That's right. I believe in the right to speak against religion/god(s), because nobody knows if God exists or not and therefore it would make no sense to ban blasphemy, as we have no evidence of God's existence. (Another good argument against blasphemy laws is that if God is that powerful as people claim he is, he would need no man-made laws to protect him).henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:47 pm"I was morally, ethically and logically/philosophically entirely wrong about everything I wrote."
Now you're tiltin' way over to the other side.
Just stop a moment and 'think'.
You oppose legislation forbidding 'blasphemy', yeah?
Tell me why (calmly: no hyperbole, no exclamation points).
I oppose forcing people to comply and submit themselves to rules regarding something we have no direct nor indirect evidence in favor of, let alone any clue that it might be true (that God exists).
If you have to ban something, it should be because we KNOW (or at the very least have a good clue about) it is harmful.
I know that at least in my country, last year we abolished the blasphemy law, but those in favor of the law said that it would be too dangerous to give people the right to speak freely against religion, because it would hurt people's feelings = dangerous uprising, BUT I think this argument is ridiculous because it would be like banning victims call the police for being persecuted by violent gangs, because the gangs might revolt and set fire to cities, if their were to be reported to the police.
It is the TROUBLEMAKERS, those that cause DIRECT harm (setting fire to cars, buildings etc.) who should be punished, not those who dare to oppose their beliefs/opinions.
I hate those who say "ban blasphemy to avoid troublemakers". It would be like giving troublemakers way too much power.
Then anyone can come and say "Hey, stop speaking out against us, or we'll set fire to your capital!"
Those who threatens others by violence are the troublemakers. Not those who oppose their beliefs.