Pro-blasphemy law protesters deserve death penalty!

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

philosopher
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re:

Post by philosopher » Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm

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'.

Stop reacting.

You oppose legislation forbidding 'blasphemy', yeah?

Tell me why (calmly: no hyperbole, no exclamation points).
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).

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.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:11 pm

A much better presentation of viewpoint...very good.

Now, wait a bit....see if anyone opposes your view.

If such a person steps up, then you're off to the races.

Don't be surprised, however, if no opposition is offered...in this place, I'm thinkin' there aren't any folks who support laws against blasphemy.

Age
Posts: 3586
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Re:

Post by Age » Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:49 am

philosopher wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm
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'.

Stop reacting.

You oppose legislation forbidding 'blasphemy', yeah?

Tell me why (calmly: no hyperbole, no exclamation points).
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).

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.
Yes, as henry said, much better presented, from my perspective also. i also think there would not be much opposition supporting laws against blasphemy here as well.

But in saying that I will just add a couple of things that I noticed in what you say here.
philosopher wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm
I hate those who say "ban blasphemy to avoid troublemakers".
1. Do you think it might help you, and all human beings in fact, if you/they HATE the behavior of "others", and NOT the "person", behind a behavior? They are after all just another 'person', and human being, with views, opinions, beliefs, et cetera, just like 'you' are a person [/i, and human being, ]with views, opinions, beliefs, et cetera.

The fact is if 'you' had the exact same upbringing/past experiences up to now, then you would be thinking and behaving the EXACT SAME way as the "other" 'person', human being. AND, there is NO child in this world who had control of to who, what, where, when, and how they would be born into, and/or brought up in. ONLY as a responsible adult you then gain control over HOW you WANT TO look at, and thus SEE and understand, "others" and their behaviors. Children are to young, and inexperienced, to have gained that CONTROL yet.

The last 2000 or so years of human behavior shows just what happens when, and if, adult people HATE each other. If getting rid of the 'behavior' is concentrated on, instead of the 'person', then that behavior can be quashed or killed, rather than the 'person' be killed or quashed. We have all seen what happens when "the person is seen as the problem" and getting rid of that "problem" is concentrated on.


philosopher wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm
Those who threatens others by violence are the troublemakers.


2. If this is the case, then any adult/parent who threatens others by violence, ARE THE TROUBLEMAKERS.

The only WAY it is said and, tried to be, "justified" that "this world" is NOT worse is because of the threatening of enforcing the human made up laws with punishment. On deep reflection HOW can any adult ENFORCE a human made law without using some sort of violence?

It could be argued that the TROUBLEMAKERS, that is; the 'makers of trouble' in this world is those who threaten "others" with violence, which ARE the LAW MAKERS.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Re:

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:59 am

philosopher wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm
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.
A theist can no more provide you with evidence for God's existence, than you can provide a Solipsist with evidence for YOUR existence.

Go right ahead. Convince me that you exist and that you aren't just a figment of my wild imagination!
philosopher wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm
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).
So where do you stand on complying with the rules of logic? We have no evidence for them and yet just about every philosopher abides by them...
philosopher wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm
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.
WHO decides what is and isn't "harm"?
philosopher wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm
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.
Is it safe to conclude that you believe that hurting people's feelings is not harmful? If so - what do yo make of studies which find that verbal abuse can cause depression: https://consumer.healthday.com/encyclop ... 45007.html
Emotional abuse can cause a mental breakdown: https://www.bridgestorecovery.com/blog/ ... n-recover/

And that depression and anxiety (caused by emotional abuse) can change the physical structure of one's brain: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -over-time

You think causing mental health issues is not harmful?

philosopher
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: Re:

Post by philosopher » Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:16 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:59 am
philosopher wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:47 pm
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.
A theist can no more provide you with evidence for God's existence, than you can provide a Solipsist with evidence for YOUR existence.

Go right ahead. Convince me that you exist and that you aren't just a figment of my wild imagination!
I can't.
TimeSeeker wrote: So where do you stand on complying with the rules of logic? We have no evidence for them and yet just about every philosopher abides by them...
The rules of logic have been proven to be very efficient of explaining a lot of stuff in our universe.
It has been proven more efficient tools of explanation than belief in deities.

This is why blasphemy laws have no place of existence. We may not have evidence for non-existence of god, but we don't have evidence or any clues whatsoever that God exists.

The "God cause this and that"-explanation is not as powerful as applying the rules of logic. Yet, many religious people insist on banning blasphemy.
TimeSeeker wrote: WHO decides what is and isn't "harm"?

Is it safe to conclude that you believe that hurting people's feelings is not harmful? If so - what do yo make of studies which find that verbal abuse can cause depression: https://consumer.healthday.com/encyclop ... 45007.html
Emotional abuse can cause a mental breakdown: https://www.bridgestorecovery.com/blog/ ... n-recover/

And that depression and anxiety (caused by emotional abuse) can change the physical structure of one's brain: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -over-time

You think causing mental health issues is not harmful?
If people choose to believe in santa-clause, god, fairy tales - so be it. It's their business.
But they shouldn't blame non-believers for speaking out against their delusions.

If you choose to believe in God, it is your business - your responsibility. It is at your own risk of being subject to being harmed by blasphemous talks from non-believers.

If you ban blasphemy, you would cause mental health issues at non-believers, because they can't say what THEY think about the subject.

BTW. I'm not an atheist myself. But I believe in the right of blasphemy.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Re:

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:28 pm

philosopher wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:16 pm
The rules of logic have been proven to be very efficient of explaining a lot of stuff in our universe.
It has been proven more efficient tools of explanation than belief in deities.
So belief in logic is better than belief in a deity? OK. So logic is the authority you bow to? That is another way of saying logic is your God.

Which rules (of logic) do you believe in ?

Classical? Temporal? Modal? Fuzzy? Multi-valued? Constructive? Doxastic? Hilbert systems? Ordinal logic? Categorical logic? Type theory? Infinitary logic?

And if my logic is better than your logic, but you refuse to adopt my logic - can I treat you the same way you treat theists?
Logic is a tool! You are worshiping a false idol!

And then you beg a question: What is "explanation" and how is it different from a "non-explanation"? And before you even begin appealing to "truth" - tell me why you even care and value 'truth'.

Tricky business this 'truth' stuff. Particularly since a "truth" by the rules of one logic could be a falsity by the rules of another.
How did you decide which RULES to obey?
philosopher wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:16 pm
If people choose to believe in santa-clause, god, fairy tales - so be it. It's their business.
But they shouldn't blame non-believers for speaking out against their delusions.

If you choose to believe in God, it is your business - your responsibility. It is at your own risk of being subject to being harmed by blasphemous talks from non-believers.

If you ban blasphemy, you would cause mental health issues at non-believers, because they can't say what THEY think about the subject.

BTW. I'm not an atheist myself. But I believe in the right of blasphemy.
OK. You completely avoided the question. You said "If you have to ban something, it should be because we KNOW it is harmful."

We KNOW that depression/anxiety is harmful. We KNOW that blasphemy can cause depression/anxiety. Should we ban blasphemy?

philosopher
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: Re:

Post by philosopher » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:49 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:28 pm
So belief in logic is better than belief in a deity? OK. So logic is the authority you bow to? That is another way of saying logic is your God.
I thought a deity is defined as an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent (?) being. By these standards, God does not equal to logic, and logic does not equal to God.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:28 pm
Which rules (of logic) do you believe in ?

Classical? Temporal? Modal? Fuzzy? Multi-valued? Constructive? Doxastic? Hilbert systems? Ordinal logic? Categorical logic? Type theory? Infinitary logic?

And if my logic is better than your logic, but you refuse to adopt my logic - can I treat you the same way you treat theists?
Logic is a tool! You are worshiping a false idol!

And then you beg a question: What is "explanation" and how is it different from a "non-explanation"? And before you even begin appealing to "truth" - tell me why you even care and value 'truth'.

Tricky business this 'truth' stuff. Particularly since a "truth" by the rules of one logic could be a falsity by the rules of another.
How did you decide which RULES to obey?
It depends on the context and subject of which we apply the logics.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:28 pm
OK. You completely avoided the question. You said "If you have to ban something, it should be because we KNOW it is harmful."

We KNOW that depression/anxiety is harmful. We KNOW that blasphemy can cause depression/anxiety. Should we ban blasphemy?
I never said we should ban everything that is harmful. Btw. it cause more harm to ban blasphemy than to allow blasphemy. More people and more parts of society and our liberties will be harmed by ban on blasphemy than if we allow blasphemy.

In a blasphemous society, only the religious people will get hurt. I know there are more religious people than atheists, but our liberty will be severely harmed if we ban blasphemy. Then we can't talk freely like you and I discuss. This will cause more depression, anxiety etc.

There are also all sorts of religious people disagreeing with each other. One religion will be a blasphemy to another. How do we decide which religion should be subject to criticism/heretical talks and which shouldn't?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Re:

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:27 pm

philosopher wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:49 pm
I thought a deity is defined as an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent (?) being. By these standards, God does not equal to logic, and logic does not equal to God.
You have taken my testable/falsifiable definition of a God (any (made up?) authority which you respect) and turned it into an untestable and unfalsifiable one. Can you offer a scientific test for omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence? If you can't - then you have defined 'God' using three empty words. Just enough to convince yourself that you have something to work with. But you don't.
philosopher wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:49 pm
It depends on the context and subject of which we apply the logics.
I see, so you have a framework which supersedes logic? A framework in which you DECIDE which logic to use. Tell us about THAT....
philosopher wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:49 pm
I never said we should ban everything that is harmful.
I see! So now you admit that there is a thought process behind deciding WHICH harms should be banned and which should be left alone. Want to tell us about THAT?
philosopher wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:49 pm
Btw. it cause more harm to ban blasphemy than to allow blasphemy. More people and more parts of society and our liberties will be harmed by ban on blasphemy than if we allow blasphemy.
Or it could cause less harm. How do you measure harm? What is your formula for calculating the harm-calculus?
philosopher wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:49 pm
In a blasphemous society, only the religious people will get hurt. I know there are more religious people than atheists, but our liberty will be severely harmed if we ban blasphemy. Then we can't talk freely like you and I discuss. This will cause more depression, anxiety etc.
So you are claiming that NOT talking causes depression/anxiety? Do you have any evidence to back this up with?
philosopher wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:49 pm
There are also all sorts of religious people disagreeing with each other. One religion will be a blasphemy to another. How do we decide which religion should be subject to criticism/heretical talks and which shouldn't?
I don't know. You seem to be very good at making all sorts of decisions. How to choose logics, how to decide what is harm and what is not harm, how to weigh harms against one another, how to decide which rights are important and which are not in order to maximise liberty (for yourself - I bet!). Now you are having trouble deciding which ideology should be opposed?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Re:

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:13 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Which rules ( of logic ) do you believe in ?

Classical ? Temporal ? Modal ? Fuzzy ? Multi Valued ? Constructive ? Doxastic ?
Hilbert Systems ? Ordinal Logic ? Categorical Logic ? Type Theory ? Infinitary logic ?
Which of these systems is the most rigorous or are they all as equally as rigorous as each other ?
Is there any reason as to why they cannot all be incorporated into one absolute system of logic ?
Are they all mutually compatible [ presumably they are since it would not be logical were they not ]

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Re:

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:47 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:13 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Which rules ( of logic ) do you believe in ?

Classical ? Temporal ? Modal ? Fuzzy ? Multi Valued ? Constructive ? Doxastic ?
Hilbert Systems ? Ordinal Logic ? Categorical Logic ? Type Theory ? Infinitary logic ?
Which of these systems is the most rigorous or are they all as equally as rigorous as each other ?
Is there any reason as to why they cannot all be incorporated into one absolute system of logic ?
Are they all mutually compatible [ presumably they are since it would not be logical were they not ]
They serve different purposes and different properties, because they solve different problems. Some are redundant, but then you have a simplicity vs general applicability trade-off.

Rigour is something humans do. Not logic.

But this is already begging a bunch of questions: Objectively, what is a “problem” and a “solution”?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Re:

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:23 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
But this is already begging a bunch of questions : Objectively what is a problem and a solution ?
A problem represents a gap in knowledge which only becomes a solution when the gap is filled

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Re:

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:24 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:23 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
But this is already begging a bunch of questions : Objectively what is a problem and a solution ?
A problem represents a gap in knowledge which only becomes a solution when the gap is filled
Begs at least two questions: what is knowledge? How do you identify gaps in it?

And how is a “gap in knowledge” different tona problem?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Re:

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:31 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
What is knowledge ? How do you identify gaps in it ?
Knowledge is information which is actually understood [ all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge ]
Knowledge is also provisional and gaps in it represent knowledge which is not yet known or information not yet understood

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Re:

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:38 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:31 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
What is knowledge ? How do you identify gaps in it ?
Knowledge is information which is actually understood [ all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge ]
Knowledge is also provisional and gaps in it represent knowledge which is not yet known or information not yet understood
And repeat: what is “understanding” ?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Re:

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:01 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
And how is a gap in knowledge different to a problem ?
A gap in knowledge is merely academic so not really dangerous but a problem can have actual consequences
For example until there is a cure for malaria it will continue to be the biggest natural killer of human beings

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests