Hate speech and atheism.

Forums › Off topic › Hate speech and atheism.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

3748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

#2999118 21-Nov-2022 10:43

atheism is basically "i dont believe in a god", its like "i dont believe in fairies", "i dont believe a pixie farted the universe into existence".

now are those 3 things all religions? no.

you could get hung up on the word and try to argue it. but at the end of the day, people who dont believe, really dont care what word you use. its like what word do you use for a person that doesn't believe in unicorns? i dont really care.

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 658

Trusted

#2999119 21-Nov-2022 10:56

reven: ... its like what word do you use for a person that doesn't believe in unicorns?

amonocerist

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2999128 21-Nov-2022 11:31

Rikkitic:

Atheism is a belief system just like any other religion. To disavow the existence of a god, you have to accept the concept of one. One of the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of religion is ‘a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith’. It also defines atheism as ‘a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods’.

The Banner (thebanner.org) describes atheism as ‘a religious worldview because it claims to know something fundamental about reality that hasn’t been—or can’t be—proven’. This is an excellent definition. A quick Google search reveals many more.

I strongly do not believe in any kind of sentient god, especially a Judeo-Christian ‘personal’ god. But we live in a near-infinite Universe of near-infinite possibilities, of which we understand very little. The atheist declaration that no god can exist strikes me as the highest form of human hubris based on extreme ignorance and maximum monkey misunderstanding. It is as ignorant as stating that god does exist. We are not in a position to say anything meaningful about the existence or otherwise of any deity. All we can say is what we believe, and I believe I have seen and experienced nothing that tells me there is a superbeing pulling the strings.

I'd argue that having a religious position is different than being religious.

I call myself an atheist, but I don't completely rule out the possibility of a God because there is no way to completely disprove it. But if I were to call myself agnostic I feel that just doesn't convey just how unlikely I think the existence of God is based on current evidence. Perhaps a better term would be non-religious?

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2999130 21-Nov-2022 11:40

Rikkitic:

Atheism is a belief system just like any other religion. To disavow the existence of a god, you have to accept the concept of one. One of the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of religion is ‘a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith’. It also defines atheism as ‘a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods’.

The Banner (thebanner.org) describes atheism as ‘a religious worldview because it claims to know something fundamental about reality that hasn’t been—or can’t be—proven’. This is an excellent definition. A quick Google search reveals many more.

I strongly do not believe in any kind of sentient god, especially a Judeo-Christian ‘personal’ god. But we live in a near-infinite Universe of near-infinite possibilities, of which we understand very little. The atheist declaration that no god can exist strikes me as the highest form of human hubris based on extreme ignorance and maximum monkey misunderstanding. It is as ignorant as stating that god does exist. We are not in a position to say anything meaningful about the existence or otherwise of any deity. All we can say is what we believe, and I believe I have seen and experienced nothing that tells me there is a superbeing pulling the strings.

"Hard Atheists" may claim there is no god ,the vast majority are more nuanced than this.

"normal" Atheist deny the claims there is a god because there is insufficient evidence to support the claim. This is no different to not believing in pixies in the garden.

The "atheism is a religion" is a fallacy of false equivalence.

Then we have the argument from personal incredulity

There has been zero evidence of any supernatural.

Then there is the problems of "which" god, there are thousands of them thought history.

And here we get to the point.

If a white supermicist believes in a master race and spreads that ignorance , are they that much different to a religion believing they have the answer and they spread their hate to others ...(Burn in hell for ever, bombing abortion clinics, violence against other religions).

From a consumers Guaranteesa act perspective, religions are selling a product that can not be shown to exist.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2999134 21-Nov-2022 11:50

Are there other laws preventing speech that incites violence, or is the Human Rights Act all we have?

It seems to me that if this law sort of is going to exist, that expanding it to include religion isn't going far enough in regards to defining groups who may be persecuted? But at the same time the terms "excite hostility against" or "bring into contempt" seem far too open to interpretation.

I'm against speech whose aim is to incite violence, but anything past that gets rather problematic when you weigh it against freedom of speech.

Earbanean

1110 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 377

#2999135 21-Nov-2022 11:56

Geektastic: I find it odd that people who believe the universe was willed into being by a deity on the one hand feel that they need legal protection from things being said about their beliefs on the other.

If this deity is powerful enough to will an entire universe into existence, surely they are powerful enough to deal with some words?

Maybe because gunmen came into their mosque and shot lots of their friends and family after getting fired up by extremist groups saying extreme things about their beliefs.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Kookoo

869 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 407

Trusted

#2999139 21-Nov-2022 12:15

farcus:

sir1963:

Is not calling someone a sinner, someone who is going to hell, telling their followers that you are less than them and can be treated accordingly. Is that not inciting hate ?

If a Christian tells me I am going to hell for not believing, I do not interpret that as hate speech. I interpret it as them being foolish for thinking they can make me feel bad about something happening to me that I do not believe will happen.

That's at best a naive, and at worst - disengenious take on what sir1963 is asking. Hate speech isn't about made up reprecussions in whatever mythical afterlife you believe in. It's about the here and now.

If a preacher tells the congregation that a flood is god's punishment for atheists not following the sky daddy's laws, is that hate speech? If said congregation then accosts people as they leave the venue of Richard Dawkin's lecture, was it incitement? The law says nothing about it.

What if said preacher says that the inflation is god's punishment for abortions, and the congregation then converges on an abortion clinic, is that hate speech? The law stays silent.

And yet, according to the propsed law change, if I was to quote Christopher Hitchens and say that religious beliefs hold us back as a species and as such should be opposed to - I'm probably liable under the new law for bringing an entire group of people into contempt. Certainly so if I was to take Sam Harris' position that some religions are more deterimental to human wellbeing than others. Basically, under this proposed law, both the late Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris would've been banned from lecturing in New Zealand for hate speech. This is grotesque.

Hello, Ground!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2999158 21-Nov-2022 13:18

Paul1977: Perhaps a better term would be non-religious?

That's pretty close but I would term it 'non-belief'. Religious is too loaded a term.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2999173 21-Nov-2022 13:54

Kookoo: Basically, under this proposed law, both the late Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris would've been banned from lecturing in New Zealand for hate speech.

That is incorrect and in that respect exactly like most over the top reactions to this change. To 'bring into contempt' is a much higher bar.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2999924 22-Nov-2022 17:26

Rikkitic:

Atheism is a belief system just like any other religion. To disavow the existence of a god, you have to accept the concept of one.

Accepting the definition of a word does not confer acceptance of the validity of the concept it embodies.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2999935 22-Nov-2022 18:43

MikeAqua:

Accepting the definition of a word does not confer acceptance of the validity of the concept it embodies.

Yes it does. You cannot say god does not exist without implying that god could exist.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2999940 22-Nov-2022 18:58

Earbanean:

Geektastic: I find it odd that people who believe the universe was willed into being by a deity on the one hand feel that they need legal protection from things being said about their beliefs on the other.

If this deity is powerful enough to will an entire universe into existence, surely they are powerful enough to deal with some words?

Maybe because gunmen came into their mosque and shot lots of their friends and family after getting fired up by extremist groups saying extreme things about their beliefs.

So the "Trust in god" is not all that much of a guarantee then.

Seems that it would not take much to jam a gun....

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2999944 22-Nov-2022 19:03

Rikkitic:

MikeAqua:

Accepting the definition of a word does not confer acceptance of the validity of the concept it embodies.

Yes it does. You cannot say god does not exist without implying that god could exist.

Wrong. I can say that there are not 2 invisible blue and white dragons playing quidditch in my back yard without even having to entertain the idea there may be.

Likewise I can state there are no ancient Egyptian pyramids in New Zealand. There is no "could" needed here either.

And thus far, there is zero evidence for any gods or invisible dragons that play quidditch.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2999948 22-Nov-2022 19:15

sir1963:

Wrong. I can say that there are not 2 invisible blue and white dragons playing quidditch in my back yard without even having to entertain the idea there may be.

Likewise I can state there are no ancient Egyptian pyramids in New Zealand. There is no "could" needed here either.

And thus far, there is zero evidence for any gods or invisible dragons that play quidditch.

All you can do is cite the extreme probability of these things not being true. There is no way you can prove it. In any case, an omniscient all-powerful supreme being does not equate with pyramids and dragons.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2999960 22-Nov-2022 20:11

Rikkitic:

sir1963:

Wrong. I can say that there are not 2 invisible blue and white dragons playing quidditch in my back yard without even having to entertain the idea there may be.

Likewise I can state there are no ancient Egyptian pyramids in New Zealand. There is no "could" needed here either.

And thus far, there is zero evidence for any gods or invisible dragons that play quidditch.

All you can do is cite the extreme probability of these things not being true. There is no way you can prove it. In any case, an omniscient all-powerful supreme being does not equate with pyramids and dragons.

Only in so much as there is zero evidence for any of these things.

You only need to look at the laryngeal nerve on a giraffe to know there was ZERO intelligence behind that.

And thus far, no scientific explanation has ever had to use the supernatural as part of its explanation.

An Omniscient being precludes the idea of "free will", because everything you will ever do is known in advance of your birth, making you nothing but a puppet going though a predetermined set of actions.

You would also expect to see all religions believing in the one deity if there was only one, rather than the thousands history has had.

The total lack of evidence for a world wide flood seems to exclude that part of the bible.

The bible tells you how to buy slaves and how to not beat them to death, at no point does it say "Don't own people", so we can exclude that god from being a source of morals, even worse if we think the flood happened as that is mass genocide.

Curiously enough , severely ill people in hospital who are christian do worse when they think someone is praying for them than average patients

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5