Blasphemy

[RESOLUTION]

Because when that false narrative gets you tax breaks and other privileges it needs to be called out

The original post was about blasphemy and about the freedom to say what they like.

JJ50Well-Known Member
Here in the UK the medieval blasphemy laws were eventually scrapped in 2008, far too late in the day, imo.

I think one should be permitted to say exactly what one likes about any god, especially as they are more than likely human creations.

When people can prove that anything about God is false then they could do that. You or others holding the views they do are not reasons or proof enough to stop tax breaks for faiths who use the money to help others.

My question is why say what you want (or waste your time saying it) about something you do not believe in?
Seems futile to me.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Because what's CRUCIAL is free speech. The need for free speech vastly outweighs any individual's desire to "not be offended".

Are you saying you do not have free speech? Haven't you been able to say what you want on here about blasphemy? So is this thread about free speech which affects everything or blasphemy.
As you can see you have been able to say what you want on all topics. A bit of a cop out your post. Because anyone can be offended on any topic where you disagree. The truth is that most people set out to offend others on subjects they do not agree with on religion which is futile and not necessary. There is no real argument when you are not asked or forced to believe.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I don't get it either. Then again, atheism often dovetails with anti-theism instead of simple apathy, which prompts folks to speak out against theism. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is. Some folks just like $#@%ing on other people's sacred things.

Hello,
Sometimes I wonder if they would ever see the bigger picture that this world would have been a darker place but for belief in god. If you take belief in good away you remove the barrier which stops
us becoming completely evil.

 

[exchemist]

I was talking to someone who thought the scraping of blasphemy laws in the UK gave them the freedom to say what they liked it doesn't

Obviously you could just Google the act I quoted FYD

Sure, we have a number of laws that stop people saying certain things, or require them to justify what they say.

However what I took issue with was not that but the claim you made that a lot of what was posted on this forum would break the law. I said I didn't believe that and, based on your inability to support your claim, I still don't.

 

[JJ50]

The original post was about blasphemy and about the freedom to say what they like.
When people can prove that anything about God is false then they could do that. You or others holding the views they do are not reasons or proof enough to stop tax breaks for faiths who use the money to help others.

My question is why say what you want (or waste your time saying it) about something you do not believe in?
Seems futile to me.

It is for people to prove god exists as there is no verifiable evidence to substantiate it does. Its existence is no more credible than the existence of any fairy tale character like fairies, for instance.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Cool. What do you think of the two statements:

1) it is true that gays should be allowed to marry

Where is it up to us what others choose to do? As for marriage it was ordained by God for a man and a woman. Is marriage a piece of paper or a holy investiture? Marriage in Gods eyes
is only two people man and woman becoming one body an holy investiture where the two become one in Gods eyes. People can make many forms of marriage but a gay couple can never be
married in the eyes of God just the law. That is there choice and we have no say in that matter.

2) it is true that women should be able to abort, if they choose so

Does the Father have the right to object about a woman aborting a baby?

It all seems so simple doesn't it. The truth is no one gets a say in a woman aborting her baby. We can agree or disagree about abortion itself. But the truth is that unless underage , raped or an abusive partner - did the woman have the choice and the ways to avoid the pregnancy? YES. So I would say if they chose not to take measures to avoid pregnancy then they have the baby or pay for the abortion.

If you think those statements are false, I hope you are coherent, and you, so as your co believers, stop talking about those topics soon, too.

Ciao

- viole

As you can see you assumed and wrote the above with your mind having been made up/ But the answers were not as you expected. Not all believers are in the accusations area some of us actually know what we believe and understand why marriage and abortion are issues only for those outside the life with God.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I am sure you have been told why on many, many occasions. But just in case you truly haven't, and really don't know:

Things are said because a great many people DO believe in insufficiently evidenced propositions like gods, and a good number of those people take their beliefs so seriously that they attempt to convince others. It is in that attempt to convince that they run up against people who aren't going to believe their wild stories (like me). When the people who do not believe end up realizing that the believers are letting their religious doctrine inform their public and even governmental actions, well then there is seen a HUGE problem in that fact and this situation must necessarily be combated by anyone who values freedom for the masses. Masses who are not all "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Hindu" or "Jewish."

Did I miss something?
As far as I am aware this thread has been about Blasphemy and not a personal venting area for anyones individual beliefs about others.

Do you really believe anyone is interested in what you have said about yourself, A-Vestigal Mote ? Do you believe anything you have said has added or taken away to evidence of belief or unbelief in God? Well your post has very little to add in any way to the threads topic or to anyone with faith or unbelief. I think you need to reel in your own ideas and ask yourself what 'freedom' you are talking about before you display them again on a topic. Maybe start a thread and bring your issues forward to be discussed.

 

[RESOLUTION]

It is for people to prove god exists

There is no such thing. It is an argument which works two ways. You prove he doesn't exist. Your the one claiming he does not exist.
Faith is personal those who believe have their own reasons they do not have to prove to you or anyone what they know. The thing is you have nothing not even personal beliefs to support you.

as there is no verifiable evidence to substantiate

What is sustainable evidence? The believer has their own sustainable evidence how do you propose to show they don't.
What evidence do you have which is verifiable or substantial when it comes to proof he does not exist? Catch 22 the fact is you cannot ask for something which you yourself cannot provide.
It is amazing how many people believe proof for atheism or theism exist outside personal evidence. But even atheism has no personal evidence unlike the believer.

it does. Its existence is no more credible than the existence of any fairy tale character like fairies, for instance.

Atheism at it's worst where there is no real argument just a mock up and a comparison which is not even worth thinking about fairies and God nothing resembles each others.

 

[exchemist]

It is for people to prove god exists as there is no verifiable evidence to substantiate it does. Its existence is no more credible than the existence of any fairy tale character like fairies, for instance.

No it isn't. The impossibility of either proving or disproving the existence of a god is one of the oldest chestnuts in philosophy. Neither atheists nor religious believers are under any obligation to waste their time on such a futile endeavour.

The issues are to do with people's personal views on the likelihood of the proposition and are as much aesthetic metaphysics as anything else, e.g. does one think the physical world is all there is, and so forth.

 

[JJ50]

No it isn't. The impossibility of either proving or disproving the existence of a god is one of the oldest chestnuts in philosophy. Neither atheists nor religious believers are under any obligation to waste their time on such a futile endeavour.

The issues are to do with people's personal views on the likelihood of the proposition and are as much aesthetic metaphysics as anything else, e.g. does one think the physical world is all there is, and so forth.

I certainly hope the physical world and universe is all that exists and there is no god or afterlife. I wonder if it will ever be proved one way or the other in the future?

 

[Darkforbid]

However what I took issue with was not that but the claim you made that a lot of what was posted on this forum would break the law. I said I didn't believe that and, based on your inability to support your claim, I still don't.

Sure, we have a number of laws that stop people saying certain things, or require them to justify what they say.

However what I took issue with was not that but the claim you made that a lot of what was posted on this forum would break the law. I said I didn't believe that and, based on your inability to support your claim, I still don't.

"I know there is within the UK the belief we have free speech, we don't! Most of what you're posted today breaks section 4a of the public order act"

Well how is it my fault you don't comprehend English?

 

[exchemist]

I certainly hope the physical world and universe is all that exists and there is no god or afterlife. I wonder if it will ever be proved one way or the other in the future?

Physicalism is one worldview, certainly.

But I don't see how such a thing could ever be proved or disproved, for exactly the same reasons as the god issue.

 

[exchemist]

However what I took issue with was not that but the claim you made that a lot of what was posted on this forum would break the law. I said I didn't believe that and, based on your inability to support your claim, I still don't.


"I know there is within the UK the belief we have free speech, we don't! Most of what you're posted today breaks section 4a of the public order act"

Well how is it my fault you don't comprehend English?

OK fair enough, so it is just JJ50's remarks that you claim contravene section 4a of the UK's Public Order Act. Right?

A synopsis of this section of the Act is as follows (from this website:Section 4A (International Harrassment, Alarm or Distress)) :
QUOTE
One of the more common offences under the Public Order Act is the offence under Section 4A of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress. If you are accused of this offence, the Prosecution must prove that:

• You have used threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, towards another person;
• intended to cause them harassment, alarm or distress; and
• that you have caused that other person harassment, alarm or distress.

Section 4A offences are frequently charged for incidents that take place in the street, often when people have become abusive or argumentative, but there have been no threats of using unlawful violence. The offence is very similar to the Section 4 offence of intentional threatening behaviour, as well as the less serious Section 5 offence.

The offence of intentional harassment under the Public Order Act is different to the offence of harassment. The Public Order Act offence refers to a single incident where you have intentionally caused distress or alarm to another person.

The offence under Section 4A of the Public Order Act is a summary only offence, which means it can only be heard by the Magistrates Court. The offence can carry up to 6 months imprisonment......
UNQUOTE

So what remarks by JJ50 would contravene this, in your view? As I say, I don't believe any of them would.

 

[JJ50]

OK fair enough, so it is just JJ50's remarks that you claim contravene section 4a of the UK's Public Order Act. Right?

A synopsis of this section of the Act is as follows (from this website:Section 4A (International Harrassment, Alarm or Distress)) :
QUOTE
One of the more common offences under the Public Order Act is the offence under Section 4A of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress. If you are accused of this offence, the Prosecution must prove that:

• You have used threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, towards another person;
• intended to cause them harassment, alarm or distress; and
• that you have caused that other person harassment, alarm or distress.

Section 4A offences are frequently charged for incidents that take place in the street, often when people have become abusive or argumentative, but there have been no threats of using unlawful violence. The offence is very similar to the Section 4 offence of intentional threatening behaviour, as well as the less serious Section 5 offence.

The offence of intentional harassment under the Public Order Act is different to the offence of harassment. The Public Order Act offence refers to a single incident where you have intentionally caused distress or alarm to another person.

The offence under Section 4A of the Public Order Act is a summary only offence, which means it can only be heard by the Magistrates Court. The offence can carry up to 6 months imprisonment......
UNQUOTE

So what remarks by JJ50 would contravene this, in your view? As I say, I don't believe any of them would.

Nor do I.

 

[Darkforbid]

OK fair enough, so it is just JJ50's remarks that you claim contravene section 4a of the UK's Public Order Act. Right?

A synopsis of this section of the Act is as follows (from this website:Section 4A (International Harrassment, Alarm or Distress)) :
QUOTE
One of the more common offences under the Public Order Act is the offence under Section 4A of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress. If you are accused of this offence, the Prosecution must prove that:

• You have used threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, towards another person;
• intended to cause them harassment, alarm or distress; and
• that you have caused that other person harassment, alarm or distress.

Section 4A offences are frequently charged for incidents that take place in the street, often when people have become abusive or argumentative, but there have been no threats of using unlawful violence. The offence is very similar to the Section 4 offence of intentional threatening behaviour, as well as the less serious Section 5 offence.

The offence of intentional harassment under the Public Order Act is different to the offence of harassment. The Public Order Act offence refers to a single incident where you have intentionally caused distress or alarm to another person.

The offence under Section 4A of the Public Order Act is a summary only offence, which means it can only be heard by the Magistrates Court. The offence can carry up to 6 months imprisonment......
UNQUOTE

So what remarks by JJ50 would contravene this, in your view? As I say, I don't believe any of them would.

So what remarks by JJ50 would contravene this, in your view? As I say, I don't believe any of them would.

Really you're asking what now deleted remarks would contravene the act I mentioned?

I'll summarise it for you 'the claim that Jesus was homosexual and that God copulated with Mary, chastisement of Christians for being unpleasant while denigrating Christ and the Virgin'

If you really feel that's fine put those claims on a t-shirt go for a walk around a English Town and see how long it is before you're looking at a cell wall, or picking yourself off the Pavement

 

[Darkforbid]

Nor do I.

The why has the post been deleted

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Self-righteous babble. If you're going to complain about 'unpleasant' people whilst proclaiming about how you once gloated over another human being's death then I have zero sympathy for you. I think the unpleasantness may be more mutual than the OP admits.

And you're entirely free to give your opinions about whatever you want. Just don't be surprised when people stop taking you seriously or don't bother sticking around to hear what you have to say altogether.

So, since you came back at me so opposed to what I said, I suppose I can just ask: Do you feel it is your place to tell people how they should feel when a particular person dies? Do you feel that anyone should care what you have to say about what another person feels or how they react when another person dies? If someone doesn't care, is that a problem for you?

What is borderline disgusting is the double standard. Were I to say anything even half-way as inflammatory about Hindu, Jewish or Islamic beliefs (because some Hindu/Jewish/Muslim guy who lives down the road said something mean about gay people one time) I would no doubt find myself banned maybe even facing criminal charges in some countries. But here you can say disgusting things about Christ and the Virgin Mary while feigning being a defender of the downtrodden and more than likely get nothing but thumbs up.

Are you sure you are thinking clearly? Whose double-standard is this? You think I give a crap what anyone says about any of those religions? I think any beliefs any of them hold that are not reflected in reality are crap. Hinduism contains some crap, Judaism contains some crap, Islam contains a bunch of crap. Again - who are you saying is holding a double standard here? This has nothing to do with this thread, as far as I can see. It just sounds like you are really angry about people speaking poorly of your particular brand of fiction, and it also sounds like you would really like it if criminal charges were to be brought against people who blaspheme against Christ or the Virgin Mary. Is that how you feel? If so, thank goodness you are in the minority of people with such detrimental insecurities.

Had the OP simply stated that she didn't agree with Christian sexual ethics that would have been one thing. But that not what was posted. Mocking Christ and the Virgin Mary isn't a valid criticism of anything, it's simply being boorish. The big irony is that the thread in question is predicated on the accusation that Christians are 'unpleasant'. Try looking in the mirror sometime.

But a person being "unpleasant" is pretty subjective, isn't it? You may find atheists who challenge your faith "boorish" and "unpleasant", but I would probably find them to be entirely enjoyable conversational companions. Doesn't that seem a correct/fair assessment of the situation? Whoever the original poster finds unpleasant is who she finds unpleasant - and with a good number of the population being Christian in the U.S., it certainly means that a good number of the unpleasant people, from anyone's perspective, are Christians. Doesn't that also stand to reason? I think it simply doesn't help that Christians then tend to think that "God is on their side" and that they are in the right as long as they are looking at something "as a Christian." And that's probably where a lot of the stereotyping of "unpleasantness" comes from. I know I have certainly seen my share.

Also - you asked me to look in the mirror. Who ever said I felt myself a "pleasant" person? I don't know (nor do I really care) who finds me unpleasant. Good for them, I guess?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So what remarks by JJ50 would contravene this, in your view? As I say, I don't believe any of them would.

Really you're asking what now deleted remarks would contravene the act I mentioned?

I'll summarise it for you 'the claim that Jesus was homosexual and that God copulated with Mary, chastisement of Christians for being unpleasant while denigrating Christ and the Virgin'

If you really feel that's fine put those claims on a t-shirt go for a walk around a English Town and see how long it is before you're looking at a cell wall, or picking yourself off the Pavement

I think stating any of this is entirely fine. Wouldn't bother me one bit.

And I still can't tell - are you FOR all this punishment you feel would be doled out to people who brandish these anti-religious opinions? Or are you against it? Do you feel that the people who put someone "[on] the Pavement" for wearing a T-shirt with this stuff on it are in the right, or would they be in the wrong? Also, you do realize that not all places are like "English Towns", right?

 

[Cooky]

I certainly hope the physical world and universe is all that exists and there is no god or afterlife. I wonder if it will ever be proved one way or the other in the future?

It will be proved that information sharing is a universal, and fundamental law of the universe. The relationship between that and the fact that so many people believe in a higher power will ultimately prove the existance of the mind of "God". IMO.

 

[JJ50]

It will be proved that information sharing is a universal, and fundamental law of the universe. The relationship between that and the fact that so many people believe in a higher power will ultimately prove the existance of the mind of "God". IMO.

Just because many people believe something to be true doesn't mean it is. At one time people thought the world was flat.