Slashdot Mirror
Ireland Criminalizes Blasphemy
An anonymous reader writes "Another European country clamps down on free speech. From the article: 'It does seem bizarre that, in 2009, a modern European nation would seek to shield religious belief from criticism — yet that is what is happening in Ireland right now. In repealing the 1961 Defamation Act, the Irish government sought to expunge the worst excesses of Ireland's draconian laws restricting free speech, but in the process it has ended up making offending religious belief a criminal offence. Aside from a 25,000 fine (reduced from the 100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using "reasonable force," premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of "blasphemous statements."'"
It's like watching V for Vendetta in real life. 0.o
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
No see its ok. It's with a lowercase g so it's my god and not the real God.
What happens if I have a religious belief that censorship offends god? Can I get those advocating censorship tried under this law?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Expect this to be coming to the USA, though replace religious beliefs with some far-off claim about terrorism. Also expect it to have full bi-partisan support in congress.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
the Irish inquisition!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.
Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)
-SaNo
OH MY GOD! oh crap, I'm going to jail.
Who stole my key?
I feel sorry for all Irish black metal bands and for those in Ireland that would expect Cradle of Filth to play there...
...and I mean that literally. When I read that a modern western country has enacted a law that allows for the prosecution of the "crime" of "blasphemy", I got a cold chill down my spine. What's next? Imprisonment and torture for various forms of heresy?
WTF?
Oh, Jesus Chr... oops!
Free speach is NOT stuff that matters? Wakey wakey ...
Isn't it funny how the religionists keep whining about antagonistic and mean atheists are, and how that is their primary rebuttal to the arguments of public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and yet, given the free hand to manipulate the government, they go and pass laws like this. They'd do it in America too, have done it in the past, if not for that pesky First Amendment and the strident efforts of "militant" atheists and civil rights organizations.
Its 2010 and some people still long for the middle ages.
And I was so close to being the first to discover time travel. DARN YOU!
Seriously, the Southpark guys are frikken heroes when it comes to freedom of speech and expression and trampling on stupidity. They depicted Muhammad without causing riots somehow. They exposed scientology to the world for all its ridiculousness and countless other things. Southpark needs to create an answer to all of this and the spokesperson for Ireland really needs to be the Lucky Charms guy ... and/or the Irish Spring guy going around and cutting into everyone's soap.
Religion is a choice that people make. It is rooted into culture and geography and nearly all other aspects of human existence, but it is not beyond question or criticism.
All hail the flying spaghetti monster.
Are they allowed to link/post/draw/imagine comics that depict Muhammad with a bomb-head?
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
If they would also make Jedi an official religion like in Australia (IIRC), so next time people have a Star Trek convention they could go there, start a flamebait topic between Star Wars-fans and Trekkies, and start collecting cash. On the other hand... Trekkies rarely have tons of cash.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
3: Profit!
We don't even need the "???" :-)
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
. . . The Irish Inquisition . . . ?
"Our two main weapons are a pint of Guinness, a shot of Jameson and a Shillelagh . . . "
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
In fact, per TFA, the Church has nothing to do with it. Rather, it's the Big Brother socialist control freak segment of the political class.
The article makes many excellent points. Read it, even if doing so is against *your* religion.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Its news because this is something that is out of touch with reality. It shows that a post WWII world is increasingly becoming very dystopian, and nerds read a lot of dystopian fiction and don't want the world to end up like how Orwell saw the future in 1984. The modern world basically decided to get rid of all these stupid laws and regulations after the American and French revolutions and the enlightenment just how WWII and the fall of the USSR marked the end of fascism and communism in the modern world respectively (well, with the exception of China).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
This isn't really nerd news here, the online part of this story is ancillary to the main issue.
This isn't news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Hmmm... this might seem like "stuff that matters" to people who live in Ireland.
My domains are Blasphemous in English and the French Government seems refuse to recognise English and France is pretty ant-religious zealotry to boot.
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm a very religious person and this kind of stuff makes me sick. One of the foundations of my country is that it has no state-sponsored religion, or that it's not a (specific) religion-sponsored state. Governments have responsibility to protect their citizens from harm, but not at the expense of freedom. I may not agree with what you teach, what you share, what you distribute, but it is your God-given right (or as some may prefer, your natural right, or Spaghetti-given right) to believe, practice, share, and disagree. This kind of thing is a tragedy as it will hamper the rights of individuals and their ability to express themselves.
...Does this mean that True Irish Black Metal has been stopped in it's tracks?
Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
or at least that is what I'm told by my hip American hating Euro friends. Nice to know you guys are just as dumb as we are really.
Europeans tend to have a medieval view of speech rights. This isn't surprising at all if you look at Europe as a whole.
What will this do to the Subgenius movement?
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
I have no problem with God...
It's his fan club that I hate.
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
You missed step 2b: Get silly celebrities to become prominent members and spokespersons for you religion.
Worked for L.Ron
I guess now it's up to the religious leaders to redefine what "blasphemy" means. We'll see what they come up with...
So when a religious person and an atheist meet and say something like "I find your views completely ridiculous" at the same time to each other then the religious person can sue the atheist but not vice versa?
Reminds me of this
Apparently he's in the Irish legislature!
It's already illegal in Canada and New Zealand
...for Sharia?
THL phish sticks
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If I had 2p for every time my grandmother took the lord's name in vain, I'd have enough to pay off several offender's fines.
This is a woman who used to carry food to republican fighters hiding in fields and graveyards at night during the revolution.
Though she was a deeply devout woman, she would have had no qualms about any divine beings know just how screwed up they were. If she felt she should take the belt to God or Jesus, no blasphemy laws would have stopped her.
If they classify the abuse of minors by clergy and religious orders as a form of blasphemy, there might night be enough room in gaol.
Good Luck!
Surely it was supposed to read "Afghanistan Criminalizes Blashphemy" or "Iran Criminalizes Blashphemy". This isn't supposed to happen in "modern", "enlightened" western countries.
I realize that most people are going to be complaining about this without reading the article.
So my question is, how is this different than shielding from "hate speech" about... say, homosexuality? Go look at Canada's laws. It's pretty much against the law to say anything bad about homosexuality up there, from what I understand from some Canadian friends that I have.
I'm not saying this law is a good thing. I'm a pretty conservative Christian, in fact, and I don't particularly think this is a good law, and I think if anything it will drive more people away. Plus it kind of implies a religion-set-up-by-government, which - Ireland being "Catholic" and thus claiming to believe in Jesus Christ from the Bible - is NOT what Jesus talked about. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to have the law - and I don't see how anyone else can say "this law is wrong!" without some basis for what is right or wrong. However, I don't see that it's necessarily right either. Just explaining my conservative Christian viewpoint. I think most slashdotters are going to be thinking that conservative Christians are going to think this is a great thing.
Anyways. I'm still interested in knowing why this is any more frightening, annoying, upsetting, infuriating, unfair, or censoring than saying I can't tell people that being gay is ... hmmm, let's say, condemned by God, or ... bad for humanity ... or morally bad ... or bad for society... or any number of other "bad" things that would be "hate" speech in some countries.
I'm not asking if it IS condemned, bad, or hateful. I'm asking how this is different, just because it's a different belief. Yes, belief. Homosexuality being good or bad for society is a belief, too...
From the article, which is just one journalist's opinion:
I'm of Irish ancestry. I've been to Ireland. Stopping blasphemy would require shuttering the Guinness plant and every bar in Ireland, and believe me, that will cause a LOT more swearing!
stuff |
Fuck the corrupt politicians and religious leaders of Ireland who passed this travesty of freedom. In fact, I hope they just fuck themselves rather than underage boys. Again. Oh, and a special fuck you to the religious leaders whose faith is so weak they can not stand any criticism of their beliefs.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
"my diety, the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
I wish it were possible to mod something +5 Unintentionally Funny.
That's one small step for man, one giant step for mankind ...... backward
Although I probably know the answer to the first one:<BR>
1) Is it strictly blasphemy against Christianity? Or any religion? So would, say, a certain book that refers to a particularly religion's verses as being satanic be outlawed in Ireland?
2) Kind of follows from the first one in a way. Does that mean the Irish judges will now be deciding what is blasphemy or what isn't? If they cast a wide net on affected religions, does that mean that they'll need to be theologians on several major religions for this law not be the so obviously biased for Christians?
3) Scary freedom of speech backpedaling and medieval thinking resurgeance aside (two dumb enough reasons not to do this), is this a monumentally stupid law to pass in a country that not so long ago and for the longest time had half of the country at the other half's throat based on to which Christian sect they belonged? The first Protestant judge that passes this judgement on a Catholic or vice versa will, I expect, be somewhat explosive.
money grab? i seriously doubt it.
if those in power were simply looking for a money grab, they'd slap a tax or fine like this on something much more mundane that would slip through the news tendrils without even a wince.
to use something as incredibly inciting as this for the base of nothing more than a money grab seems a bit daft, even for those in political power.
Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
It's one of those old laws that's been in the books for years, but never removed. Someone could still be arrested and charged with blasphemy in Massachusetts (although that would probably cause a shitstorm of controversy these days), but the last time that happened was in 1838.
"The modern world basically decided to get rid of all these stupid laws and regulations..."
We still have Blasphemy laws, they just changed the subject of the blasphemy from Religion to a hodgepodge of special interest groups.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/hate-crimes-law-expansion_n_237389.html
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Canadian Laws regarding "hate speech" have to do with inciting others to violence against any distinct group of people, whether they be gays, muslims or WASPs. Criticism in and of itself is not prohibited. For example:
"Go forth and kill all Pastafarians." This is iIllegal in both Canada and Ireland.
"All Pastafarians are idiots." This is legal in Canada, but illegal in Ireland.
IANAL and all that, but so far as I understand it, it is legal to criticize religious (or whatever) groups in Canada, but not legal to incite others to commit violence against them.
I'm hoping that the EU can strike this down somehow. But IIRC, the European Convention on Human Rights isn't binding, unless the Lisbon treaty is signed, which amusingly Ireland is probably putting a stop to. Also, articles 9 and 10 in the convention would seem to go against blasphemy laws, but both have convenient loopholes for exceptions that are "necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals".
I would have modded you up but you went for the anonym....
End of Line.
Paragraph 166 StGB (translated): Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11 (3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than three years or a fine. Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11 (3)) defames a church or other religious or ideological association within Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall incur the same penalty.
More blasphemy laws at Wikipedia.
This looks like bad news for Heavy Metal bands in Ireland.
Maybe they ought to hold some giant concert in defiance of this obscene law.
And that was the last Terry Fox run I ever participated in.
If a sane majority of Irish don't stand up and get this absurd law repealed, I'm going to have to dust off my "No Irish" sign! Once again, religion forces the sane to become self-hating ;)
Blar.
Maybe they should change that 25,000 fine to 30 pieces of silver... That's what a man was paid for turning in another man who taught a religious point of view that the powers that be at the time found to be blasphemous.
Being a Christian, sometimes I'm stunned at the sheer ignorance that some people have of the lessons being taught by their own religion which they claim to be defending...
Let's see this : saying there is one only god is a blasphemy towards all polytheists religions (and cversely). That means that bible is now forbidden in Ireland...
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
You mean like Scientology?
Who modded this paranoid rant insightful? Any idea what "invasion" means?
sig intentionally left blank
If this bothers you try contacting the office of the Taoiseach (seems to be like a prime minister). I've already sent a message saying that I don't want to be in the same EU a country that thinks this law is a good idea.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Ummm, he was referring to the fact that the poster wrote 'diety' in stead of 'deity'. Which, given the name of the deity in question, is pretty unintentionally funny.
I just happened to come across a small pic of the FSM yesterday and while reading up on that, love the idea/movement/et all, wondered what the breakdown of belief was in the world.
The best I could come up with on the interwebs was: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
By those numbers alone Ireland is going to be putting a serious hurting on their tourism. And it's not like they have oil like the other countries that have such draconian laws.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
The really deep problem they have is with those sections of the Bible and the Koran which do not simply denigrate, but actively promote violence against, non believers. What are they to do with them?
Blasphemy laws can only work if the protection of the law is confined to one religion, or if there are no religions that condemn other ones. Alas, there are very few indeed of the latter.
Hey, you just described $cientology's business model!
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Islam is blasphemous to Christianity, Christianity and Islam are blasphemous to Jews, Catholicism is blasphemous to protestants, and protestantism is blasphemous to Catholics. Does that mean the Irish can (finally!) kick the entire lot off the island?
And why should Christians be allowed to insult atheists with impunity?
Or does this law only apply to protect big, arrogant sky-god religions? Oh, why do I even ask, it's Ireland we're talking about.
(well, with the exception of China).
...and Cuba, and North Korea and Kazakhstan, and Iran and Saudi Arabia, and.. well you get the point. Fascism and authoritarianism is alive and well, and probably a good half or more of the population of the world lives under it currently.
I think you may have a skewed idea of what "reality" is truly like outside of the West.
In any event, I find the appeal to "reality" to be silly. Reality is what you make of it. In 1600, the "reality" was what you are decrying now. In 2100 it may be the same thing as 1600, except with robotic overlords. If what you are saying is that you prefer Western liberal democracy with speech protections, then say that.
Don't try and trump the argument by appealing to the common experience, because you may find yourself surprised about that most people find "stupid" or "modern". There are people out there that would rather be thrown in jail than give out their name, but they demand nationalized health care and a host of other programs where they are more than happy to give any and all information away to the government.
I'm more worried about the people who are trying to be "modern" than I am about some blue law in Ireland that no one is going to enforce anyway.
Blasphemy is not "hate speech"
Blasphemy targets the deity in which religious people believe, NOT the people themselves.
Now, I am quite convinced that if any supernatural being existed, it would be quite capable of handling "blasphemy" gracefully, which may be untrue for cultural/religous/lifestyle groups - which the "hate speech" laws in certain countries attempt to protect.
Nonetheless, I am also opposed to those anti "hate speech" laws since it both creates a breach in freedom of speech - but - even more dangerous - segregates those groups unto special status - and - de-facto - creates a rift between group of individuals.
To push my point further, when a country promotes a law prohibiting "hate speech" towards - say - homosexuals, they are specifically stating that homosexual have *different* rights than heterosexuals ! and *I* believe this is wrong.
--Ivan
I would have thought various EU policies and directives on free expression would also have effect here. For the Europeans out there, what happens when the laws of a member county come into conflict with EU directives?
So, assuming I was in Ireland, If I said that Jesus isn't the messiah, I would offend Christians and would fall victim to this law. If I said he is the messiah, I offend Jews and fall victim to this law. Since everyone's religious views pretty much contradict someone else's views - even within the same religion - how will they sort this out? Furthermore, it wouldn't just be limited to religious statements. If I said that the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, would I be arrested for offending a Young Earth Creationist's religious views? People shouldn't have a Right To Be Free From Offense. In fact, quite the opposite. People should have the right to offend other people whenever they so choose. Fining the person $35,500+ US for offending a person's religious views is just idiotic.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What do you expect from schizophrenics (religiously infected people)? If you believe your bullshit story strongly enough, you can make people do everything you want.
Logic has nothing to do with this. Dumbing down has.
How sad. I really liked Ireland and its people.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Is that you, Cheney? Laws against free speech are what is needed to hide what you want to do.
Greek Penal Code Chapter 7:
Does this law also protect that weird sect that uses magic bread and magic wine in the ritual canibalism of a man who died 2,000 years ago? Aren't we allowed to at least comment on that belief being a bit off center?
If they would also make Jedi an official religion like in Australia (IIRC)
Not quite. Religious freedom is protected in our constitution (s116), and as such we have no official religions, mainstream or otherwise.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Now the Irish government gets to decide what constitutes blasphemy for all faiths that practice there. This can be quite tricky. No longer will religions have control over their own faiths. Likewise, should it be determined in the law by the faiths themselves, the bar can be set so low that the mere practice of another faith or having no faith at all, will constitute blasphemy and lead to conviction, as in Saudi Arabia, where it is blasphemous to practice or discuss faiths other than Saudi Islam. This is a no-win situation and is a classic example of the wisdom of the American First Amendment. I'm going to assume that the European human rights commission will get to hear about this.
Scientology anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism
"Presidential Proclamation 5956"
Notice this is in line with what George H. W. Bush signed into law during 1989 in the USA.
I'd also like to clarify the definition of blasphemy; so what's in a name? Way back when, Mr. Smith would have been a blacksmith. A person's name was their way, what they did, a relation to their character. Therefore attributing things to God's name which are not of God's way is the orthodox definition of blasphemy, not offending another person's views on God.
They may not make laws against blasphemy...but politically correct speech and other things that "hurt my feelings", they take the cake on that.
Therefore, I'd say it's not religious zealots OR liberal idiots that are responsible alone, but rather people in general who fall to the extremes.
There are other democracies with weird laws prohibiting speech that defames a religion. For example in India, the largest democracy in the world.
As an American with a right to free speech (when it comes to religion) I'd just like to say God damn you catholics/jews/hindus/protestants/daoists/etc are full of crap. Not that I believe that, but I just needed to exercise my right to say it. Doesn't seem like all that useful of a right though, but I'm willing to throw as much tea into the harbor as necessary to preserve that right.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Fuck Jesus.
Fuck God.
Fuck the Virgin Mary....A Virgin, I mean who are we kidding, what you say if you were doing it with the stable boy ?.
Fuck them all.
Damn all the saints and Angels to hell.
I hear there old Lucifer is there anyway.
There, now if I go to Ireland they can collect and get out of their financial crisis.
Is this really all it takes to get people excited, to cause problems?
Don't we have real problems in the world?
Global Warming/Cooling(depends who you talk to).
Pollution.
Low sperm count in most males and declining faster than the U.S. real estate market.
Yes, the movie "Children of Men" may not be as far in the future as you think.
On going wars to fatten Halliburton's pockets and do little else but maim.
Does Ireland not want to be taken seriously as a country?
I suppose a huge fine like that is better than being stoned to death
Ireland is indeed exceptional. Their constitution specifically allows for criminalizing blasphemy. The legislation that did so was struck down (in 1981?) for being too vague.
We tend to think of Ireland is a liberal democracy, but historically it has been more like a Catholic Iran, with bishops as Ayatollah.
So does this just cover Catholic/Protestant christian beliefs?
I doubt Protestantism is safe.
It proves that religion has long been a useful justification for seizing wealth and power, mainly because religion is a tool for putting something (a policy, a war, your social network) beyond argument. And for that very reason, unlike with other justifications, the religious ones have tended to remain unchallenged for hundreds of years.
It's also funny that your post is just the sort of ad hominem that "religionists" complain about antagonistic and mean atheists using. (Here's hoping that me pointing that out isn't too mean.)
Anyway ... according to the article the Catholic Church isn't calling for this law. You'll have to look elsewhere for someone to blame. (The article claims this is part of a trend in the Irish government's "micromanaging peopleâ(TM)s behaviour" along with a total ban on public smoking, a tax on plastic bags, a ban on incandescent lightbulbs and new government communication surveillance powers. However, I don't know enough about Irish politics to evaluate that claim.)
Nobody knows whether there is a god ... I believe that there are no gods.
Zealots, of any sort, can't tell the difference between "knowing" and "believing". That's what you have to take into consideration.
As for myself, I'm an agnostic. I believe there's no way we can actually say whether there is or is not a god, but I feel there is none. People say that stance lacks conviction, but I feel I'm being more realistic on the matter.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
as you depart the plane here at Dublin international, remember to please set your watches back 6 centuries.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Through out our live we've all been told and live under the illusion that we all have the right to free speech but that is not the case. Free speech does not mean you can freely speak your mind but rather what your government consider appropriate. I've once heard someone quoting "freedom of speech is only free if you are willing to fight for it everyday"
I would LOVE to see how Scientology pans out if the law were enforced. Since it has been mentioned Ireland has a catholic base, the law could be used in interesting, if not unfair ways. I personally dislike most mass religions but that doesn't mean I wish to see a point of view repressed. No matter my personal view on its constituents behavior.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
No, but if you blaspheme Mohammed expect to have your country's embassies car-bombed and your country's products boycotted
Good thing America doesn't actually make anything anymore, nothing to have boycotted by other countries other than beef jerky, F-22's, and the NFL, and I'd rather we keep those three things to ourselves anyways.
I double-dog-dare you to make fun of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendages.
Theres nothing wrong with that though. Now, if you actually -do- any of those things, yes it is wrong. But talking about it? No one gets hurt so therefore it should not be prohibited.
South Africa, last year. Incitement to hatred against immigrants: result, countless attacks and weeks of unrest as the locals attacked immigrants and forced them to flee for their lives.
Rwanda, several years ago. Incitement to hatred against one "race": result, 1 million dead, many hacked to bits as they sought shelter. In a few weeks they killed then half a year of all the concentration camps of WW2.
Germany, Crystal Night. incitement to hatred against jews. Result: several dead, buildings burned and the prelude to the holocaust.
There are lots of other examples, and you DARE to say that incitement to hatred should not be a crime.
That is EXACTLY the same as saying that offering a contract on someones life should not be a crime because it is only words.
Read a book. Any book. Just once and grow up mate.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Words do not have the power to kill or otherwise (really) hurt someone. Therfore they should be unregulated unless dealing with a contract or an offer to trade.
I so wish you were right. The problem is that we don't want to acknowledge the elephant in the room... propaganda works, on enough people to make a difference. Ask a Rwandan or Bosnian, or study Himmler (who famously claimed that it was the loudspeaker that conquered Germany). Sometimes, during genocide, it's hard for people to separate the words from the machete; one is an extension of the other.
I don't mean that in any mystical sense, I'm thinking of the stanford prison experiment etc. The line between speech and a decision to act disappears. Your conviction (and my wishes) about the independence of speech from action is an abstraction, since it requires humans who are uniformly well-schooled to be proud individualists, skeptics, and responsible citizens.
Perhaps we can find a functional way to make political speech a social contract that is bound to regulation like other transactions... after all, genocide relies on fraudulent and deceptive claims. The problem always resides with who gets to determine the truth.
Damn those pesky terrorists
I'm a militant agnostic, myself... as brilliantly explained to Buck Godot.
Seriously, the difference between Bertrand Russell's atheism ("Insufficient evidence, sir.") and militant agnosticism is the apparent willingness to have your mind changed.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
See his name. Please do not feed in the future.
"But this one goes to 11!"
It's really not that paranoid, don't you read international news? There's a huge amount of immigration flowing right from the middle east into all parts of europe. England recently removed a picture of a police dog from posters because Muslims don't care for dogs -- a POLICE DOG! Granted it's just a dog but it's not a stretch for them to next claim that if you are Muslim the police are not allowed to use K-9 units in your presence.. which is a completely ludicrous precedent to set -- there's no difference between that and "Oh we don't like cars", or pants, or whistles, and claim the use of whatever you don't like is insulting and degrading and racist. The riots in France a few years ago were caused by a disproportionately large number of young muslims, and even worse, a few years back Paris banned topless sunbathing on its beaches. You can't tell me a Frenchman came up with that idea. Belgium had quite a tiff with their muslim population over the printing of cartoons depicting Mohammed if you recall. Oh, and Sweden's quickly climbed to the top of the list of "Places for a Young Muslims to Travel and Find Young Girls to Rape". I'm not claiming they're the rapin'est folk around, but there's clearly a cultural clash going on that is being handled VERY fucking poorly by the immigrants. Painting things broadly, much of the immigration moving in to Europe has no intention of ever integrating into the society around them. I've heard a number of islamic religious leaders prattling on about the return of lands that rightfully belong to the muslims -- that would be Europe -- through invasion -- that would be immigration. There's a difference between a military invasion and a social invasion. A social invasion (I'm sure there's a better term) is more of a mass migration, a large movement of one people into the lands of another people and displacing the previously established culture through sheer weight.
Yes, Europe on a whole is bowing down to the Muslim immigrants and doing what it is that they do best... appeasement. Appeasement is never seen as a kindness, always a weakness.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Ok: "Mohammed titty fucking Mohammed on a pogo-stick, that is a draconian law. Its 2010 and some people still long for the middle ages."
I dunno, it just doesn't have the same ring to it somehow.
Nobody fears Christians any more. Well, ok, the LRA are an exception, but IN GENERAL, nobody fears Christians any more. We're just worried about government enforcement of religions of any kind. If theists had any common sense, they'd be just as opposed to it.
Tiny pink unicorns flying round the solar system. Could be... could be....
Deleted
"I am sure there is a god. I am just not sure of his relevance"
And given that, how would one prosecute under this new law? Would they seek prosecution of something that is questionably relevant? And if he is relevant, can't god dish out his wrath as he sees fit? I don't think he needs our help thankyouverymuch. And if his isn't relevant or capable, what do we care?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
You people are taking this way out of proportion.
The only reason this stupid law was introduced was because it is stated in the constitution that blasphemy is illegal but it has never been enforced. So instead of running an expensive referendum to change the constitution the minister had to update the law in order not to belittle the constitution. The new law is deliberately ambiguous so that it will be impossible to charge anybody with 'blasphemy'.
Okay?
I refuse to even look at the context that this comment is made in. The fact that it is moderated 'informative' is, quite possibly, the most awesome thing I have ever seen on slashdot.
There is evidence of creation all around us and there is much evidence that can be plausibly linked to an intelligent creator. [citation needed]
On another note, how can you be seemingly intelligent and believe in that ID crap? I accept that intelligent people can believe in god, but ID and young earth creationism? Puuhleeze
criminalize the lord of the dance.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Opium of the masses is a COMMUNIST stance.
Mind you, I think I should translate english to american for you:
Capatalist: Someone who does NOT pay taxes on 1+ million dollar salaries but expect the goverment to give them a social security check, oops sorry, bailout when they screw up.
Socialist: Someone who pays their illegal a wage that is enough to avoid immidiate starvation with 120 hours work per week.
Pinko: Someone who dares to suggest that for people who work a normal job making a normal salery without ever having a real chance to become superrich, it is kinda silly to worry about the tax rate for the superrich. Or indeed, to ask why any who already has more money they can ever spend to worry about a small increase on their taxes. Gosh someone with a million+ dollar income is going to go in the poor house from a 10$ increase.
Radical: Someone who dares to ask why you can't say fuck, show a titty or teach kids about safe sex, but everyone should be allowed to carry a machine gun and see torture morders on tv.
Commie: Someone who think thats paying taxes to the goverment is just like paying someone for services rendered and that you should worry less about how much you pay in taxes and more about what you actually get as a society for said taxes.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
3: Profit!
That's different from all other religions how?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
What to wear now?
Leonard Peikoff is a Mel Brooks joke. (Stand Up Philosopher) I could tell that 3 seconds into his website.
Many people honestly believe that humans have the ability to even begin to understand what a god is and what he/she/they want. I do not. It does not make me any better or worse.
Honestly, as an agnostic, I do not like organized religion. (Atheists are religious, just not to any deity) I view most organized religions as just another way to force people to think the way some other people want them to. Some groups are better, some are worse, the majority are power plays. That being said, they have every right to exist and people have every right to believe in what they want to believe in.
However, I will not stand for ANYONE pushing their beliefs on me, it's my life and my decision. Unless I request spiritual guidance, I do not wish it visited upon me. Woe betide anyone who tries otherwise.
Wow...I have such a hard time believing that the inflammatory remarks being made here toward people of faith and even God himsilf. I thought most of us were about open source, live and let live, free speech, etc. I do believe in God and I do not believe what they have done in Ireland is right. You can't legislate morals or faith, period. Unfortunately what prompted me to post is the dichotomy displayed in so many of the posts. If I attributed the responses of the extremists to any particular group of people, I might decide that everyone in the South belongs to the KKK, or all blacks are gangbangers. Come on, there are a lot of people out here that believe in God, read the bible, and go to church but are level headed, fun loving, normal folks. Those of you who claim the religeous people are the people of hate, try reading some of the words above. What if I told you to F*** you or your mom, your wife, or anything else that you love and cherish? I personally think that is pretty mean and hateful. Youall continue your hate fest but who is more irrational...The man who believes in a God he can not see, or the man who is offended by and attacks a God he does not believe in.
Well YOU might be happy with letting global Troll populations starve to death, but I actually care about the genetic diversity of our planet. We might not be able to prevent a large-scale die-off, but at least we can preserve enough specimens to start breeding programs in a handful of zoos.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Every religion's core teachings are blasphemous to at least one other religion. The possibilities of where this could go boggle the mind.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Someone being an agnostic does not mean they are also unsure about the separation of church and state. The founding fathers, who wrote the concept into the nation's documentation, were deists, not atheists. I know Christians who *hate* the mixing of religion and politics.
You cannot absolutely derive an individual's stance on church/state separation from their stance on theology.
The Zeus gambit: People can be agnostic of basic theological concepts, but be atheistic about Zeus sitting on Olympus. It's general agnosticism versus specific agnosticism. Most self describe agnostics are actually of the latter kind. When you venture into the absolutist realm of "If a person thinks X they must think Y" you need to review your position.
Personally, I'm an apatheist. It means I don't care if there is any sort of higher order, and I personally expand that in include not giving a gnat's fart what you or anyone else thinks about that. However, I stand firmly on the side of separation of church and state, and have been active on that front for many years.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody.
1. Agnostics don't feel they're avoiding a position. Their position is clear: conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of evidence.
2. Why should an agnostic be intrinsically afraid of antagonism? Disagreeing with any organized religion automatically opens you up to antagonism from adherents, no matter what your position is. The statement reeks of troll.
the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect
Any claim merits cognitive consideration (also known as thinking about it). Dismissing claims entirely outright because of the claimant specifically or the "arbitrary" appearance of such a claim would violate the fundamental aspects of the scientific method.
Peikoff is essentially criticizing the very thing that keeps agnostics credible: their unwavering belief in reason and reason alone.
He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported.
This does not logically follow the former. Weighing all the evidence instead of discounting something out-of-hand because of personal prejudice doesn't necessarily suddenly make all the evidence "equal."
The fact is that his view is one of the falsest--and most cowardly--stands there can be.
The fact is, is it? Peikoff's definition of fact needs work.
I know that I'll be modded down as troll, but Ireland rocks for doing this. The only people who are more dumb than religious lunatics are anti-religion lunatics, so the world would be a better place without them.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
No silly. You're not catholic.
The state religion is Catholicism
No, it's not, the constitution has been amended to remove all references to Catholicism as far as I know and it recognises many religions.
Although unofficially I guess Catholicism is the main religion (for example my school is supposedly non-denominational but we were still required to go to Mass at least once a year on school time, held by the local priest in the Gym), Catholicism isn't granted any legal benefits by the constitution or any laws, it's just biased judges you'd have to worry about I guess.
...Since they are all lambs, the religious people could not think about anything they are doing. I am not a dumb lamb, I think, I ask, I study, I am always trying to be a better person, and most of all, I am an atheist. Most religious people just follow blindly their book and stories, and forget to be peacefull, use their intelects, and most of all... be tolerant with the differences. "use reasonable force"? What is that? 500 years after inquisition, and nothing was learned? I am happy to be a brazilian, despite the "non-seriously" brazilian way of life, we are extremelly tolerant, and everybody lives in peace about their religious beliefs. Sorry about all the Irish people, about their politics, sorry about the world! Just an atheist that will never travel to Ireland
Nobody fears Christians any more. Well, ok, the LRA are an exception, but IN GENERAL, nobody fears Christians any more. We're just worried about government enforcement of religions of any kind. If theists had any common sense, they'd be just as opposed to it.
Really? Because I've spent a lot of time in Northern Uganda. I was there in Gulu during the worst of the night commutes, when children would walk kilometers each day to sleep on the streets of town so they wouldn't be kidnapped to turn into child soldiers.
Yesterday, here on Slashdot, I made a joke about the purpose of gas giants. People are still flaming me about my "anti-Christian bigotry."
I was never really afraid of the LRA. Not the way I fear the fundamentalist Christian right taking charge.
It's funny. When I was in the Army, we had respect for each others' religious beliefs, even though we still made fun of everyone's beliefs to their faces. Out here, I'm the enemy because I find the Fox News crowd to have disturbing implications.
We might not be able to prevent a large-scale die-off, but at least we can preserve enough specimens to start breeding programs in a handful of zoos.
If you want to save the Trolls you'll have to do that anyway, since they are rarely if ever known to breed in the wild.
The enemies of Democracy are
It will be amusing to watch the Irish Gov't try to enforce this. They might have to ban statements by recent U.S. officials. Following the 9/11 attack, the Department of Defense designated the military response as Operation Infinite Justice. Surely that concept is blasphemous to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of many other faiths. I'm an agnostic, and I called it blasphemous.
Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
Did you take the Red pill or the Blue pill today?
The onus is on religious people to probe there is a god: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Negative_proof
So far, they have failed miserably.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are 4 category of people :
1) Gnostic Theist (yes the question of whether it is KNOWABLE that god exists can be answer by yes, and, oh my, yes I belive in God)
2) Agnostic Theist (I don't think the "god existence" question is really knowable , still I *believe* there is a God)
3) agnostic Atheist (I don't think the question whether God exists is really knowable, but I don't see any reason to believe anyway)
4) gnostic theist (yes , the god existence question is answerable and yes the dude don't exists)
Some people says 1) and 4) are both about as arrogant, I am not too sure, I think it depends on how far they would eb ready to revise their belief is provided a proof going agaisnt their belief (if it does exists...).
Agnosticism DO NOT mean that you are neither atheist nor theist (what you believe) it only means that you think the question of God's existence is unknowable. Those which think it is a neutral position don't really understand the meaning of agnosticism, and are either weak believer or weak atheist without realizing it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
All over the world the Muslims have people walking on eggshells for fear of offending them and getting them up in arms. While Christians have had to put up with a steady stream of official persecution like the Federal Government paying artists to immerse a Crucifix in their own urine or form the Virgin Mary out of dung and put it on public display.
If Christians starting beheading people for blasphemy the way that Muslims do, maybe they would finally get equal treatment instead of constant government sponsored persecution.
Trekkies rarely have tons of cash.
Those DVD boxes cost so much, not to mention the miniature model of the Enterprise(s) and the captain Kirk figurine (with matching blue chick action figurine).
If you take their collection, and ebay it, I'm pretty sure it'll cover the cost.
http://blasphemy.ie/
Just thought I'd share.
You just got troll'd!
Dear Ireland,
Jesus wore pantyhose, because he was a tranny.
Yours, Sincerely,
Bob9113
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I'm suddenly, and for the first time, ashamed of my heritage.
His fan club apparently aren't responsible for this particular mess. Seems like the Green Party and Liberals are responsible this time.
;) ) said something to the effect that "Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent, rational mind".
From the article:
" while the Catholic Church grumbles about a decline in spiritual values it has not actually demanded this law, nor are there many votes to be picked up on a 'Catholic Ireland' ticket. Even the other usual suspects, the 'mad mullahs' of Islam, are notable by their absence from the debate. Put simply, the religious lobby is not behind the move to criminalise blasphemy."
And:
" Firstly, the Green Party, a minority partner in Ireland's coalition government that has no ties to traditional, rural Ireland, saved the blasphemy legislation from defeat in the Seanad, Ireland's undemocratic pretend parliament for various worthies and failed politicians. Likewise, the opposition Labour Party, home to Ireland's liberal elites, has not sought to have the law struck down, instead favouring its amendment to make it more palatable to the cultural constituency. Labour's Pat Rabbitte sought a reformulation that excepts from the definition of blasphemy material which has 'literary, artistic, social or academic merit', harking back to the interminable debates about what is art and what is pornography (6). "
But so many atheists here are blaming Religion.
Ironically, the Great Dawkins Himself (May the FSM Bless Him
Me thinks someone has a bit too much faith in the wrong thing.
Seriously. It's time to pick a side and stand up for it.
You're asking people to believe. Beliefs are bad, ideas are good. Keep repeating that, it's the way of science.
For instance, can you prove that our universe is not a simulation? If you go try to figure this out, there's actually more evidence now that we are rather than we aren't in a simulated universe (the missing gravity waves are showing up instead as 'holographic' interference patterns). That we're not in a root universe ought to have little effect on our lives, except that somebody had to build it.
This in no way addresses any magical Gods of any revered texts. I doubt it precludes them either.
Could major religions accept that their God was a PFY in his own Universe? At least one text suggests he grew up a bit on our timescale of 6-2 thousand years ago.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It is true that the repeal of the 1961 Defamation Act and its replacement with (slightly) less outrageous legislation would leave a hole in the statute books if blasphemy were not outlawed. Yet the obvious answer is to amend the constitution, which, in Ireland, requires a popular referendum. Yet the minister behind the update to the defamation laws, Dermot Ahern, says that a referendum would be âcostly and unwarrantedâ(TM)
Somehow I'm still shocked that a government official would justify killing free speech by saying it's more cost effective than having a vote.
A lot of Atheists these days have gone away from the literal dictionary definition because it's a bit denigrating and is designed to make you look like a heathen, or even somehow make you feel less.
By saying that you believe there is no god or any god, to a religious person, you sound like you're in denial. Hopefully, what you mean is that you have a lack of faith, or a lack of a belief in them. It's a bit nit-picky, but it holds a certain distinction and clarification. By saying that you have no belief, you are implying that based on what you know, there's no reason to believe anything. Where's the empirical evidence? Etc... As an atheist, this is the point you want to get across.
I realize there are some people out there who just don't understand the lack of belief, and not believing, but it's rather quite simple. With the lack of belief, you have nothing. It's like having zero apples. When you say you don't believe, you still have something and when you word it that way, there are people who think that you have oranges, but you simply deny that you have them.
I live in one of those countries, so I can read national news. Even better, I can form my opinion from first hand experience. You may read this stuff in the tabloid press, but that does not make it true. How do you know that "much of the immigration moving in to Europe has no intention of ever integrating"? And let me add something about the riots in Paris: these are not caused by cultural differences, but by largescale unemployment. Think South Central Los Angeles.
sig intentionally left blank
Not believing in God is having faith in people.
Reminds me of the Dutch blasphemy law in the 1970s. The time spirit had become liberal, but there were still those old laws. So they prosecuted some writers who had written blasphemous books (if I remember well in one God had sex with a donkey). The writers were condemned to some fine. But the free publicity for their books had been such that they didn't care at all.
You don't have to go that far. Almost by definition any religious ceremony is blasfemous to all other religions.
But I think the Irish have a sick sense of humour...
I'd like to add that, no, I don't believe these people are thinking for themselves (sloppily or not). I believe they are being "blinded by religion" as my topic title states. They don't want to be confronted by something they don't agree with which might make them think for themselves, so they outlaw it.
Religions are quite often warped for people to get it to say what they want it to say. On top of that, books like the bible even has a tendency to contradict itself (like things between the new and old testimate.) Warping would occur even without religion, usually through something popularly called propaganda. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
Republican are Christian. Republicans like War. Republican Christians kill people. Christians can't go to heaven for breaking commandment. So were they Christian to begin with?
Republicans hate hippies. Republicans are Christians. Jesus has a beard. Republicans hate Jesus. (The Christian church should do away with the bear already.)
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
I don't think I've ever heard it presented in this way, but you are right on.
If they would also make Jedi an official religion like in Australia (IIRC), so next time people have a Star Trek convention they could go there, start a flamebait topic between Star Wars-fans and Trekkies, and start collecting cash. On the other hand... Trekkies rarely have tons of cash.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
3: Profit!
We don't even need the "???" :-)
L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith would have agreed wholeheartedly.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Forgetting completely imported religions how about statements taken to be blasphemy by Catholics from protestants and visa-versa? For example some protestants have questioned the salvation of Mary as she may never have been baptized and repented and we don't know if she accepted Christ as her personal savior. The point being that blasphemy is not clear cut and is in the eye of the beholder. And to any protestant and most Catholics suggesting that Allah is God is in itself a serious blasphemy. Even allowing non Christian forms of worship can be taken as "putting other gods before me". Some could even claim a divine command to destroy all non Christian faiths as Satanic doctrines.
Does this mean they are going to bring back the Salem Witch Trials, but change the name to the Dublin Witch Trials. Burning people at the stake, drowning them would make water boarding and other Gitmo torture seem a whole lot less harsh.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
If you give the Bible-thumping idiots an inch, they will take the field.
You could have eliminated "Bible-thumping" from that statement and had a much more effective position. Here on Slashdot I have seen scientists want to decertify other scientists who speak against global warming. Worse still some who speak against global warming may even receive death threats
Frankly, a 25,000E fine seems fairly mild by comparison.
Perhaps, if we blamed overreaction and intolerance (common human traits) rather than the beliefs of people we don't agree with, we might make some progress dealing with these kinds of things.
Sadly, looking at a lot of the posts here on slashdot, it looks like we have a long way to go.
The godless religion of political correctness is the stalking-horse of communism. By preventing criticism of religion they allow the communist takeover of their country to proceed unimpeded. All countries that follow political correctness have fallen toward communism, which is why their economies are shrinking. Capitalism is a law of nature, communism is a religion.
Religion is proof that there is no god.
Don't forget -- almost everybody that posted here, *even the religious zealots*, would be subject to raids, enormous fines, and probably imprisonment if they lived in The Land of Ire and they decided to start enforcing that anti-speech BS. I certainly have no intention of ever visiting such a place (and yes, I'm aware of worse situations in seemingly harmless countries).
Ever glad you wasted some idiots mod points thus keeping them from having real impact on the discussion? Gotta love good karma.
I've got to say, I found this whole debate/thread very interesting.
I've considered myself an atheist, yet the "agnostics" have put forth a rather intriguing argument, that at least some of them consider themselves such, because they simply believe it's "unknowable" if a god or gods exist.
I guess I've always felt, previously, that the "agnostics" simply felt "uncertain" about the type/nature of god(s) that might be out there, so simply didn't want to subscribe to a particular "faith". (So in effect, it was sort of a label for "I very generically believe in some sort of creator, but don't want to follow any one religion.")
I'd also agree that organized religions have done considerable harm to society, but wouldn't go so far as to say religion is universally a "bad" concept. If nothing else, it probably serves as a "scare tactic" that tends to keep a lot of people away from a life of crime. Their reasoning is arguably simplistic and flawed, but in the end, the results are the only thing that really matter to the rest of us. (If someone decides not to shoot and kill you out of anger, only because of their fear of "eternal punishment", you should be glad your life was spared, period!)
But beyond that, many organized religions believe in charitable works, which do benefit society as a whole. I'd much rather see these things being done on a strictly volunteer basis by church groups, than as government mandates, with the funding forcibly taken out of my paycheck every week!
When you speak of "religions holding humanity back", I'm not really convinced this is so. Lumping all of us together as "humanity" is a pretty BROAD brush to paint with. Individuals will always vary, from the most clever, insightful and philosophical among us to the most simple-minded and disinterested. If you eliminated religion, I'm not sure what would replace it for some people?
Venganza.org
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Right.. but the ranks of the unemployed are often both young, and often immigrants as well. I'm guessing it's weighted even worse towards young and immigrants in France, I've heard tell of some wacky labor laws over there.
Oh, and I can tell they have no intention of integrating because well.. DO they? It doesn't take a majority of an immigrant population refusing to integrate into the existing society to cause issues. We've got issues with that here in the states, even, and we don't really have people moving here from highly oppressive extremist nations that continue to espouse the same beliefs that turned their former homeland into a shithole. Good example would be that police dog over in England. Had to remove the poor lil guy's picture from.. eh I forget what they were passing out, some sort of flyer or something, but there was an outcry from muslims because dogs are unclean vile beasties. How's that for integrating? A demand that their new homeland change to accommodate them rather than they change to accommodate their new homeland. Or the riots in Belgium, launched by an immigrant population who felt that their beliefs were more important than the standing traditions of their new homeland. Again, a lack of flexibility in integrating into a new society. It's not that immigrants must throw away old customs and just fade into the crowd, but I know when I'm visiting someone else's house I don't begin telling them how to run the place.
It's not that I'm painting with a broad brush here. All the muslims I've personally met have been just regular people, not hate-spewing suicide bombers, but nor have they been rattling sabers at everything they could find in this country that didn't match up with the way things were back home. Er, to put it another way, it's a bit like the stereotypical American tourist who goes overseas and gets pissed because nobody speaks English -- except in this case, it'd be more "moving there" instead of "visiting" and "can't fit their SUV down the main streets" or whatever other typically patently American behaviour you'd find distasteful across the pond.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
GOD is clearly an invention of people, for the purposes of:
a) helping us over the shock of realizing they were conscious, and mortal,
b) putting the fear of GOD into uppity peons who might wish to usurp
the established hierarchy with one of their own!
c) Keeping people civilized by providing cause-effect narratives, plausible
at least to the weak of mind or uneducated, tieing bad behaviour to nasty
consequences and good or cooperative behaviour to rewards.
Whack-Fol-the-daddy-o !
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Free speech rights are important. I think that definition of hate crimes and speech limits are slippery slopes which can turn out to have consequences far different than the original intent. I found Penn Jillette's incessant blasphemy during his Las Vegas show offensive, but should not be criminalized.
I have a friend who recently visited Kazakhstan.He tells me that the growing influence of Islam there means that there will be a significant restriction of religious freedom there, and that Christians are very likely to soon be oppressed by those in power who oppose their religious beliefs.
As much as I value my religious beliefs and desire not to have them attacked, it is critical that freedom of expression be defended, even when it offends me. (Within certain limits - not yelling fire in a crowded theater, kiddie porn, etc.)
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
before you realize that it doesn't exist,
and then realize that you can't realize anything because you're dead
and your neurons have stopped firing,
and then disappear in a puff of logic.
Amen
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
More proof as if its needed that Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" is worsening...
Matt
Theres nothing wrong with that though. Now, if you actually -do- any of those things, yes it is wrong. But talking about it? No one gets hurt so therefore it should not be prohibited.
So if a group of people are making extremely detailed plans about a terrorist attack you should just ignore it until they actually blow up a building and kill hundreds of people? I'll grant you that in most cases there will be actions to back up the plans but those might only be performed by a one or two members of the group. However surely all should be guilty of terrorism?
I agree with your principle and I am very reluctant to cross the line but I think there there are cases where it does need to be crossed to prevent loss of life.
Dollars? Euros?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Nobody seems to have picked up on this yet.
As I sit here in the last remnants of the enlightened Irish republic (there's a joke) - I'd like to point out that athiests were very well represented in the GPO in Easter 1916 and I'm sure James Connolly is spinning furiously in his grave. If ever there was a solution desperately seeking a problem...
But anyway let me take this opportunity to say "God bless you. Mary Mc." - and while I'm at it "Fuck you, Jesus Christ, the pope, allah, mohammed etc and the various horses yous rode in on" and plenty more blasphemy that would never have seen the light of day had it not been for this outrageous attempt by a truly pathetic government to divert focus off their shystering and ineptitude.
Now who do I write the 25,000 cheque to?
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
We all bloody well know this will only be enforced when the blasphemy is against islam...
Dave
Alright, alright, we did not come from apes. Can I go now?
Table-ized A.I.
No it isn't. Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence.
No Atheism is not the "default" - where default presumably means completely rational and provable - position. Agnosticism is because it implies that the person is open to be persuaded by evidence one way or the other whereas active disbelief, (the definition of atheism), to be rational, requires evidence to prove that whatever is disbelieved does not exist. As any scientist will tell you: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Dawkins has a point when he complains that we don't make the fine distinction between "no evidence one way or the other" vs. "does not exist" for things like unicorns and dragons. However we do make the distinction for religion. So either he has a faithed based position (atheism) or a purely rational based position (agnosticism). He might not like it but it's the language we have.
Four paragraphs into the article they note that the Irish Constitution (from 1937) explicitly prohibits the publication of blasphemy. "it goes on to prohibit the publication of 'blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter'
.
Further even in the First Paragraph they note that the new law came into being in removing the old 1961 Defamation Act. So the title of the original post is completely misleading. Blasphemy has been prohibited under Irish law for a long time. This is not a new situation in that regard. In the Sixth Paragraph the author notes: "only one case was ever taken under the blasphemy prohibition since the introduction of the constitution in 1937 (a 1999 case against a newspaper, in which the Supreme Court concluded that it was not possible to say 'of what the offence of blasphemy consists' and that 'the state is not placed in the position of an arbiter of religious truth')."
.
In other words, this is much to do about nothing. Ireland doesn't prosecute blasphemy. It does have a need to do a little house-cleaning on the wording of its Constitution to bring it into line with popular practice, though.
While I agree that this is bollocks, I do not agree with the sheer amount of stupidity a lot of the repliers have. Religion is not the problem here. Yes, they're doing something stupid in the name of religion. But if there was no religions of the world then they'd be doing some stupid or horrible in the name of something else. They'd have other beliefs that they formed one way or another and there would be people who formed that same belief and they'd be trying to force it on people regardless of anything else. And I hate to break it to you, but you atheists are exactly like theists, but you don't believe in any gods. Have you looked at yourselves lately? At what other atheists are doing? You may say that one atheist doesn't represent ou all but you still all have that hive mentality because you all fall into the same mindset of "I'm right you're wrong because of this and this"...Just like theists. And you go around trying to force your beliefs, or lack thereof, on others, cram it down their throats and tell them you're just trying to help them live a better life because they won't be wasting their time on their religion. Which really isn't much different than someone coming to you and telling you that whatever TV show, Comic Book or whatever sucks and they should stop watching it and stop collecting memorabilia because they didn't like it and thought it was a waste of your life. You want religious stuff taken out of everyday life, they want more in it. You're exactly the same. You're not better than them even though you act like you are. Even that makes you exactly the same. They think the same about you, that they're better because they have faith, and you think you're better because you don't. (And don't tell me you AREN'T like that because I've yet to meet an atheist that wasn't, and I know a lot. And again, you'd probably say the same thing about Christians, and Christians would say they're not all the same as well. Which brings me back to my point. People are idiots and regardless of their beliefs or lack there of. They're always going to force their ideals on others no matter WHAT fuels them to do so. Stop acting like you have the world's best views at heart because you're exactly the same as them. You don't want religious folks cramming their religion down your throat, well they don't want you shoving your lack of beliefs down theirs either. You're just as stupid and bigoted as them. Get the bloody hell over it.
Scientology
that is all...
Now that's a fucked up religion!
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Name a single "Bible-thumping idiot" who is in favor of limiting any kind of speech concerning God. (The motivation in TFA is a constitutional, not religious.)
Nonono - if you're going to offend, go for the gold: Jesus H. ben Joseph in a fucking handbasket.
Seriously, blasphemy a criminal offense ( again ) ? It's really tough to take any government ( or country )
seriously when they revert to dark age laws. . . What's next ? Going to revert back to the Earth being flat
or the center of the universe theory ? Sink some witches in the nearby river to see if they float perhaps ?
What a grand idea. . . so does the new law specify a specific religion ? Or just Christianity ? Everyone knows that any religion
other than the local 'accepted' one, is blasphemous to the local groups for the 'other' heathens do not believe in the 'right' God. So will the
Yahweh-Squads start kicking down doors at the local mosque ? Round up the Buddhists ? Re-educate the Atheists ? Will works
by Dawkins and similar authors in your library become grounds for your arrest ?
Of course, this is likely the "whatever-you-do-don't-anger-the-muslims" law.
Just . . . wow.
I believe that accepting a personal state of functional atheism requires more up-front intellectual honesty
I can say that there is no evidence I have witnessed that there is a god. I can also say that there is no evidence I have witnessed that tells me there isn't a god. Just because a position has poor evidence to support it, does not automatically make the opposite position a correct one.
I think that Athiesim is just as shaky as religion's claims. How is that personal honesty? Either side 's claims rely on faith.
I'll keep an open mind until I see proof provided by one side or the other.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Diversity -- religions, ideological, cultural, linguistic and ethnic -- is inherent flawed because two values systems cannot occupy the same place at the same time.
One man's blasphemy is another man's progressivism.
So by endorsing "diversity," we demand an agree-to-disagree society that ensures we will have no values outside of commerce and laws.
A long, slow tumble to the end.
Futurist Traditionalism
How long before they start going after Google for linking to 'blaspheming' sites.
God will punish (and forgive) blasphemy. God doesn't need the Irish, or anyone else for that matter, to do it for Him.
The Constitution requires a blasphemy law, so they call it a blasphemy law. But it is not a blasphemy law. It is a law against intentionally causing widespread religious outrage. Well, isn't intentionally causing widespread religious outrage in Ireland is tantamount to inciting violence? Seems like a reasonable restriction to me. When a behavior has no potential benefit and significant potential harm, I believe that a condition where it is reasonable to outlaw the behavior. And I don't believe there is ever potential benefit in intentionally causing widespread religious outrage. That would always be an act of malice. And it would often have a significant potential for public harm.
That said, I seriously doubt it's a necessary law. The one act that I can think of that ever would have violated it was the Danish Muhammad cartoons. Someone decided to intentionally outrage the entire Muslim community just to show that they could. Did it convince Muslims that they should chill out a bit? No. It deepened the rifts that divide us all as human beings, and it lead to over 100 deaths. I do not find it a morally justifiable act, and I have no problem with it being prohibited. The valid principle of free speech -- which I would give my life to defend -- is not the freedom to incite. It is the freedom to communicate ideas. If the same cartoons caused the same outrage but were made in an effort to critique the state of Islam, rather than an intentional effort to incite, then that would be a matter of free speech that should always be protected.
Even in America, intentionally inciting to imminent violence or other unlawful action is illegal, and not protected by the 1st Amendment. Intentionally causing widespread religious outrage is a step back from that, but I think a rather small one. There have been several times in American history where we've had tighter constraints on speech than that.
As a side-note, I think all this outrage over the intent to outlaw the intent to outrage would be better redirected at Germany and other European countries where they actually outlaw the communication of specific ideas (in particular the idea that the holocaust didn't happen or is exaggerated). That is the real dagger in the heart of the God-given right to free speech -- the right to simply communicate what one thinks or believes. That is the real outrage. That is what Thomas Jefferson would be angry about.
Those who warship the FSM refer to themselves as Pastafarians fer crepes sake.
FTFY =)
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Yes, but soon after "I don't know" will come, for a scientist, investigation, logic, reasoning, occam's razor, and probability theory, which are used, in combination with the mostly self-consistent (and very large) body of current scientific knowledge (or "educated, principled belief, if you prefer) to assess the likelihood of various extraordinary claims even prior to any experimental evidence being obtained.
Scientists are busy people, and they need to know what has already been pretty well covered and understood, and what is overwhelmingly probably false, or is not a well-formed concept, so they can get on with pushing the legitimate boundaries of scientific knowledge.
Many religious claims (those to do with specific acts of Gods) don't even stand up to basic logical tests of internal self-consistency nor conformance with the known laws of physics, so can be discounted rather quickly as self-serving twaddle on the part of religious organizers.
There may be a few actually interesting questions about the nature of consciousness or "purpose" of life or origin of life, destiny of life etc., but science is, in general, advancing on even these challenging fronts, so the "gap" into which divine intervention may fall is ever narrowing.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
But we've never been able to maintain a captive breeding program for Trolls, they just become even more apathetic and irate then they just completely give up on mating. It's hard enough for them to mate in the wild.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
"Aren't we all deterministic automotons governed by the laws of physics? How can free will exist?"
So if we aren't designed to apprehend truth and our thoughts are also caused deterministically, you have no basis for trusting.your own thoughts. Including your reasoning about these matters.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Is it blasphemy to curse Christians?
CURSE YOU, DAMNED IDIOTS!
Someone has to register the "Almighty Filesharer" polytheistic religion in Ireland. They might worship gods named BitTorrent, aMule (also known as eMule - god is known to walk with many names), Limewire, etc. Worshipers everyday mantra should be: "Information wants to be free! **** *** MAFIAA!". Lets see who is blasphemous enough to criticize them!
One less country where I could potentially settle down if I have to relocate.
My existence in itself would be enough to trigger the blasphemy law.
This is blinging
It's hard to believe that such a law would pass, but let me point out that the Act is not exactly what it seems. (Yes, I'm Irish)
The Law Reform Commission - the people who are charged with updating legislation in Ireland, recommended that a law had to be put in place for blasphemy because it was provided for in the constitution.
They also said it didn't have to be done any time soon, and that a referendum would remove the requirement. The Irish government is very touchy at the moment about holding any additional referenda (especially in light of an upcoming referendum that affects all 27 EU members), so it decided to pass a law.
People - from the left, the right and the centre - all let out a collective 'gasp!' of surprise. The man responsible probably thinks he has been clever.
You see, what has actually transpired is not so much a 'blasphemy law' but a law that is unenforceable. The law, as written, cannot be used in the courts.... and deliberately so.
It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem: We need a law if the article remains in the constitution. The constitution won't be changed, so the article will remain. However, the crime is outdated and we actually do not want anybody to be charged under this law. Therefore, the only remaining choice is to draft a law that is unworkable.
Is it's a silly, high-cost manoeuvre? Yes.
But it's a tried and tested method.
Why it was rushed through is anyones guess - a mixture of pandering to a far-right that may not currently exist in Ireland (but one suspects is probably going to gain ground in recession times), a particular individual trying to score a quick victory or just an ill thought out move.
Some of our politicians are quite slow to recognise the obvious and will latch on to an idea.
Concrete analysis...
Your choice of words indicates the answer that you're expecting. "the Muslims" are something "over there", a long way away, and by implication the Christians are (relatively) close by.
I had been considering Ireland as a potential recipient for my taxation (i.e., by emigrating) ; somehow I think not now. (Though the malign and pervasive influence of religion did not come as a surprise to me.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
There was no one called Ghandi.
At least, no one famous by that name.
But perhaps you're referring to Mohandas Karamchand GANDHI, the apostle of peace.
Do look it up, and please do not repeat this common mistake.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
What Jason Walsh writes is incorrect. The bill's amendment concerning blasphemy does not "seek to shield religious belief from criticism". The amendment to the Defamation Bill defines what the constitution does not, and so clarifies the law. It describes blasphemous matter as .. matter "that is *grossly abusive* or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; *and he or she intends*, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage." (emphasis mine)
(source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html)
Other countries have similar laws to protect ethnic minorities from unwarranted contempt. The above definition is actually narrower, as it specifically pertains to
- grossly abusive attacks,
- to what is held to be sacred by a religious group, such as religious items,
- and where the purpose is to cause outrage.
This does not include criticizing a doctrine, the actions of a bishop or the pope, nor the text from ecclesiastical literature. Perhaps we need to remember that criticism seeks as its objective some form of correction. While outrage may be a response of those criticized, the former is not the objective of criticism.
Freedom of speech should not include grossly abusive speech that would take away from other people their own freedom to hold beliefs without anxiety about arbitrary gross insults. Engaging in healthy criticism and the debate that ensues is one thing, and is welcome. There is a meeting of minds and a clash of ideas. It is an entirely different thing to grossly abuse the beliefs of a group of people concerning what they hold to be sacred matter simply for the sake of insulting them.
It would be nice if governments didn't need to legislate such things, and for the citizenry to exercise common decency and engage instead in honest criticism whose objective is to right wrongs in the context of dialogue. Unfortunately, we have many published celebrities today who instead exercise their ego and vile contempt for those whom they disagree with, and copycats aplenty with blogs, YouTube accounts and art degrees at their disposal.
Ireland is in the EU. This is fine with the Hague? Europeans should be as ashamed of Ireland as the U.S. is of Kentucky (Creation Museum) -- and, well, yeah, several other nearby states.
Is that you, John Titor?
all religious books are blasphemous to the FSM. now we can get rid of them all.
It's interesting that you list Occam's Razor, because outside of pop culture nobody actually interprets it as "proving" anything.
Yes, scientists examine the unknown as the opportunity provides. There are so far no tests of string theory (though there have been some recent claims in that space, which may prove interesting). That does not lead scientists to say string theory is false. Likewise there are no tests of whether God exists, and one of the stronger agnostic positions is that there will never be such a test. To go from there to "there is no God" is a leap of faith.
You talk about "what has been covered and understood"; well, provide evidence that has covered the non-existance of God and the debate will be over.
Your comments about the stories of "acts of God" make me think you're hung up on the idea that to allow for belief in God, one has to believe in the Bible as a literal history. This is entirely incorrect.
(As an aside, I think atheists who dismiss stories of miracles on the grounds that the violate laws of physics perhaps miss the point of what a miracle is supposed to be, but that's neither here nor there.)
What I don't get is... what IS it with Catholic Churches, Ireland, and Child Sex Abuse??
Breaking Story: New 'shock' report into church sex abuse
URL: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25818510-5005962,00.html
New 'shock' report into church sex abuse
Article from: Agence France-Presse
July 21, 2009 11:19pm
A SHOCKING new report has identified hundreds of victims of child sex abuse by Irish Catholic priests, officials and clerics say, two months after a landmark study found "endemic" mistreatment.
A Government-appointed commission of investigation headed by a judge has been probing allegations of abuse by priests in the archdiocese of Dublin - the country's biggest - since March 2006.
Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has warned that the report - being presented to Justice Minister Dermot Ahern on Tuesday - would "shock us all".
It is the first time the state has investigated how the once-powerful Church in mainly Catholic Ireland has run its affairs.
It probed whether the Church reported abuse allegations or attempted to "obstruct, prevent or interfere with the proper investigation" of complaints.
A spokeswoman for the archdiocese said the Church authorities had identified between 400 and 450 people that allege they were abused by one of 152 Dublin priests since 1940.
"I would like to stress that that is a very conservative estimate and is likely to rise," she said.
It is not yet clear when the report will be published. "The minister will refer the report to the Attorney General Paul Gallagher to see how best to proceed," the justice spokesman said.
In May Ireland was rocked by a landmark report that concluded sexual, physical and emotional abuse was "endemic" in Church-run industrial and reformatory schools, orphanages and other childcare institutions dating back to the 1930s.
Prime Minister Brian Cowen said it contained a "shattering litany of abuse of children in care in this country over many decades".
He told Parliament the report was the gravest in the history of the country and contained "such horrific stories that it is difficult to know where to begin in talking about it".
This scary question remains: Would I be breaking Irelands new anti-blasphemy law by bringing this up?
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
Your comment makes it seem as if the agnostic is merely a person who lacks the courage to take a side in an important fight. It is as though you feel theists are perpetrating nothing but evil, and if we agnostics refuse to help defeat them by marching under your atheist banner, then we are the lowliest cowards imaginable. But my take is that both atheists and theists are usually reasonably good people. My agnosticism stems from a philosophy that I do not attempt to force myself to claim to know the answer to a question that I have no way of knowing the answer to ("belief"). I do not see that this is a character flaw on my part, or that it prevents me from speaking up against injustice, whether that injustice is perpetrated by theists, atheists, or even other agnostics. I am not as you say "hiding behind agnosticism". I am courageously admitting that I do not know and have no way of knowing the answer to the proposition "God exists." Unless you know something I don't, you don't know the answer either. To insist that we must take a stand on the proposition being true or false is not courageous. It is merely arrogant.
There is a new kind of science (or maybe it is just appplied mathematical philosophy) emerging, which so far does not operate by absolute proof, but rather, does the following: 1. It posits a set of operating principles or constraints for how a complex system will behave over time. 2. It creates computerized simulations of a system that operates according to those constraints. 3. It looks to see if that system generates emergent structure or behaviour that is strongly analogous with (isomorphic to) a real complex system. If there appears to be a strong similarity with traits of the real system, the set of operating principles is deemed to be a plausible explanatory mechanism for the emergent structure/behaviour.
The very complexity of the systems is what renders the generative mechanism plausible, in that it is combinatorically unlikely that the observed emergent regularities would "just happen" if the process constraints were not driving things in that direction.
These kinds of simulations, using the mathematics of game theory, and factoring in thermodynamics principles of systems trending toward energy efficiency, for example, can generate plausible explanations for social constraints that are found in human and animal societies, such as "Do unto others" and "thou shalt not kill" type moral rules, as well as rules stipulating payment of a tax/tythe to a hierarchical coordinating authority in exchange for protections and energy efficiencies offered by a functioning group.
My personal "belief" and it is only that at this stage, is that these simulable models will be able to produce plausible explanations for all of the significant, universal aspects of religious group and adherant behaviour, including the workings of authority and social guidance systems based on obedience to a god/powerful adult/king figure posited and taught as the source of wisdom and punishment reward.
That would not be a proof of the non-existence of "real, instantiated God", but it would be an explanation for all of the relevant related human behaviour, and thus would be support for the alternative hypothesis of "socially constructed God (God the utilitarian abstract concept, like money, or taxes, or shunning of the uncooperative)".
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I don't know that I see this approach as that radically separate from what science has always done. It's never been about "absolute proof", and every scientific fact is subject to further investigation.
So someone theorizes "this complex set of principles could lead to an observed phenomenon" and that is tested; fine. If that generates a useful model of a complex system, that's as good a starting point as any - though that model is still only a model, and is subject to further investigation just like any model used in science. The main danger - as with any science - is over-interpretation (especially since formal logic rejects a fallacy concluding a cause from an effect).
Yet, explaining every aspect of "how" things came to be as they are would say nothing about whether some sort of god was behind it all. Even showing that society would evolve to believe soemthing even were that belief false, would not prove the belief to be false.
I think you've acknowledged as much in your own post, so I guess while this is an interesting side note I don't see how it relates to the agnostic/atheist debate.
Because recently (granted in northern ireland which is controlled by the brits) immigrants were chased from their houses and forced to flee. And this follows years of troubles in which thousands were killed for belonging to a certain church.
Yeah, Ireland is different alright. How exactly?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
3: Profit!
That's different from all other religions how?
For most religions, the order of the first two steps is reversed.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
They should burn offenders at the stake! Or at the very least, bring back the ducking chair. Slashdot physicists: What makes witches float anyway?
Science is "natural philosophy". It is a subset of philosophy which is constrained to the natural world. This constraint is powerful, because natural evidence from the natural world can be objectively measured and requires no subjective agreements. In a sense it is the easiest branch of philosophy for this reason.
However the idea that the natural world is all of reality, and thus science is actually the study of everything (the doctrine of naturalism is one of these "extraordinary claims" that you mention, for which there is no extraordinary evidence.
One could -- and many did -- say the same things about the initial claims of quantum mechanics.
does this pave the way for the enforcement of sharia? what if I'm insulting mohamed, is that blasphemy?
Is agnostic/atheist an either/or, or is it a dimension. For example, which category would your put someone in who says "I believe it is overwhelmingly improbable that there is a god behind it all for these reasons: 1. Perfectly adequate alternative plausible explanations for the phenomenology usually associated with God. 2. Gratuitously excessive complexity of a system that includes not only the observed physical states and behaviours (which don't need an extra explanation for the way they are) but also the god thing itself and the very complex way, presumeably, that they interact.
3. Gross imprecision in definition of what god is or is like. For example, if god (and special parts of his domain, like heaven) is in any way physical, then he/it is not an explanation for anything, but merely a new subject for scientific investigation. If on the other hand God is not physical, yet not just a product of our collective imagination, then what rough category would one put him in, with respect to everything else? What properties do things in that category have? Are any of these properties measurable, verifiable in any way? Is there any room for this category in a rational ontology tied to observation?"
Would a person believing thus be an atheist or an agnostic? I would call them an atheist, even though they are not saying "There is no God" has the same necessary truth as "1 + 1 = 2", but rather are saying "There is no god" in the same way they would say "If I jump off this cliff I will fall to my death because of gravity and the fact that rocks are hard and pointy." Not necessarily true, but overwhelmingly probable.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Seems like your personal experiences do not fit your generalizations. Think about it. Before I forget, there are lots of local people who do not understand or care for democracy, human rights, etc. (In my country, a lot of these guys are also quite anti-american, probably because they believe that America is ruled by the "jews".) Unfortunately, your arguments/anectdotes sound a lot like theirs.
sig intentionally left blank
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic.htm - "many agnostics are "practical atheists,"".
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm - "There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man."
(And http://www.merriam-webster.com/ only gives your definition under "broadly" - according to them, there is no primary term that can be used for those who simply don't believe in God.)
I will admit that science is not tasked with the study of the "woo eee woo eee" world.
Domains that are only about subjective agreement are perhaps best suited to cocktail party repartee or the battlefield.
However, there are domains, such as religion, which have a subjective agreement component, and a utilitarian social organization component. The connection of the form and content of the typical subjective agreements in the domain to the social benefits can be studied scientifically, as can the question of how these forms of subjective agreement evolved.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Not exactly. I'm going to assume the folk you're referring to wish immigrants to adopt the traditions of their new land. That's not necessary, all that should be expected is that they respect them (and they should assume a mutual respect of their traditions as well, at least to the extent allowed by law -- no killing people and such). Much different than what I think you're understanding me to be saying.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
At best
However, the atheist simply points out that what you're eating is not, in fact, meat. And then bites. And let's face it, choosing to disbelieve all but one divinity is not the same thing as choosing meats for dinner, if your ethics have so little importance to you, I suggest you revise them.
Oh, and Sweden's quickly climbed to the top of the list of "Places for a Young Muslims to Travel and Find Young Girls to Rape".
much of the immigration moving in to Europe has no intention of ever integrating into the society around them
This is just the kind of unsubstantiated stuff the european far-right parties keep repeating.
sig intentionally left blank
Well, your unicorns and leprechauns aren't like any I have read about in folklore, but lest suppose they have all the qualities of the christian god that make him/her/it so impossible to prove or disprove. In that case, I have absolutely no problem saying they could exist. I am a 'odd unicorn agnostic'.
See, I am not trying to use it as a dodge to leave some chance for their existence in the argument. I am simply trying to be honest and scientific as possible. What can I say about invisible, intangible creatures? Absolutely nothing. They could exist, work out a good rigorous test and we will talk. The most accurate and honest thing to say is that you cannot say anything about said beings. A conventional unicorn was supposedly a living tangible thing. They didn't exist. They would have left traces and been detectable in some fashion, as most tangible creatures are. Lack of physical evidence for such a creature is pretty convincing. But God? Untouchable, unknowable, unmeasurable. Pretty hard to dream up a test that would confirm or deny existence of such a creature.
I keep trying to tell you that you are operating on faith because you have nothing to prove that god doesn't exist. That what religious faith is, a belief in something absent of fact or proof. You are willing to take a side in a debate that requires faith on way or another to participate.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I keep trying to tell you that you are operating on faith because you have nothing to prove that god doesn't exist. That what religious faith is, a belief in something absent of fact or proof. You are willing to take a side in a debate that requires faith on way or another to participate.
It seems that we are talking past one another, or engaging in some weird exercise in pedantry. You keep claiming that my position on the question of God's (or leprechauns, etc.) existence is somehow based in faith. That I believe in their nonexistence, based on nothing other than my personal desire for my position to be true. If this were the case, I would agree with you that I am somehow a faithful atheist.
All that having been said, my position is not based in faith. It is based in pragmatism. I do not, in fact, believe, have faith, hope, pray, desire, etc. that God does not exist. I simply assume it is so, just as I assume likewise that neither leprechauns nor unicorns nor Zeus nor ghosts nor astral power centers exist. There is no evidence for these things, therefore I do not give any credence to the idea that they might exist. This is very, very different from a faith-based position, in that were solid evidence for their existence to be presented, I would happily change my outlook.
My original point, several posts ago, is that I will agree with anyone who says that it is possible that God exists. It IS possible! It's just unlikely, to the degree that it's irrelevant! Even if there is some higher power responsible for the creation of the universe, the idea that said power cares a rat's ass about whom I sleep with or whether or not I cook the flesh of a beast in its mother's milk or whether or not I attend church every Sunday is preposterous.
The reason I take a firm stance on this, rather than some wishy-washy "well, I don't really know, no one really knows, that nutjob who wants to stone my sister for having sex before she's married MIGHT be on to something, or at least it's OK in his religion" is that I am deeply troubled by the acceptance of a belief system which encourages uncritical acceptance of dogma and discourages logical evaluation of evidence. In the end, if one is not buying in to all of the baggage of a religion, then what's the fucking point? Either you believe that your god or gods want you do do shit to keep them happy and give you eternal life, or you don't. A vague belief in some higher power is harmless, but it's also useless.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
is that I will agree with anyone who says that it is possible that God exists. It IS possible! It's just unlikely,
Then you aren't an Atheist. Dictionary.com: Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Sounds to me like you are just Agnostic if you are willing to accept that there could be a god. I think your primary complaint is dogma, not faith. Personally, I think that religion is great for people, and organized religion is the worst idea ever. Its only when it gets organized that it gets ugly.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
...but real life is far worse than V for Vendetta.