Hate speech and atheism.

Forums › Off topic › Hate speech and atheism.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1625 posts

Uber Geek

#2999961 22-Nov-2022 20:15

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.

I am god. You can not say that I am not god without implying the possibility that I am actually god.

Spoiler

I don't think I am actually god (I could be but it is unlikely)

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000045 22-Nov-2022 21:32

blackjack17:

I am god. You can not say that I am not god without implying the possibility that I am actually god.

Spoiler

I don't think I am actually god (I could be but it is unlikely)

Maybe you are but just don't know it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Kookoo

715 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#3000048 22-Nov-2022 21:57

gzt:
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.

I find it interesting that what bothers you isn't the fact that the hate speech law offers no protection for atheists, or in fact members of any other community except for racial, ethnic, or religious ones. Or that it de-facto permits hate speech to be carried from pulpits and minbars. Or, that there is now a tool for religions to silence legitimate criticism by mere threat of complaint to the authorities. No, what bothers you in all this, apparently, is that I may have misrepresented the bar against which atheists are likely to be judged when passing criticism against religion.

Thank you, you've made your position very clear.

Hello, Ground!

Kookoo

715 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#3000052 22-Nov-2022 22:09

blackjack17:

I am god. You can not say that I am not god without implying the possibility that I am actually god.

Spoiler

I don't think I am actually god (I could be but it is unlikely)

Yes I can, just like you can say that you're god.

What you seem to be claiming is that in order to deny one's divine nature you need to define a set of demonstrable, verifiable and falsifiable conditions which, when met, would suggest that one is probably god. Whereas when these conditions aren't met, one is definitely not god.

There are two issues with this:

a) God being a supernatural concept by definition, such conditions aren't possible. A claim to divinity is a priori not falsifiable.

b) The burden of proof is on you as the claimant, and there are no obligations or conclusions that can be derived from the rejection of your claim. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." (Hitchens).

Hello, Ground!

gzt

15209 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000057 22-Nov-2022 22:30

kookoo: the hate speech law offers no protection for atheists, or in fact members of any other community except for racial, ethnic, or religious ones

Gotta start somewhere. In this case one category is added.

gzt

15209 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000058 22-Nov-2022 22:34

Kookoo: Or, that there is now a tool for religions to silence legitimate criticism by mere threat of complaint to the authorities.

You are making the same claim a second time. Can you provide any convincing example?

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#3000185 23-Nov-2022 11:10

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.

I can't see the logic in that. Can you expand?

Mike

Paul1977

4785 posts

Uber Geek

#3000237 23-Nov-2022 11:21

sir1963:

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.

An omniscient being doesn't preclude the concept of free will. Just because this being knows what you are going to do, doesn't mean you aren't still choosing to do it.

As an atheist I don't believe there is an omnipotent or omniscient creator, but I do believe the universe is governed by physical laws (even though we are far from understanding all of them). Let's pretend that there is an omniscient observer, this observer didn't create anything and has no power to create or change anything. Being omniscient, this observer knows and understands all the physical laws of the universe, and knows the current state of everything in the universe. It follows that this observer can predict everything that will ever happen, and trace backwards everything that has ever happened. But he is not controlling anything.

The idea that everything that has ever happened, or will ever happen, is governed by the physical laws of the universe means an argument can be made that free will doesn't exist without even needing to invoke the idea of an intelligent creator. You are making choices, but those choices could never have been anything else.

Without a clearer definition of "free will" I don't think we can ever determine if we have it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000311 23-Nov-2022 12:41

MikeAqua:

Rikkitic:

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.

I can't see the logic in that. Can you expand?

Yes.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#3000323 23-Nov-2022 13:22

Rikkitic:

MikeAqua:

I can't see the logic in that. Can you expand?

Yes.

Very funny. Would you please expand on your rationale?

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000342 23-Nov-2022 13:50

If you say god doesn’t exist, you are giving the concept of god some kind of substance. You are defining it. You are saying here is this picture of something I don’t believe in. It is not possible to disbelieve in something without conceiving of it.

As soon as you have that picture, you have the possibility that you might be wrong about it. Maybe it does exist. There is no way to be absolutely certain that it doesn’t or it can’t. All you can be certain of is what you believe about it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sir1963

2266 posts

Uber Geek

#3000345 23-Nov-2022 14:08

Rikkitic:

If you say god doesn’t exist, you are giving the concept of god some kind of substance. You are defining it. You are saying here is this picture of something I don’t believe in. It is not possible to disbelieve in something without conceiving of it.

As soon as you have that picture, you have the possibility that you might be wrong about it. Maybe it does exist. There is no way to be absolutely certain that it doesn’t or it can’t. All you can be certain of is what you believe about it.

That is logically incorrect.

To accept such a premise means not matter how stupid an argument is (invisible dragons playing quidditch on my back lawn) you can not conclusively prove its false and therefore is may be true.

This is the whole point about something needing to be falsifiable to be logically accepted.

The whole point of religion and the supernatural is that is can not be disproven as there is no mechanism to do that, all you need to say is "its because you do not believe" as an out for any argument.

There is ZERO evidence that even hints at a deity, never mind which deity, nor for the supernatural (which covers pixies, trolls, ghosts, devils, Jin, magic, etc etc etc).

I would argue the statement "there is no god" is statistically more likely true than "there might be a god"

Kookoo

715 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#3000346 23-Nov-2022 14:15

gzt:
Kookoo: Or, that there is now a tool for religions to silence legitimate criticism by mere threat of complaint to the authorities.

You are making the same claim a second time. Can you provide any convincing example?

Of course not. It's a new law, there have been no examples yet. And even after the law is passed, you don't need examples of actual complaints. Once in place, anyone who wants to air criticism of religions (all or one of them) will have to pause and ask themselves - "Am I prepared to deal with a potential Hate Speech complaint to the HRC against me, no matter how unsbustantiated it is?" This will have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech, limit the ability of humanists and atheists' to freely express their views, and stifle debate on hard topics in this country.

Hello, Ground!

MikeAqua

7616 posts

Uber Geek

#3000356 23-Nov-2022 14:44

Rikkitic:

As soon as you have that picture, you have the possibility that you might be wrong about it. Maybe it does exist. There is no way to be absolutely certain that it doesn’t or it can’t.

I see where you are coming from, but I think you (and Schrodinger) give human agency too much credit.

Right now something either exists or doesn't. It matters not whether one of more people conceive of it as a concept. Certainty doesn't really matter either. There is no possibility in the present, just certainty that we don't have visibility of.

Unless you are arguing a thought is a kind of existence?

In a fantasy series I really like, spirits and gods are brought into existence, by people starting to believe in them. But that's fiction (I hope).

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3000372 23-Nov-2022 16:29

Some very serious people (who also like cats) seem to take the possibility at least of a multiverse seriously. Maybe a new reality does spring into existence when we think of it, in which case we are all god. Maybe the Matrix is our reality. We can't say whether something exists or doesn't. We can only say what our perception is. I think, therefore I am ... damned confused!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5