need to make the statement, "All instances of alleged supernatural activity can be satisfactorily explained by perfectly mundane means"? Isn't it enough to say, "Most instances of alleged supernatural activity can be satisfactorily explained by perfectly mundane means; as to the remainder whose cause we don't know, I believe that naturalistic causes will eventually be discovered"?
...I suppose I have just recently begun to feel very, very strongly that people who espouse "strong atheism" (not that I am accusing anyone here of that -- on the whole you strike me as eminently reasonable "weak atheists") are just as bad as the likes of Pat Robertson on the religious side. Should we not all make some allowance for the awesome mystery of the universe, as well as for our own ignorance, and refrain from statements of gross pomposity concerning the fate or existence of every human soul?
There is a difference between making allowances for our own fallability and lack of understanding and accepting as permissable the espousal of bad evidence and faultly claims for absurd supernatual beleifs. i.e. Its all well and good to say "we dont know/cant be sure", but that is very different from "we dont know/cant be sure, therefore you cant prove I'm wrong and its fine to beleive XYZ".
Well, since you had/have no emotional investment in the event in question, it's easy to see why you could say, "Meh, probability," and find options two or three to be more likely. When my dad described it to me, on the other hand, there was no question in his mind that it was confirmation that his mom was okay. To which you would say, "Right, his strong emotions biased him in favor of that interpretation." Yet who is immune from emotional bias? Is there not a very strong, yet understated, current of emotion in apparently dispassionate claims that everything can be accounted for materialistically -- namely, the notorious fear of the unknown?
Perhaps the fear of the unknown cuts both ways, causing some people to perceive ghostly visitations because they crave a postmortem continuity of relationship; while others deny such visitations because they crave a predictable, strictly rational and material existence that can be understood and controlled. Where then is the truth?
This is called confirmation bias. The fact that your father has an emotional investment makes him the party least able to come to a rational conclusion by addressing the other possibilities. i.e. If a person has any particular inclination toward a specific outcome they are liable to disregard other possibilities and problems with their conclusion. This is a big part of why anecdotal evidence is regarded so poorly, it is extremely fallible. An example of this is fake psychics/mediums (that is to say, all of them), who can use a technique called 'cold reading' to produce results which in the mind of the person receiving the reading provides conclusive proof that they are communicated with a deceased person, when in reality the fact that they want to communicate to that person, to the degree that they approach a psychic/medium, makes them prone to disregarding the 'misses' that occur during the reading and overemphasising the 'hits'. There are numerous examples of this to be found on youtube. Just search for 'cold reading'.
Autumn's Veil seems significantly better than purify the grave against UB. Purify only works if they have snapcaster and if you have purify in hand at the time they cast it and if you have W open. Autumn's Veil is much more flexible since it prevents the primary ways they have of interecting (permission or spot removal). Plus it can be used to force a Pod through permission which is obv very key. Purify is good vs Solar Flare but I think Autmn's Veil is very nearly as good, since many Solar Flare decks seem to be cutting back on the unburial rites.
Are you arguing that technological innovations should be stopped or limited because you think they are stupid and unnecessary? No doubt there were plenty of people who thought the telephone was silly and letters were a perfectly acceptable way to communicate, or that PC's were just a silly toy when a typewriter did the job fine. i.e. Just because we are 'satisfied' with current technology doesn’t mean we should not try to improve current technology or innovate to create new solutions.
If you have an argument for why technological innovations should be stymied then please state it, otherwise it just looks like you are stating that technology X is stupid, so we need to stop people trying to make it, which is an incredibly moronic and narrow minded view.
There is something very jarring in your statement. I have to disagree with it.
I agree with slipknot, he posted a to-the-point description of theist/atheist/agnostic points of view. It may sound too simplified, but it captures the spirit very well I think.
Atheist simply means to not believe in a god. There is a huge difference between saying "I don’t believe in a god" and "There is no chance a God could exist". Someone cannot believe in god while not rejecting the possibility of a god and still accurately be called an atheist; they would simply be an agnostic atheist. i.e. One who doesn’t believe in a god but doesn’t claim to have knowledge that there isn’t a god. If you want to use atheism as a colloquial term for someone who rejects all possibility of a supernatural creator then you are using too narrow a definition, because you are denying the existence of anyone who does not believe in god/gods but who also does not reject the possibility of the supernatural. i.e. You are misrepresenting a large portion of the people you are attempting to describe, thus it does not 'capture the spirit', it is inaccurate and oversimplified.
I think this comes down to a miscommunication of the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism refers to knowledge rather than belief, so when someone says they are agnostic all they are really saying is that they don’t claim to have knowledge of a god (which given the Judeo-Christian system values faith in the absence of proof seems like the position most Christians would hold). Thus the term agnostic does actually tell you what someone believes, that is left to the terms theist/atheist. So you can fall into one of 4 categories (ignoring Deism/Pantheism for a simplicities sake)
1: Gnostic Theist - Someone who believes in a god/gods and also claims to have knowledge that their specific god exists
2: Agnostic Theist - Someone who believes in a god/gods but believes entirely on faith
3: Agnostic Atheist - Someone who doesn’t believe in god/gods but doesn’t claim to have knowledge regarding the non-existence of each god/the supernatural in general
4: Gnostic Atheist - Someone who doesn’t believe in god/gods and claims to know that no gods exist
Positions 1 and 4 are quite arrogant (unless someone is position 1 has had a chat with god recently) and it seems like very few people fall into those categories. It is also worth noting that while position 3 does not make the claim that not gods do/could exist, it does not necessarily represent a 'fence sitting' approach, instead it means that they reject the prospect of god/gods until the claim is satisfactorily proven.
I think I have an idea of what his views on science are. In that science has proven itself wrong, a lot. Which is exactly the point of it. To prove without doubt that certain values are true, you have to repeat the processes and tests until it is proven not true. Personally, I think that's the beauty of real science.
A wild stab in the dark: slipknot does not believe that science is 100% reliable.
This still doesn’t really answer my question. I am asking what he means by 'belief' in science. i.e. Is he suggesting a faith in the results of scientific experimentation (which would be a poor position for anyone to hold, as it misses a huge part of what makes the scientific method a robust system for discovery), or whether he doesn’t believe that science, meaning the scientific method, is a reliable source of determining fact from fiction. Or something else entirely.
Being an atheist is to renounce all chances of a higher power or after life.
Confusion or not knowing is being agnostic.
Incorrect. While it certainly describes some Atheists (those who claim to have knowledge that no supernatural being exists, i.e. Claim to know what isnt knowable which is just as fallible as a gnostic-theist viewpoint). Atheists typically don't renouce all chance of a supernatural being, but simply don't actively belive that one exists. Its the differnece between saying;
A: "Do Unicorns exist?"
B: "I dont think so, and until proven otherwise I wont believe in them."
and
A: "Do Unicorns Exist?"
B: "No, and I know that they cannot exist."
As for myself I grew up with christian parents but never really understood the religion. I find gaping holes with it, and generally any religion.
thus I see myself as an agnostic, not believing science or region 100%
Could you clarify what you mean by not "believing science 100%". Is it that you find particular theories disagreeable or do you find the scientific method lacking?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are many different definitions of faith. We are adressing that which is applicable to beleif.
faith:
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
While the first definition is what you are referring to, it is not the kind of faith we are actually discussing. We are looking at definitions 2 and 3, as in; believing something without that thing needing to be proved first.
Agnosticism is claiming that the existence of God/Gods is unknown/unknowable. It has nothing to do with belief. It is an epistemological position, not a statement of belief.
Theism and Atheism relate directly to belief. i.e. Lacking belief in god/s is Atheism, that being said there are Atheists who would make a strong claim that there is no god, but it is incorrect to label all Atheists as being in this group.
This is too broad. One does not have to be an atheist to be opposed to religion/theism, and being an atheist does not by default make someone opposed to theism.
This grants greater rights to a group over an individual, plus at what point a groups size constitutes this special treatment would be largely arbitrary.
The issue is that there is a strict freedom pretecting your ability to say what you want. There is no such protection from hearing/seeing things you dont want to hear/see. There should certainly be conventions of what is appropriate in public, but considering he was doing it for its humour value, as presumably the Zombie Pope were, it seems like a stretch to say that he should sacrifice his freedom of speech ebacuse there might be someone there who would be offended.
No, I was incorrect to use the term world view, I should have simply said values. i.e. The Muslim man assumed that because the other guys actions contravened what he considered to be accptable behaviour he was justified in taking in upon himself to attemplt to remove the offending material. I'd say that this attitude in general is a large issue as it implies that a groups moral/social values can be imposed on others even if the other party is acting entirely legally. i.e. While it would not force a reverance for Muhammad, it essentially bars dissent.
It would obviously depend on the content of the language. If it was a shouted discussion about religion/politics etc.. then I'd say its all fine. If it were a long stream of profanity then it would be causing a public menace, though I'd still say neither party has commited an offence against the other.
It seems we have to agree to differ on this. I don't think its fairer simply because its one party lossing their freedom because another party doesn't like what they are doing with that freedom. In terms of the OP I do actually think the defendant was a foolish. While I'd defend his right to act in that manner, I wouldn't condone it because it doesnt actually advance a secular agenda in a good way, it simply portrays atheists as antagonistic.
There was already a zombie pope at that event as I understand it. I suspect a large part of the decision to wear it was because the large stigma attached to images or disrespecting of the Prophet Muhammad. While there certainly wouldnt have been the issue if he chose something else, the issue is that he shouldnt have to wear something else. Its his right ot be as much of a spaz as he chooses.
I understand what you mean, its just that policing what is offensive is not only impossible in a practical sense, as I mentioned earlier that I don't know what everyone else is offended by, but is also fundamentallty limiting everyones ability to act as they please regardless of social stigma. e.g. If we conformed to the norm of what is offensive by and tried to remove the offense where possible, then what is socially acceptable would not change, e.g. homosexual people would not be able to be affectionate in public, or going further, all women would have to cover up because fundie muslims might get offended.
No, I'm saying there is no legal protection which makes it an offence for anybody to do something which offends you. There are loads of things which I find offensive, but I know that I don't get some special protection from those things just because I find them offensive, its just something you have to deal with. For example, if someone said something exremely bigoted about Australians I would be offended, but that is just part of life, it doesnt give me special rights because I am offended by it, nor can I get special protection to prevent people from makling such statements in the future. In essence, being offending isnt like being assaulted or robbed, people too often use the term offence as if they were actually slighted in some way which grants them rights of compensation or the ability to seek punishment for the offender, when it simply doesnt.
Presumably he thought is was funny. This is more of an issue of what is socially appropriate rather than what is legal, and while it certainly may have been in bad taste it was also legal for him to wear it. The same goes for the mockery, I'd normally welcome mockery because I quite like talking to people about these issues and good mockery can actually be thought provoking and raise issues. While I don't think dressing up as Zombie Muhammad is good mockery, it has certainly raised several intersting discussion points.
This again is an issue of social acceptablity vs legality. It is certainly a faux pas to talk to schoolkids in that way, and doing so on school property would get you kicked off, but it isnt illegal, and trying to make it so is once again an infringement of freedom of speech. So while its certainly not 'acceptable' to act that way, that fact that people think your a tool for telling schoolkids those stories of for dressing up as Zombie Muhammad doesnt impact the legality.
Obviously this has become fair tangential, but I am curious what the issue is. The only issue we seem to be having on this topic is the distinction between an offensive remark not directed at the spouse/person to whom you owe a duty of care and one which is clearly designed to be hurtful. I'd reiterate that a remark which the spuse finds offensive is not in the slightest 'abuse', on the other hand continually raiaing the issue to illicit a respose is clearly antagonistic, or if the issue is only raised in the first place as a way of harming the other party then its clearly just a way of trying to harm the other person. Intent seems like the determining factor.
They are both breaking the law depending on the nature of the verbal attack. The issue is that saying/doing something which is legal (dressing up as Muhammad) but which someone takes offense at does not permit an illegal act to remove the offending object/person.
I was refering back to the original case, that the Muslim man taking offense at the guy dressed up as Muhammad is being offended by something not directed at him and to which he received no personal harm. i.e. He had no more claim to personal offense than me being offended by something I saw on TV.
Forcibly removing the offending object is violence. He ran up and tried to tear of things the man was wearing, if I did that to you in the street you would probably hit me and be justified in doing so since you're defending yourself.
What if the offense was written on a T-shirt and he tried to tear it off? Or if he was saying it and he tried to forcibly shut him up? etc...
He thought it would be funny to represent a well known religious figure as a Zombie. Considering ther were others doing the same thing they presumably also found it amusing. The fact the you don't share their sense of humor doesnt remove their right to make the joke in the first place.
Because of the legal precident it sets. Future cases can refer to thuis one as setting a precident that trying to forcibly 'remove an offense' in ok. What happens when the case is someone is destroying artwork or literature or infringing on others freedom of speech because they find it offensive. Its a slipperly slope because this is a small issue which can be used to support the claims and justify the actions of offenders in much larger dispute.
But what if the only way I can get you to stop saying things that offend me is to forcibly stop you talking? Would gagging you or knocking out your teeth then be justified as a way of 'removing the offense'?
How many people does it take to make it a communal offense? If I can find 5 people that think your hair is an offensive colour and goes against our religion can we then jump you in the street and cut it off? Maybe we'd need 10-20. A group taking offense is just lots of people with hurt feelings about the same issue. I can be personally offended about something someone says without first having to check thats lots of other people are also offended.
You do these things because to try and force them to shut up with violence is against the law. If they follow you then its harrassment because it then becomes a personal attack. If you cannot aggree then you walk away. I find the hate-speech fundamentalist preachers offensive, that doesnt mean I get to run up to them and hold my hand over their mouth to 'remiove the offense'. I can tell them their wrong, argue with them, or walk away. Its isnt passive aggressive to not try to physically force people to conform to your world views.
I'm not implying they did. I'm pointing out the simple fact that being offended is not something which you can use to justify striking someone or physically harrassing them in any way.
No I'm just curious how you think physically forcing people not to offend anyone is going to lead to a good outcome. If I'm saying something offensive and you try to physically force me to shut up I'll press charges, and if the judge isnt a moron you'd be punished and still be offended by what I said.
Well they are the only two options. One infringes the other persons freedom of speech, the other doesnt.
What constitutes 'removing offensive material, by physical means if necessary'? Again, if I'm saying something offensive, and the only way you can get me to shut up is gagging me, is that justified? How does that differ from your definition of violence?
The case in the OP is an example of violence in the form of phyical harrasment, he tried to forcibly remove part of the mans atire. If the man resisted he would have had to use more serious violence to 'remove the offense', would that be ok? There is no line between 'using physical means' to remove and offense and using violence, neither is allowed because they both infringe on the other persons rights. Just as I couldnt tear off your shirt if it had an offensive logo, you couldnt knock out my teeth if I was saying something offensive.
I'm saying there is no legal protection which gives you the right to never be offended by anything. i.e. If I say something which you find offensive I am in no way infringing on your rights.
I was responding to this statement from you.
"How, exactly, is expecting everyone to respect everyone else's rights, even their religious rights, utterly senseless?"
I'm saying that religious rights don't mean your religion is immune from criticizm or mockery. You have the freedom to practice your religion, and I have the freedom to say its a load of crap and funny crap taboot.
Oh I see. Its not that you want to restrict freedom of speech, its that unwanted speech should simply not be allowed and should be forcibly removed if it doesnt conform to predefined definitions of acceptable practice. It so much clearer now.
This is a legal definition;
Abuse;
To mistreat or neglect a person, particularly as to one for whom the actor has special responsibility by virtue of a relationship, e.g., spouse, child, elderly parent, or one for whom the actor has undertaken a duty of care, e.g., nurse-patient;
Perhaps if its was known that this was going to hurt the other person and used over a sustained period of time then maybe. Its still one person taking offense at something the other said which was not directed at that person. (If you could show that it was intended to be used to antagonize that person then it would be another issue, but in the case in the OP it was as a joke in a parade and there was no connetion between the two parties)
If that person was sown to be abusive. But that isnt the issue, the issue is if a stranger, i.e. someone to whom you owe no duty of care, takes offense at something you say/do, then they do not gain the right to forcibly stop you, regardless of how much force is used. i.e. putting you hand over someones mouth to stop them saying offensive things, or knocking out their teeth if they wont stop.
The issue of schoolyards/banks etc... are different because they are private premises and you are obliged to abide by their rules.
I am saying that the common usage of 'attack' is physical, and that while verbal abuse is legally an 'attack/offense' it is not one which allows you to attack them back in physical way, unlike a physical attack would (self defence)
No. Is this even a question? You cannot legally say "they did it to me so its only fair!". Even disregarding the legality, its just moronic to try to repay every slight against you in equal measure, made even more rediculous by the fact its a perceived offence. No property has been damaged, money lost, person injured, it is a purely personal feeling of insult and to repay hurt feelings with violence takes eye for and eye (which it already stupid) and trusn it into a justification for assaulting anyone who you dont like the opinions of. e.g. The fact that you beleive in God X is offensive to me, so I'm going to punch you in the face etc...
Because he didnt directly insult him. He was making a joke by dressing up, the guy found it insulting. Taking this case as a precident, if I make a joke about Christianity and someone takes it as an insult then they, can physically harass me. Taken to the extreme this means that anyone who causes anyone offence, whether intended or otherwise, whomever it is directed toward, can be physically harrassed by the person who was insulted. Essentially saying that by exercising your freedom of speech and expressing an opinion you are possibly giving someone the ability to attack you as long as they are offended enough.
I find what you just said offensive. Can I now punch you in the face? Is that ok? From what you just said, if I am offended by something I am allowed to use violence, so it should be ok for me to punch you in the face right? If I'm really offended by something on tv can I send a letter bomb to the channel? This is the precident that you are suggesting is accpetable. That having your feeling hurt by an indirect offense is not only not acceptable (again, see Freedom of Speech), but makes a violent response acceptable.
Basically yes, you sit there and take it. Or you walk away. Or you argue with them. Its a seriously sick society in which violence is an acceptable response to feeling offended by something. You can retailate with words, use your mouth for talking and not your fists.
No. Its relevant to everyone because its a lesson about how to respond to offence. Violence doesnt resolve the issue. You still have your feelings hurt and end up in jail and they have the crap kicked out of them. So who wins? What was resolved? Did anyone learn anything? What happens to society when everyone who is offended by something thinks its ok to use violence to resolve it? Should political/ideological differences be resolved in a debate or with a brawl?
Because nobody has the right to not be offended. You don't have the right to not have your religion criticized. There is a difference between respecting a persons ability to prcitce their religion freely, and forcing people not to criticize those beliefs. One is the protection of rights, the other is an infringment. (freedom of religion vs freedom of speech)
Yes, you're right. But two conclusions can be drawn from this: either that we, both societally and individually, stop doing anything because it will offend someone else, or that we accept that our actions can be hurtful when the situation arises.. which of those does "dress up as zombie Mohammed and then call the cops when I get jumped" fall into?
Again. What if I find your hat really offensive. Can I use violence to remove the offence? If your hair colour is offensive to me because my prophet had that hair colour and it blasphamous for anyone else to have it, can I tear it from your head because I am offended and I'm just 'removing the offence'.
It is a slipperly slope because it sets the precident that being offended gives you special rights and the ability to freely infringe on the rights of others. Mandating that people not say because other might not like it is the definition of not having freedom of speech.
How is being offended emotional abuse? People in abusive relationships are not offended by their partner, they are abused by them, i.e. physically or verbally abused. If my partner were muslim and I said 'The Prophet was a total jerk', she wouldnt have much of a case for an abusive relationship would she? She could tell me I'm wrong, argue with me, or just go away, but she certainly could not stab me in the eye with a pen.
An attack implies a physical attack, while verbal abuse could be decribed as an 'attack' it would not excuse someone else breaking the law. e.g. If you vandalise my car I dont get to break your legs. Verbal abuse can be considered a offense (as in, breaking the law), but it would be a big stretch to say that mocking a religious beleif constitutes a personal attack. It would imply that anyone making a joke about any religion could be persecuted or attacked without repurcusions.
You can tell them you find it offensive, you can argue with them, point out how they are wrong and explain to them why it is offensive and why they shouldnt do it. i.e. You can grow up and realise this isnt a schoolyard. Having your feelings hurt happens, and its just something that people have to deal with. When did 'sticks and stones may break my bones' stop being relevant?
Because it sets an insane precident. Offense is a personal thing. What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another, and I cannot know what is offensive to everyone. Plus its implies that using the right to free speech can grant special privelages to others. e.g. If I say Karl Marx was a moron, under the principal that violence is excusable if someone is offended, it would be ok for a socialist to punch me in the face. Or if they are really offended can they go even further? So a minor offense excuses physical harassment while being really offended would let you put someone in a wheelchair.
Being offended is essentially the equivelant to having your feelings hurt, it doesnt give you special rights, in this case the ability to freely infinge on the right of others without persecution.
How someone chooses to dress or what they say isnt an attack. It can be offensive, but that doesnt give the person who is offended special rights. i.e. The right to physically harrass the person. e.g. If I was walking down the street and saw you wearing your normal clothes and talking on a mobile phone, and I found that how you dressed and what you were saying extremely offensive (because of my religious beleifs) it wouldnt give me the right to take youer phone off you or try to tear off your clothes. Its an absurd precident to be setting that the use of ones right to freedom of speech can in effect reduce that persons other rights or grant special rights to others.
Considering the issue is violence in response to someone being offended, then yes, it is not excusable.
I suspect the motivations for not doing obviously wrong things are much the same between a theist/atheist. We all feel a compulsion to adhere to what society views as acceptable behaviour, e.g; not breaking the law/being a douchebag. The differences arise in how we justify our actions to ourselves. i.e. Religious people will be prone to attributing their own and others good deeds to an adherance to the rules of their deity(s), while atheists will treat it for what it is, adherance to your personal moral compass and your inherent and culturally developed understanding of right and wrong. In short, people will mostly be good or bad for exactly the same reasons, but they validate those decisions to themselves in different ways. We are really good at finding an excuse for our wrongful/immoral actions, be they religious or secular reasons. Unless you're a sociopath, then you can do whatever the hell you want.
There are loads of happiness and religiosity studies comparing studies.
eg:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43287918/ns/business-world_business/t/us-doesnt-make-cut-happiest-nations-list/#.Ty_KRfkVA0o
Also, this is a debate forum, so lol's and wtf's should be replaced with capitalisation and sentence structure.
Please point to where non-religious people have done this. There is a difference between not playing along with someones delusion to make them feel good and going out of ones way to take away what gives greiving people comfort. i.e. I am not going to make an attempt to take away what gives someone is a difficult situation comfort, but I am also not going to lie to them, as lying to prolong a delusion is the more reprehensible act.
You mean like telling children that there is no Santa? Sure, telling a five year old that would probably just be for the sake of being nasty, but if a 20 year old still beleived in Santa would it be reprehensible to break their delusion rather than just saying 'they get comfort from beleiving that Santa exists, so it would be mean to point out to this adult that there isnt one'.
The problem with this line of thinking is it makes anything permissable as long as that delusion makles people happy. Is it ok to spread a lie because it makes people feel good, if thinking the moon was made of cheese made someone happy and gave meaning to their life as they one day how to eat some moon cheese, would it be wrong to point out that the moon is not in fact made of cheese, and they should instead devote their effort to something that can actually be acheived? Granted it would be cruel to try to crticize the afterlife beliefs of a greiving person, but it is an absurd suggestion to say that just because certain delusions make people happy that those delusions become sacrosanct and enter a relam of ideas beyond criticism/questioning.
There is a difference between making allowances for our own fallability and lack of understanding and accepting as permissable the espousal of bad evidence and faultly claims for absurd supernatual beleifs. i.e. Its all well and good to say "we dont know/cant be sure", but that is very different from "we dont know/cant be sure, therefore you cant prove I'm wrong and its fine to beleive XYZ".
This is called confirmation bias. The fact that your father has an emotional investment makes him the party least able to come to a rational conclusion by addressing the other possibilities. i.e. If a person has any particular inclination toward a specific outcome they are liable to disregard other possibilities and problems with their conclusion. This is a big part of why anecdotal evidence is regarded so poorly, it is extremely fallible. An example of this is fake psychics/mediums (that is to say, all of them), who can use a technique called 'cold reading' to produce results which in the mind of the person receiving the reading provides conclusive proof that they are communicated with a deceased person, when in reality the fact that they want to communicate to that person, to the degree that they approach a psychic/medium, makes them prone to disregarding the 'misses' that occur during the reading and overemphasising the 'hits'. There are numerous examples of this to be found on youtube. Just search for 'cold reading'.
If you have an argument for why technological innovations should be stymied then please state it, otherwise it just looks like you are stating that technology X is stupid, so we need to stop people trying to make it, which is an incredibly moronic and narrow minded view.
Atheist simply means to not believe in a god. There is a huge difference between saying "I don’t believe in a god" and "There is no chance a God could exist". Someone cannot believe in god while not rejecting the possibility of a god and still accurately be called an atheist; they would simply be an agnostic atheist. i.e. One who doesn’t believe in a god but doesn’t claim to have knowledge that there isn’t a god. If you want to use atheism as a colloquial term for someone who rejects all possibility of a supernatural creator then you are using too narrow a definition, because you are denying the existence of anyone who does not believe in god/gods but who also does not reject the possibility of the supernatural. i.e. You are misrepresenting a large portion of the people you are attempting to describe, thus it does not 'capture the spirit', it is inaccurate and oversimplified.
I think this comes down to a miscommunication of the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism refers to knowledge rather than belief, so when someone says they are agnostic all they are really saying is that they don’t claim to have knowledge of a god (which given the Judeo-Christian system values faith in the absence of proof seems like the position most Christians would hold). Thus the term agnostic does actually tell you what someone believes, that is left to the terms theist/atheist. So you can fall into one of 4 categories (ignoring Deism/Pantheism for a simplicities sake)
1: Gnostic Theist - Someone who believes in a god/gods and also claims to have knowledge that their specific god exists
2: Agnostic Theist - Someone who believes in a god/gods but believes entirely on faith
3: Agnostic Atheist - Someone who doesn’t believe in god/gods but doesn’t claim to have knowledge regarding the non-existence of each god/the supernatural in general
4: Gnostic Atheist - Someone who doesn’t believe in god/gods and claims to know that no gods exist
Positions 1 and 4 are quite arrogant (unless someone is position 1 has had a chat with god recently) and it seems like very few people fall into those categories. It is also worth noting that while position 3 does not make the claim that not gods do/could exist, it does not necessarily represent a 'fence sitting' approach, instead it means that they reject the prospect of god/gods until the claim is satisfactorily proven.
This still doesn’t really answer my question. I am asking what he means by 'belief' in science. i.e. Is he suggesting a faith in the results of scientific experimentation (which would be a poor position for anyone to hold, as it misses a huge part of what makes the scientific method a robust system for discovery), or whether he doesn’t believe that science, meaning the scientific method, is a reliable source of determining fact from fiction. Or something else entirely.
Incorrect. While it certainly describes some Atheists (those who claim to have knowledge that no supernatural being exists, i.e. Claim to know what isnt knowable which is just as fallible as a gnostic-theist viewpoint). Atheists typically don't renouce all chance of a supernatural being, but simply don't actively belive that one exists. Its the differnece between saying;
A: "Do Unicorns exist?"
B: "I dont think so, and until proven otherwise I wont believe in them."
and
A: "Do Unicorns Exist?"
B: "No, and I know that they cannot exist."
Could you clarify what you mean by not "believing science 100%". Is it that you find particular theories disagreeable or do you find the scientific method lacking?