panther2: Govt over reach yet again

lol any comments i make will send this into the politic abyss lol

Batman:

 

panther2: Govt over reach yet again

 

lol any comments i make will send this into the politic abyss forum lol

 

ftfy

It’s probably where a topic such as this belongs. Any time legislation is involved there will be ‘political’ opinions, which in themselves have the potential to generate hurt feelings.

All the comments above just lead to the only workable conclusion - forget this silly law; freedom of speech is the only way to go.

decibel:

All the comments above just lead to the only workable conclusion - forget this silly law; freedom of speech is the only way to go.

Getting in to the realm of censoring viewpoints and opinions is very dangerous territory and I am appalled that we seem to have got there. It's dangerous to democracy and basic freedoms, and a charter for the "perpetually offended" to litigiously go after any viewpoints they don't like. Apart from being silly and dangerous, this sort of law is fundamentally unworkable.

We will now see the courts ruling on stand up comedy acts, library books, political manifestos, religious texts and anyone who says anything that offends anyone else. The correct response to anyone with a point of view you disagree with is to rebut (of if necessary ridicule) it and/or the speaker. Closing down speech just because it's dangerous (a subjective assessment in the eye of the beholder) is something that can, and will, be misused. That's the argument the Church used to persecute Galileo - because his mistaken heretical claim that planets revolved around the sun would jeopardise the very mortal souls of those who believed him.

And the groups pushing for it had better be careful, because there is a very real risk that once such a law is on the books, far from "protecting" them it could actually be weaponised and turned against them in not too many years - for instance, banning LGBQI+ discussions because they are dangerous to children is something that is already being tried in other countries.

But yes, this discussion belongs in the politics thread.

I don't understand why people exclude atheism from religion. Atheism is a religion. 

Stuff: publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to “excite hostility against” or “bring into contempt”[religious groups]

Rikkitic:

 

I don't understand why people exclude atheism from religion. Atheism is a religion. 

 

 

 

From the Oxford dictionary:

Religion

“the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”

Atheism

“disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.”

Doesn’t seem to be much overlap in that Venn diagram.

Rikkitic:

 

I don't understand why people exclude atheism from religion. Atheism is a religion. 

 

 

 

atheism is not a religion. It is in the word!

Clearly you people don't know any atheists. 

Rikkitic:

 

I don't understand why people exclude atheism from religion. Atheism is a religion. 

 

 

 

Atheism is just the non acceptance of any deity without sufficient evidence.

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.

Rikkitic:

I don't understand why people exclude atheism from religion. Atheism is a religion. 

 

Rikkitic: 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.

I think your hubris scale need recalibration. What we have is a situation where in order to prevent the existence of gods being disproved, the goal posts are continually moved to keep them in the unknowable. Which is curious because there are a lot of people who tell us exactly what their gods are like and what they want and why they disapprove of whatever it is you are doing.