General Discussion > The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion
Abolish blasphemy laws
Nicoletta Mithra:
--- Quote from: Lyn Farel on 21 Jun 2014, 12:27 ---I think what Orange said points at what I find dangerous with such laws. They are extremely vague and entirely depend on what people call offense, defamation, world views, and how all of this offends their world view to a point to disturb public peace. I think you will find as many interpretation of said laws as you will find people being offended over anything.
Like Muhammad caricatures... :roll:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 21 Jun 2014, 10:38 ---I really think that people opposed to modern 'blasphemy laws' just want an excuse to slander and defame people and their world views, because they themselves think them silly (or 'evil') or simply because they lack the capacity to envision to challange someone in debate without taking refuge in slander and defamation.
--- End quote ---
That's really probable.
On the other hand it's rather easy to say that. It could also be really easy to say that some religious people support those laws because they are just the same way unable to debate without taking refuge behind censorship and blasphemy laws....
We can go really far with that kind of suppositions.
--- End quote ---
I dunno about other countries, but in Germany law professionals define exactly what is defamation and/or slander and application of laws follows these definitions. So, no, it's not a matter of people feeling offended about anything.
So... I don't think that you can reasonably claim that people hide behind these laws if they can't hide behind them to evade debate, really. Also, factually speaking, at least here in Germany, the big religious institutions don't.
--- Quote from: Desiderya on 21 Jun 2014, 12:30 ---@Nicoletta:
I think it's perfectly sane to call people like this naive, stupid or simply ignorant on this basis, quite depending of the magnitude of the (objectively) shown disconnection to reality. It is just much, much more difficult to call out certain religious beliefs for being balls-out-crazy than it is with other beliefs (such as popular conspiracy theories - you'll find remarkable similarities), simply due to the fact that this is religious, and therefore somehow sacrosanct.
Calling for euthanasia is something else since it doesn't really matter why you want to euthanize a group of people, because regardless of the reasons, this is actually a crime. Also why are we talking about euthanizing people in the first place?
--- End quote ---
Actually wanting to euthanize someone isn't a crime (there is no thought policing in Germany). Calling for it is. If you want to ask why we talk this in the first place, ask Silas.
Also, it's interesting that you seem to ascribe to science a primacy in getting to know what is 'objectively true' and where there actually is a '(objective) disconnect to reality'. I come to find people that do so quite ignorant of other approaches to reality, approaches that actually have a longer history and work for more people practically.
Believe me it is quite difficult to call people out on the blind spots in regard to secular world views based on naturalism and scientism. Nowadays science is quite often taken to be as sacrosanct by people in the internetcommunity as they accuse the religions of trying to maintain themselves by 'blasphemy laws'.
While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.
Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.
In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.
Publius Valerius:
I havent read all comments in this thread so I just Leroy Jenkins into this thread.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 21 Jun 2014, 15:16 ---While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.
--- End quote ---
About "are much more open to debate and critique." Do you have a link for? I mean really?* Sorry Mithra. I have to tell you .... you are wrong. So I re-word your comment: "While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are AS SHITTY AS those followers of naturalistic scientism.****
Here I have to go off topic. Me personally I see it like Fredrick the great: Religion ist ein Aberglaube/religion is a superstition. Which those not mean this superstition is not politically useful. :D
For him was it easy to be religious tolerant, because he believed in none of them, so there is no ranking or fostering between those religions (Lutheran, catholic, etc..). And thats how I see it too. Iam so far away of those religions, that I even dont understand most of them.** Secondly as Fredrick mention, religion can be useful. And who am I, that I would go "atheist on their ass"? Iam far to much an non-Tim-Tebow, that I see it my mission in life to fix this problem. :P
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 20 Jun 2014, 19:23 ---He stated this in a talkshow, where he claimed that belief in God is a delusion and a dangerous one at that (he said both quite publicly in The God Delusion and The Root of All Evil). Asked what should be done with theists that don't want to give up on their 'delusion' he said something along the lines of (I paraphrase): As they are a potential dangerous to society, they should be placed in psychiatric institution and treated for their delusion there. Anyhow, his characterisation of theism as 'dangerous delusion' really does implicate such a treatment already.
That said, I'll try to dig up that talkshow for you. I follow him as he think he's a good educater of the general public about scince - although unfortunately he does that less and less - and simply a horrible example of a scientist thinking that he's more elegible to talk about philosophy (of religion) and theology then philosophers and scientists. Still, I'm not doing an index of what he said nor am I aiming to build an archive of Darwkins. So, I might not find it.
--- End quote ---
He mostly speaks of the dangers of religions. Dangers which still exist like, doomsday-predictions***, destruction of knowledge, human mutilation, exclusion or limitation of people, selection of rights and duties etc.... Which I have to say is a problem. Me personally Iam to much of an egalitarist and economist that I buy in such things (thats why I always have those skin tickling when someone is a elitist, racist, or tries to split humans and their rights/choices/tools/braincells/etc... in any shape or form (*looks angrily at the old slavery discussion and thinks: I should had wrote "are you a moron or racist"*).
As for me, as I said above. I see a lot of problems in religions, BUT HERE IS THE THING. There are bigger problems out there. As you and others already mention, hunger, clean water, education, etc... As that I would waist my time on such a thing. This so far below of my to-do-list, that I dont even see the need to rework the german blasphemy laws. I get why Bloodbird puts so much work in it... but again HERE IS ANOTHER THING: Your work should not just be to explain why it is important to you, BUT ALSO WHY IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO ME! And here is where you fail, as well as Bill Maher and Dawkins. I see the problem, that we make a "special snowflake for religion", but it is important? And if the answer for you is yes, fine. But it doesnt mean it is for me yes.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 21 Jun 2014, 15:16 ---In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.
--- End quote ---
I reword: "In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger and problems than from some religious nutters."
Moves back into the shadows.....
______________
*I could tell you stories about three white-power-stooges, which spitted choices along of skin colors. And the reaction of those people.... Instate of asking what they have done wrong, they double down on stupid (Example: Gottis post were he tried to insult me with a Adam Sandler movie scene *facepalm*). Ehm... or the other time were two people have try to sell me that Heinrich=Nazi, but not the racist crab which one of them wrote to explain REAL WORLD SLAVERY. Somehow, his/her real-world racism wasnt a problem; It was seen from this person as a non-issue, but a last name Heinrich was a problem? So no, I dont see any positive or negative correlation between: "More open to debate and critique(1)" and "religion and/or Atheism(2)".
** Even my own Lutheran. I mean, I was raise up in a protestant west-german/rhineland enclave, which was more Prussian then the Prussian themselves. Even the local football/soccer was/is named Borussia. *facepalm*
*** Which always go hand in hand, that worldly laws are dont matter. Which implies even a bigger and more destructive nature of religions, and he even dont mention this. :D
**** A good example would be Thunderf00t (which I love). But even he has his moment where I thing: What? Like his stone tick. Someone which buys a stone for two hundred bucks to fight headaches form his small bed-commode/chest of drawers in his sleep, believes also in a religion. I call it: "The magic stone fix me when I sleep religion". :D
Lyn Farel:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 21 Jun 2014, 15:16 ---I dunno about other countries, but in Germany law professionals define exactly what is defamation and/or slander and application of laws follows these definitions. So, no, it's not a matter of people feeling offended about anything.
So... I don't think that you can reasonably claim that people hide behind these laws if they can't hide behind them to evade debate, really. Also, factually speaking, at least here in Germany, the big religious institutions don't.
--- End quote ---
Well yes, if you say so... I have no knowledge of how it works in other countries. Even if I have difficulties to believe you.
Trials in justice always implies for both parties to curb the laws to one's own defense and resorting to texts and then proving that said texts fit to your case and prove you in your right. The more vague it is, the more random it becomes, thus why we constantly have law acts and edicts made everyday by the government that gets amendments, again and again, until they either become more precise (the good way) or until they lose all their accuracy for private interests / politics sake.
However I will freely grant that I am rather attached to my country's tradition protecting the right to satirical pieces above all else, and while I would be tempted to say like you that we perfectly do the difference between satire and slander, I will refrain because I perfectly know that it's not, as seen in the Muhammad caricatures case, among other things like censored adds involving negative portrayal of the Church.
And I will also admit that memetic bullying of beliefs, minorities, or else, is worrying, but is unfortunately nothing new.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 21 Jun 2014, 15:16 ---
Actually wanting to euthanize someone isn't a crime (there is no thought policing in Germany). Calling for it is. If you want to ask why we talk this in the first place, ask Silas.
Also, it's interesting that you seem to ascribe to science a primacy in getting to know what is 'objectively true' and where there actually is a '(objective) disconnect to reality'. I come to find people that do so quite ignorant of other approaches to reality, approaches that actually have a longer history and work for more people practically.
Believe me it is quite difficult to call people out on the blind spots in regard to secular world views based on naturalism and scientism. Nowadays science is quite often taken to be as sacrosanct by people in the internetcommunity as they accuse the religions of trying to maintain themselves by 'blasphemy laws'.
While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.
Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.
In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.
--- End quote ---
Well yeah, followers of Scientism are all fanatics, but in the case of religions, that's just a "fringe".
Desiderya:
Nicoletta, I do not see the fallacy in ascribing science the primacy when it comes to questions such as 'how old is the Earth'. It is the only method to generate evidence based, verifiable results we have. I do not have to believe in them in the same manner that I do not have to believe in Father Tesla when trying to charge my phone.
Nicoletta Mithra:
There's a difference though in ascribing primacy in how to generate results and how to generate truth. Results don't imply truth, they only imply that something works, which doesn't have necessitate truth at all.
There's a difference between methodological and ontological validity.
All that science says is that given the methodological decisions made, the axioms of science (e.g.: inductive logic works), the theories that are presupposed and the data one did gather empirically, that earth is older than 5000 years. It's not saying that Earth is in some absolute sense older than that. Scientific results are not at all verifiable (something that Popper already showed and even worse, since then it has been shown that scientific knowledge isn't even strictly falsifiable), because they depend on the axiomatic basis of Science. For the results (as in scientific theories) to be verifiable, the axioms need to be verifiable. Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works. It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.
It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.
As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).
Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version