Criminalisation of Blasphemy: is it equal to criminalising proselytism?

[firedragon]

I guess I'm an apologist for secularism? Don't bite the hand that feeds you bro, without secularism we wouldn't have forums like this to debate in!

Haha. Mate. Thats one of the most uneducated, unresearched, nonsenses I have heard in a long time. I never expected such nonsense. If this is the type of argument you are making you are an apologist for bias bigotry against religion. Purely because its an uneducated, bias statement. If it wasn't for a religious man you would not have algorithms to process your computer. Now go ahead and please make another bogus apologetic negating it. Say something like "it was not his religion" and show your bigotry. People invent things and people do scientific things mate. Newton was a theologian and scientist and didnt make his theories due to secularism but his own personal thinking prowess.

Please open a new thread to discuss if you are an apologetic for secularism or anti-religious bigotry, and if this is the hand people are biting.

Thats the end of this discussion. Ciao.

 

[icehorse]

Haha. Mate. Thats one of the most uneducated, unresearched, nonsenses I have heard in a long time. I never expected such nonsense. If this is the type of argument you are making you are an apologist for bias bigotry against religion. Purely because its an uneducated, bias statement. If it wasn't for a religious man you would not have algorithms to process your computer.

I'm not biased against religion per se. I'm critical of religious people trying to claim that their perfectly acceptable faith is somehow scientific.

As for some earlier scientists being ostensibly religious, they had no choice did they? For most of history, religions have violently bullied non-religious people.

 

[columbus]

One thing people should understand is that as soon as a law is implemented that provides a hint of siding with a race or creed the crowd pertaining to that race or creed embraces a false sense of power.

This is exactly why I strongly oppose laws on the subject.

I find both proselytizing and blasphemy stupid and wrong. But by passing legislation you're giving power to people. Including the power to abuse people, justifying it with prosecuting them for some vague thought crime like blasphemy or proselytizing.

You know that will happen. Humans are just that way. They'll use whatever weapons they have at hand to whack people that they don't like.


There are lots of issues like this. Things I personally don't like, but don't want the government to have the power to interfere. So, no laws. Just stick to social pressure.
Tom

 

[firedragon]

This is exactly why I strongly oppose laws on the subject.

I find both proselytizing and blasphemy stupid and wrong. But by passing legislation you're giving power to people. Including the power to abuse people, justifying it with prosecuting them for some vague thought crime like blasphemy or proselytizing.

You know that will happen. Humans are just that way. They'll use whatever weapons they have at hand to whack people that they don't like.


There are lots of issues like this. Things I personally don't like, but don't want the government to have the power to interfere. So, no laws. Just stick to social pressure.
Tom

In my honest opinion, you are spot on Columbus.

 

[firedragon]

As for some earlier scientists being ostensibly religious, they had no choice did they?

Have you gone back in time, become God, and analysed what on in that mans mind or did you just make this up because you are simply bias and wish to promote your bigotry against some billions of people?

There is no other option but the latter because it may come naturally to you. Seriously pathetic mate. Intelligence in your personal space is as warm as English weather.

Have at it and enjoy.
Tsk.

 

[icehorse]

Have you gone back in time, become God, and analysed what on in that mans mind or did you just make this up because you are simply bias and wish to promote your bigotry against some billions of people?

There is no other option but the latter because it may come naturally to you. Seriously pathetic mate. Intelligence in your personal space is as warm as English weather.

Have at it and enjoy.
Tsk.

As a point of reference here, all I've done in this thread is criticize ideas. Now you have chosen to initiate personal attacks. That's usually seen as an admission of loss, in case you didn't know.

 

[firedragon]

As a point of reference here, all I've done in this thread is criticize ideas. Now you have chosen to initiate personal attacks. That's usually seen as an admission of loss, in case you didn't know.

Yeah. Its usual for some to say something with no idea pretending to be God and showing an ability to read the mind of someone who lived a thousand years ago, and then when exposed make something up.

Shows character.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah. Its usual for some to say something with no idea pretending to be God and showing an ability to read the mind of someone who lived a thousand years ago, and then when exposed make something up.

Shows character.

Once again, I'm responding to your claim. You implied that the old religious scientist chose to be religious. Your claim is exactly as speculative as mine, correct?

 

[firedragon]

You implied that the old religious scientist chose to be religious.

STRAWMAN.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Haha. Mate. Thats one of the most uneducated, unresearched, nonsenses I have heard in a long time. I never expected such nonsense. If this is the type of argument you are making you are an apologist for bias bigotry against religion. Purely because its an uneducated, bias statement. If it wasn't for a religious man you would not have algorithms to process your computer. Now go ahead and please make another bogus apologetic negating it. Say something like "it was not his religion" and show your bigotry. People invent things and people do scientific things mate. Newton was a theologian and scientist and didnt make his theories due to secularism but his own personal thinking prowess.

Please open a new thread to discuss if you are an apologetic for secularism or anti-religious bigotry, and if this is the hand people are biting.

Thats the end of this discussion. Ciao.

There are a lot of atheists who are super bigoted and obnoxious blowhards who would rather argue about a cross on public property than anything remotely important, but in this case I agree that secularism protects both proselytizing and blasphemy. It doesn't mean no religion, just no religious favoritism in government. Leaving people to be freer than theological governments, including religious people with ideas which went against the teachings of the church in charge.

Anti-theistic governments which punish the very existence of theist thinking is awful. But secularism isn't. So long as people aren't using the former but claiming the later (as was the case for some communist societies.)

 

[columbus]

Yeah. Its usual for some to say something with no idea pretending to be God and showing an ability to read the mind of someone who lived a thousand years ago, and then when exposed make something up.

Shows character.

Ahhh...
That's rather how I see Abrahamic religion in general. All of them, and their many many many variations.
Tom

 

[columbus]

STRAWMAN.

No it isn't.

Surely you realize the social advantage of being a member of some religious community. Especially back in the day when religious folks dominated society.
Tom

 

[firedragon]

There are a lot of atheists who are super bigoted and obnoxious blowhards who would rather argue about a cross on public property than anything remotely important, but in this case I agree that secularism protects both proselytizing and blasphemy. It doesn't mean no religion, just no religious favoritism in government. Leaving people to be freer than theological governments, including religious people with ideas which went against the teachings of the church in charge.

Anti-theistic governments which punish the very existence of theist thinking is awful. But secularism isn't. So long as people aren't using the former but claiming the later (as was the case for some communist societies.)

I apologise to have engaged in that conversation. And you did not understand what was said. Nevertheless, I dont intend to indulge in that discussion brother and I hope you understand that its a whole other discussion, completely irrelevant to this topic.

If every thread is turned into a discussion of our choice what's the point of having a topic? Even this thread will turn into a "theism vs secularism" discussion and then the question would be asked "when did atheism become secularism" and what about secular theism and the philosophies of morality and origins of knowledge.

If anyone wishes to say "theists are not scientific" its a new topic. If its morality that's another topic. If its the origin of knowledge that's a whole other topic. Let me tell you that people who try to steer every thread into self praising "my kind is better than yours" lacks morality and knowledge. Every topic you bring forward and make commentary upon one must have some kind of knowledge in it.

I respect your post brother. I don't believe atheists are any lesser in morality or knowledge than theists and I am talking from a historical point of view. I don't believe anyone is special. But the trail you responded to is just that. Hope you understand.

Peace.

 

[icehorse]

Let me tell you that people who try to steer every thread into self praising "my kind is better than yours" lacks morality and knowledge.

Hey @firedragon - My only criticism of the OP was the use of the term "science". I can fully accept that there are forms of scriptural analysis and criticism. That seems like a reasonable way to spend one's time. I don't doubt your expertise in this pursuit. That's all good.

But it ain't science. Religion is religion and science is science

 

[firedragon]

My only criticism of the OP was the use of the term "science".

Home science. Social science. They are all sciences. Science of scriptural analysis is a science.

Simple English mate. Learn a bit.

 

[icehorse]

Home science. Social science. They are all sciences. Science of scriptural analysis is a science.

Simple English mate. Learn a bit.

Depending on how they're done, any of these could be sciences.. or not.

I suppose that scriptural analysis could be a science, but if so then its practitioners - like you - have to be willing to undergo some scrutiny. To start with, you'd have to explain your axioms. For example, is the question of who wrote the Quran up for debate in your analysis, or is that taken as an axiom.

And once again, the personal attacks you make are quite tiresome. All I've done in this DEBATE forum is attack a few of your arguments. Not you, your arguments.

 

[firedragon]

Depending on how they're done, any of these could be sciences.. or not.

Its science.

 

[firedragon]

Depending on how they're done, any of these could be sciences.. or not.

I suppose that scriptural analysis could be a science, but if so then its practitioners - like you - have to be willing to undergo some scrutiny. To start with, you'd have to explain your axioms. For example, is the question of who wrote the Quran up for debate in your analysis, or is that taken as an axiom.

And once again, the personal attacks you make are quite tiresome. All I've done in this DEBATE forum is attack a few of your arguments. Not you, your arguments.

If you wish to discuss another topic, please open a new thread.

 

[icehorse]

If you wish to discuss another topic, please open a new thread.

I'm debating your OP, not a new topic

 

[firedragon]

I'm debating your OP, not a new topic

Nope. New Topic.