Blasphemy: Is There a "Right to Insult" ?

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

riposte;279284]

Saying a thing is a confidence trick doesn't make it a confidence trick .... that requires proof ..... in this case proving whether God exists or not ..... an achievement which is beyond the capility of humans.

'Fraid not, Riposte. That isn't logical and attempts to say 'this is what we believe and you must disprove it'. Wrong way around. If some people are going to say we must live a certain way because- then they must prove that there is some reason to do so.

The proposer must back up the proposal. Unfortunately for the religious in the Irish context not only can they not do so but there is a mountain of evidence to say that their proposal is false, does not come from a god and has ulterior motives for putting forward its proposal.

The Problem with Dawkins is he substitutes one religion with another ....... Anti-religion. Dawkins has been widely criticised by atheists and agnostics for undermining the rational arguments for Atheism

Actually he has not attempted to substitute one religion for another. He has never departed from the rational. There has never been any indication Dawkins has ever been interested in becoming an alternative pope. Also, that statement that Dawkins has been 'widely criticised by atheists and agnostics for undermining the rational arguments for atheism' is a claim you will have a hard time backing up. Mainly because Dawkins is a trained and accomplished scientist and rationalist and while some atheists may disagree with his blunt approach to the nonsense of religion that is the only negative I have heard in connection with Dawkins from anyone on the atheist/agnostic side of the room. He's earned the right to be blunt.

That accusation stems from a complete inability to see any alternative to 'belief in god' as anything but a 'rival religion' and is a damning indictment of the effect of belief on the intellect. Mainly because its adherents cannot accept the rational unless it swerves to accomodate the irrational. And once the rational does that then it is no longer rational.

[Shaadi]

I must admit I'm 50/50 on that Shaadi ... but then Astrology has become highly respectable lately and Scientology has gained some very high profile adherents. Neither of these have been subjected to the same venom that most religions have.

The point is that both are clearly bullcrap and deserving of zero respect regardless of how many adherents they have. Respect has to be earned. Should we respect FGM because millions of people practice it? Of course we shouldn't. The same goes for any of the old nonsense that religions insist on inflicting on people. On what sick planet does the desire of the religious to stifle the ability of a woman to regulate her fertility on spurious theological grounds deserve respect. Bull should be called what it is, when the religious stop trying to run the world according to superstition and indoctrination then they may become worthy of respect.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Should point out Riposte that these things are not said with the purpose of upsetting you- the fact that they might upset you is much more to do with your emotional investment in your belief rather than the discussion of principle itself.

That is the crux of the matter- because of the emotional investment made by believers in religion or deities various they feel personally insulted by a discussion which dismisses that belief as socially desirable or useful.

The emotional response to that is not a good enough reason to attempt to shore up 'blasphemy' as a crime. 'Blasphemy' does not exist other than as a code-word for the emotional flight-or-flight response of the religious.

[riposte]

Should point out Riposte that these things are not said with the purpose of upsetting you- the fact that they might upset you is much more to do with your emotional investment in your belief rather than the discussion of principle itself.

That is the crux of the matter- because of the emotional investment made by believers in religion or deities various they feel personally insulted by a discussion which dismisses that belief as socially desirable or useful.

The emotional response to that is not a good enough reason to attempt to shore up 'blasphemy' as a crime. 'Blasphemy' does not exist other than as a code-word for the emotional flight-or-flight response of the religious.

Obviously Con you are not paying enough attention to my posts ....... I have said that I don't favour an anti-Blasphemy laws. I have not invested any emotions into my believe in God . .. a believe which I have come to from purely empirical sources .... and nothing that is said or posted on this forum ever upsets me ........ Have you Got That...... I am not Upset....... lol !!

You also clearly cannot conceive of a person who believes in God but who eschews Religion........ and you and many others here cannot deal with a discussion on the possible existence of God with referring to the tenants of various religions. The assumption that believing in God requires one to adhere to a religion constitutes a prejudice on the part of non-believers.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Then again someone claiming to believe in a god in Ireland who also claims that they don't believe in religion per se is a handy route for disguising sympathies ... you'll have to excuse me in that regard as I have come across a few people lately claiming to be atheists/agnostics and then finding them slipping in references across the usual debates to 'catholic' monks and 'catholic' novelists and so on.

I think it has become quite fashionable for catholics in Ireland to claim they are atheist or agnostic and then carry on as normal with the official catholic viewpoint.

On the subject of blasphemy until such time as you can prove there is a god to blaspheme then there isn't much point complaining about blasphemy.

No body, no murder charges possible.

[riposte]

Then again someone claiming to believe in a god in Ireland who also claims that they don't believe in religion per se is a handy route for disguising sympathies ... you'll have to excuse me in that regard as I have come across a few people lately claiming to be atheists/agnostics and then finding them slipping in references across the usual debates to 'catholic' monks and 'catholic' novelists and so on.

I think it has become quite fashionable for catholics in Ireland to claim they are atheist or agnostic and then carry on as normal with the official catholic viewpoint.

On the subject of blasphemy until such time as you can prove there is a god to blaspheme then there isn't much point complaining about blasphemy.

No body, no murder charges possible.

Here again Con you didn't deal anything in my post ....... just questioned my sincerity and honesty.... items I feel no obligation to prove ..... because I am not upset... lol !!

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Actually I believe I did.

'I have not invested any emotions into my believe in God . .. a believe which I have come to from purely empirical sources'

Could I ask what those empirical sources are? I don't think it is possible to believe in the existence of a god from empirical sources.

The only conclusion one can draw from empirical sources is that there is no god. Because there isn't any evidence for one- only unproved assertions.

[fluffybiscuits]

Actually I believe I did.



Could I ask what those empirical sources are? I don't think it is possible to believe in the existence of a god from empirical sources.

The only conclusion one can draw from empirical sources is that there is no god. Because there isn't any evidence for one- only unproved assertions.

Empirical sources would mean observation or experience so this must mean he saw a miracle or had one. Im intrigued now..

[disability student]

There are some people out there who don't believe in God as i respect their beliefs. However i had few experiences in particular, healing experience with a Catholic monk with healing powers. I was astonished to feel it and observe it in relation to bodily reaction when he prayed over me. I believed in god prior to that healing although i have huge problems with the church re abuse (which was very difficult). However that healing experience strengthened my belief in god. One priest told me to trust in God not the Vatican which made sense to me.

After that healing experience which i have never experienced it before, then i spent some time to visit him & had few discussions with that monk. He tried to downplay his healing powers but the more i spent time with him. There was something special about him which i couldn't discern at all as he had a very sharp spiritual insight & sharp mind even at his very advanced age before he passed away. One other monk told me after that monk died, he was an exorcist par excellence which was something that i could testify to after some strange/weird experiences with him.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Sounds like you had your own Rasputin, there DS. You are in rare company there with Tzars and Tzarinas.

[disability student]

Sounds like you had your own Rasputin, there DS. You are in rare company there with Tzars and Tzarinas.

Ah well Captn, Rasputin was different as i think he was a hyponsis expert (look at his eyes) in contrast to the healing monk, who was very normal even in conversation with him or see him in person from day to day. He acted or spoke like any other normal guy. But when he goes into another mode, which was spiritual that set him apart from other monks.

I mean healing experience as bodily sensation inside my body like a warm wave over me lasting few mins.

[riposte]

Actually I believe I did.



Could I ask what those empirical sources are? I don't think it is possible to believe in the existence of a god from empirical sources.

.

First of all Con ..... I've been reading philosophy for 40 years..... so I've had this discussion numerous times before with people who have done some serious thinking on the subject. I'm not impressed by childish questions or juvenile or politically inspired pronouncements. on the subject.

For example during his final years, Kant worked on a manuscript, left incomplete at his death, that has become known as the Opus Postumum. The manuscript contains sections in which Kant continues to explore the relationship between the concept of God and our consciousness of being moral agents, i.e., our consciousness that we can subject ourselves freely, through our acknowledgment of the categorical imperative, to the requirement of rightness in the choice of our actions. These reflections suggest that Kant may have been trying to draw a connection between the idea of God and the acknowledgment of the categorical imperative that is even more direct than that found in the moral argument. Such a connection would make the idea of God totally immanent within human moral consciousness.

As for your question .... what are my empirical sources ....... I look at the world around me ...... I see potatoes, onions and tomatoes all growing in the same soil, drawing the same nutrients from the same soil ...... but they manifest in totally different forms both in appearance and in substance. Who can explain that?

(One smartarse asked me had I never heard of a seed shops . lol )

Then there's the perfection of mathematics...with so many answers already out there ...yet the greatest scientists are still looking for them. Who thought that up? .....

Then there is the order in the Universe..... Why?

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

riposte;

First of all Con ..... I've been reading philosophy for 40 years..... so I've had this discussion numerous times before with people who have done some serious thinking on the subject. I'm not impressed by childish questions or juvenile or politically inspired pronouncements. on the subject.

I'm also well used at this stage to having epithets thrown my way instead of attempts at reason. I don't believe my questions posed are childish either.

For example during his final years, Kant worked on a manuscript, left incomplete at his death, that has become known as the Opus Postumum. The manuscript contains sections in which Kant continues to explore the relationship between the concept of God and our consciousness of being moral agents, i.e., our consciousness that we can subject ourselves freely, through our acknowledgment of the categorical imperative, to the requirement of rightness in the choice of our actions. These reflections suggest that Kant may have been trying to draw a connection between the idea of God and the acknowledgment of the categorical imperative that is even more direct than that found in the moral argument. Such a connection would make the idea of God totally immanent within human moral consciousness.

'The idea of god'. Wasn't Aristotle there a long time ago with his concept of a Prime Mover?

You didn't say you believed in the 'idea of god' but that you believed in a god. Could you describe that god?

As for your question .... what are my empirical sources ....... I look at the world around me ...... I see potatoes, onions and tomatoes all growing in the same soil, drawing the same nutrients from the same soil ...... but they manifest in totally different forms both in appearance and in substance. Who can explain that?

(One smartarse asked me had I never heard of a seed shops . lol )

Strange. You claim on the one hand your belief is derived from empirical evidence and then go on to mention that which we know, empirically, is the work of evolution. Darwin used the breeding of pigeons to explain the action of evolution empirically and pointed out that if certain breeds stopped being bred by humans (fantail pigeons for example) they revert within a couple of generations to your average wild pigeon.

Bananas- are they created by god or by evolution/breeding? I think you know the answer to this.

Then there's the perfection of mathematics...with so many answers already out there ...yet the greatest scientists are still looking for them. Who thought that up?

.....

Who said there has to be a limit to mathematical questions? Isn't that a bit like saying if you sail too far west you'll surely fall of the edge of the world? What's the highest prime number? We don't know. We are still counting.

Then there is the order in the Universe..... Why?

Sounds like you've reached a conclusion. How do you conclude there is order in the Universe? We know how our home planet formed and it was not stood in line waiting to get its clouds fitted. It exploded as particles out of a star nursery and formed due to various forces acting upon stardust revolving in a stable orbit around our home star. Nothing very orderly about it- you might as well claim water going down a plughole is acting in 'orderly' fashion.

Depends on your view of 'orderly'. I'm quite interested in this flat assertion you make that the Universe is 'orderly'. What do you mean by 'orderly'?

[riposte]

'The idea of god'. Wasn't Aristotle there a long time ago with his concept of a Prime Mover?

Aristotle was no slouch either.

You didn't say you believed in the 'idea of god' but that you believed in a god. Could you describe that god?

There's a whole branch of philospohy which says that anything that be thought of .. can exist.

Strange. You claim on the one hand your belief is derived from empirical evidence and then go on to mention that which we know, empirically, is the work of evolution. Darwin used the breeding of pigeons to explain the action of evolution empirically and pointed out that if certain breeds stopped being bred by humans (fantail pigeons for example) they revert within a couple of generations to your average wild pigeon.

Darwin explains how it happens ..... not why it happens.

.....

Who said there has to be a limit to mathematical questions?

Not me

What's the highest prime number?

God knows .... lol !!

Sounds like you've reached a conclusion. How do you conclude there is order in the Universe? We know how our home planet formed and it was not stood in line waiting to get its clouds fitted. It exploded as particles out of a star nursery and formed due to various forces acting upon stardust revolving in a stable orbit around our home star. Nothing very orderly about it-

All of the planets and stars and galaxies behave in an ordered manner .. that's an awful lot of order.

you might as well claim water going down a plughole is acting in 'orderly' fashion.

I do ...... and it does.

Depends on your view of 'orderly'. I'm quite interested in this flat assertion you make that the Universe is 'orderly'. What do you mean by 'orderly'?

Well not like in a Hospital "orderly." . See above!

[fluffybiscuits]

Aristotle was no slouch either.




There's a whole branch of philospohy which says that anything that be thought of .. can exist.




Darwin explains how it happens ..... not why it happens.

.....

Not me


God knows .... lol !!





All of the planets and stars and galaxies behave in an ordered manner .. that's an awful lot of order.



I do ...... and it does.




Well not like in a Hospital "orderly." . See above!

And when he explained how is happened the christian right back peddled and came up with the theory of intelligent design. We went from the world being created in seven days to the cloud people giving evolution a helping hand. Talk about shifting the goal posts...