Topic: Freedom of speech

[Twelfth Man]

Freedom of Speech unless you get shouted down and abused by the in-crowd.

In-crowd? cheap. Shouting down? If your position is strong. Water off a duck's back. It isn't. So the jibes.

[Conocinico]

His (evidence-free) defence of the Taliban was absurd. I wouldn't normally dignify his bizarre (and predictable) comments with a considered response. However, if you'd bothered to read on, you'd have seen I did quote the Taliban themselves on why they destroyed Bamiyan (ie for religious reasons to do with their faith).

For myself, yes, I consider the Taliban to be a fascist movement. Islamo-Fascist if you like. The idea that you can "split the difference" between what they say and what the democratic West says and "come to the truth" is contemptible. 

LondonRapLondon didn't mention what the Taliban said. You did. Look! It's in your first paragraph. So it's you, not LondonRapLondon, who are in agreement with the Taliban in this instance.

As VdM said LondonRapLondon was just relaying what he'd heard off some Afghan guy. It's total bollocks of course, but it doesn't make him a defender of Fascism. That's a scurrilous accusation and it's insults like those that, I've noticed, you're far too keen to throw around.

[jooneyisdagod]

Absolutely.

I didn't see anyone calling you a racist, or a homophobe, or an Islamophobe to brand you with tags that carry a heavy opprobrium. Instead, you had numerous people disagreeing with you and taking you on the points you made. That's exactly what freedom is. No one actually shouted you down unless by shouted you down you mean took your posts and engaged with them.

[bigbonedrawky]

I see the usual suspects are at it 

[Yorkykopite]

Nothing wrong with "vehemence" Tom. It's a good quality.

The whole idea of an 'in-crowd' and 'out-crowd' is a bit of a red herring I think. There are no solid blocs. It all depends on what we're discussing. There are certain posters who tend to align with each other, it's true, but that's not unusual when politics are being discussed. But I don't think it's a sign of an 'in-crowd'. Sometimes folks end up in a majority, other times in a minority. I'm pretty much on my own, say, when it comes to defending the Coalition invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban regime. On Charlie Hebdo there were a few dissenting voices from the majority (who believed in free speech and the right to offend people's ideas) but not many - which isn't surprising.   

[Max_powers]

To use the Charlie Hebdo example, being in favour of free speech and against causing unnecessary offense don't actually have to be mutually exclusive. Which was actually the point I was making.

They are not mutually exclusive, but being in favour of free speech and thinking that people shouldn't have the right to cause unnecessary offence are mutually exclusive. (under usual caveats like shouting fire in theatre etc)

Also who determines what offence is necessary and unnecessary? One of my favourite films is Last Temptation of Christ and that film caused offence to some Christians. In fact a theatre in France was burned down. So should all movies that cause offence not exist or are inherently bad.

I also come from Indian background and in India religious mobs attack movie theatres using the "offence" excuse for pretty wide variety of reasons. A film has a lesbian relationship? A film questions if god actually exist in light hearted manner? those are good enough reason for people to attack movie theatres and intimidate movie goers.

People will get offended by some pretty childish shit but that should in no way affect how our society functions and our laws are made.

[Yorkykopite]

"Calcified" - now that is a nice word!

I don't think atheists are any more aggressive than believers - on these boards I mean. More irreverent, for sure, and more ironic. But you'd expect that. There's room for neither in religion.

This too. The Charlie Hebdo journalists were atheists. They were massacred by men who believed profoundly in Islam. People are pissed off with that. Rightly so. Just as they are pissed off when the Pope joined the argument and said blasphemy should be outlawed.

[electricghost]

Just as they are pissed off when the Pope joined the argument and said blasphemy should be outlawed.

He is joined also in that sentiment by the head of the Russian Orthodox church

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/25/us-france-shooting-russia-patriarch-idUSKBN0KY0RJ20150125

"Today, in saying 'no' to terrorism, killings, violence, we also say 'no' to the inexplicable drive by a certain group of people to deride religious feelings"

[Corkboy]

I agree with you. Especially about calcified. I'd make one comment only: atheists are better when they're being irreverent and ironic than when they're being dogmatic.

I would like to see some examples of atheists on here being dogmatic.

[Ken-Obi]

So, should we outlaw religion or uphold the freedom of thought?

[macca888]

So, should we outlaw religion or uphold the freedom of thought?

I think we should invent the religion of freedom. Just for the tax breaks.

[SP]

I think we should invent the religion of freedom. Just for the tax breaks.

The American neo-cons have. Bastards.

[Dr. Beaker]

If the religious types want to put themselves in the 'don't mock the afflicted' category, that's alright with me - but they have then unmistakably put themselves down as intellectual second-class citizens.

[macca888]

Anyway, all this talk of cults and in crowds, I was going to play a more obvious song like "I'm in with the in crowd." Then I realised I'm probably more like the kid in school with the gammy leg and pigeon feet at PE lessons; neither the in crowd or the out crowd would pick me to be on their footy team until there was nobody else to pick from. So I decided to dedicate an ironic song to religion.



<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/8hPoOOhXg-k" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/8hPoOOhXg-k</a>

[zero zero]

So, should we outlaw religion or uphold the freedom of thought?

Bit of an oxymoron there.

No we shouldn't outlaw religion in the privacy of people's minds, homes and places of worship. Religion has no place, however, in the state, our education systems (in the form of Creationism, for example) and shouldn't be afforded any special protection from being questioned.

[Sir Harvest Fields]

Am i allowed to be abused because i dont believe in a god?

[Dr. Beaker]

Doc, I'm not religious.

Your getting a bit above yer station, mate. That was aimed at the pope.

[electricghost]

Am i allowed to be abused because i dont believe in a god?

Yes, you are allowed to be told you deserve to be tortured forever after you die because of it.

[zero zero]

Maybe TW is right: maybe I just mean more manners would be good.

And with that, I'm bowing out. Thanks guys -- I enjoyed the last few posts.

I'm just glad to see that the "Great Martyrdom of tomred" had a happy ending.

[zero zero]

But did it have any effect?

You seemed happy, so yes. The trauma you were put through when "the atheists' clarified their position(s) seems a world away from:

Freedom of Speech unless you get shouted down and abused by the in-crowd.

Which you agreed with absolutely.

[Corkboy]

I would like to see some examples of atheists on here being dogmatic.

[Corkboy]

Sorry Corkboy, I'm exercising my freedom not to engage with you. It's for the best.

I love this thread.

"You atheists are being dogmatic".
"Please provide examples".
"No".

Freedom of speech, eh?

[jooneyisdagod]

So, should we outlaw religion or uphold the freedom of thought?

I can't think of a single atheist that holds the view that religion should be outlawed. Not one. And it goes without saying that neither do I hold that ghastly idea.

[macca888]

Am i allowed to be abused because i dont believe in a god?

I think you're a bit old to be an altar boy mate, but give the local church a ring anyway.

[Ken-Obi]

I think we should invent the religion of freedom. Just for the tax breaks.

Macca for prez!

Bit of an oxymoron there.

No we shouldn't outlaw religion in the privacy of people's minds, homes and places of worship. Religion has no place, however, in the state, our education systems (in the form of Creationism, for example) and shouldn't be afforded any special protection from being questioned.

Agreed.

[Marcel]

I love this thread.

"You atheists are being dogmatic".
"Please provide examples".
"No".

Freedom of speech, eh?

 

It's almost as if he just made it up.

[SP]

I love this thread.

"You atheists are being dogmatic".
"Please provide examples".
"No".

Freedom of speech, eh?

To be fair to him, dogmatic does have other usages besides the religious one, and it can be used for stubbornly held beliefs. It is not much of a stretch to view your religious beliefs, or rather lack of them, as dogmatic.

I'd tend to view a lot of the attitudes in this topic as a zealous application of Occam's Razor rather than dogma.

[Corkboy]

To be fair to him, dogmatic does have other usages besides the religious one, and it can be used for stubbornly held beliefs. It is not much of a stretch to view your religious beliefs, or rather lack of them, as dogmatic.

It really is a stretch. Dogma is sticking to a belief when the evidence, or lack thereof suggests otherwise. Atheism is simply an assessment of the evidence. It's the opposite of dogma. That's why Tomred couldn't point to any examples in this thread. Can you?

[Corkboy]

In fact, that position was mirrored by Xabi Gerrard when he complained about "shouting down" and "abuse" in this forum. I asked him for examples and I got told to read the (53 page) Hebdo thread. No specific examples. In fact, several posters agreed but none offered evidence.

[macca888]

In fact, that position was mirrored by Xabi Gerrard when he complained about "shouting down" and "abuse" in this forum. I asked him for examples and I got told to read the (53 page) Hebdo thread. No specific examples. In fact, several posters agreed but none offered evidence.

The posters you have referred to have a widely held belief without offering examples or evidence. It's almost like a relig... ahh fuck it.

[LondonRapLondon]

It really is a stretch. Dogma is sticking to a belief when the evidence, or lack thereof suggests otherwise. Atheism is simply an assessment of the evidence. It's the opposite of dogma. That's why Tomred couldn't point to any examples in this thread. Can you?

I always feel Atheists feel insecure due to their repetition of slogans such as that.

[LondonRapLondon]

I agree there's nothing wrong with vehemence, but I think if you're vehement all the time, on a personal level you become a bit shrill and boring. That's a general statement by the way and not directed at you. When you have a number of people ganging up on one poster and they are all being vehement, it can become a bit mob-like.

I accept that the blocs shift, but I also agree that on some issues they have calcified. One of those is religion, and I'd make the observation that some of the people professing to be atheists on here are quite set in their views and aggressive in how they argue them.

To use the Charlie Hebdo example, being in favour of free speech and against causing unnecessary offense don't actually have to be mutually exclusive. Which was actually the point I was making.

Some interesting points and observations.

[SP]

I always feel Atheists feel insecure due to their repetition of slogans such as that.

As opposed to having the crutch of a supernatural being for which there is no evidence?

Atheists are far from a single amorphous group.

[TepidT2O]

I always feel Atheists feel insecure due to their repetition of slogans such as that.

It's not insecure to rely on evidence is it?

It surely more insecure to rely on blind faith?  Each to their own I suppose, but we don't rely on blind faith for medicine, engineering etc... We rely on evidence.  Seems odd to throw that out of the window.

[LondonRapLondon]

If there's one thing more mental than people claiming international Jewry is secretly controlling the world, it's people like you that assume and accuse people with different opinions to you of believing such things, even if they said absolutely nothing of the sort.

LondonRapLondon said nothing that could be construed as such, so why bring it up? You were at it the other day, stating that Iran claims "the Jews had it coming" (regarding the holocaust), which isn't true.

Fair enough if you've lost the plot and really believe that anyone that holds a different opinion to you is an anti-semite that believes Jews control the world, but do you really need to ruin some decent debates for the rest of us?

Thanks Xabi Gerrard.

[KiNki]

i thought i'd add this story to the mix.

The first woman bishop in the history of the Church of England was today officially consecrated - but the ceremony at York Minster was disrupted by a protesting vicar.
The Reverend Libby Lane became the Bishop of Stockport in a service conducted by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu.
The historic event was briefly interrupted by the appearance of an ultra-conservative priest, Rev Paul Williamson, shouting 'Not in the Bible' as she was presented to the congregation.


Should she

a) follow the popes advice and respond by twatting the offensive vicar.
b) Concede that her appointment is controversial if it is the case that its 'not in the bible' and that the male chauvinist vicar has a point and to avoid needlessly antagonising and upsetting male chauvinists we should avoid appointing women in roles otherwise specified in the bible.
c) carry on regardless

over to you 

[LondonRapLondon]

As opposed to having the crutch of a supernatural being for which there is no evidence?

Atheists are far from a single amorphous group.

Where is your evidence for your Atheism?

And don't be too quick to say there's no Atheist crutch - the constant prattle about it being linked to reasoning and science is precisely that. Insecurity central

[TepidT2O]

Where is your evidence for your Atheism?

And don't be too quick to say there's no Atheist crutch - the constant prattle about it being linked to reasoning and science is precisely that. Insecurity central

There is no evidence for any god.

So, the fall back position is that there probably isn't a god.  That's not to say there never will be, but it seems hugely unlikely given the total lack of evidence currently.

Lack of evidence is the key.

[Max_powers]

Where is your evidence for your Atheism?

And don't be too quick to say there's no Atheist crutch - the constant prattle about it being linked to reasoning and science is precisely that. Insecurity central

Ever heard of russell's teapot?

[LondonRapLondon]

i thought i'd add this story to the mix.

The first woman bishop in the history of the Church of England was today officially consecrated - but the ceremony at York Minster was disrupted by a protesting vicar.
The Reverend Libby Lane became the Bishop of Stockport in a service conducted by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu.
The historic event was briefly interrupted by the appearance of an ultra-conservative priest, Rev Paul Williamson, shouting 'Not in the Bible' as she was presented to the congregation.


Should she

a) follow the popes advice and respond by twatting the offensive vicar.
b) Concede that her appointment is controversial if it is the case that its 'not in the bible' and that the male chauvinist vicar has a point and to avoid needlessly antagonising and upsetting male chauvinists we should avoid appointing women other than roles specified in the bible.
c) carry on regardless

over to you

I think the bigger discussion is, is it intellectually honest and morally correct for secular outsiders to force a particular Church to go against it's teachings in order to placate secularists and ingratiate itself with the wider public.

I think a religious establishment loses a lot of credibility when it begins to change just for these reasons. When a religion stops being an organic whole that's when issues of hypocrisy and inconsistency arise.