I may disagree with your words, kind sir, but I would fight to the death...
Posted by: Tarquin Maynard - Portly on 14 January 2010
... to defend your right to say them...
Lookig at some of the rather intolrant posts here of late, jst wondering what people might think of this?
Personally I think Voltaire was off his rocker when he said that.
Lookig at some of the rather intolrant posts here of late, jst wondering what people might think of this?
Personally I think Voltaire was off his rocker when he said that.
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Don Atkinson
Mike
I think there are (and always were) quite a few exceptions eg slander, lying. Perhaps Voltaire should have added a rider, pointing out that having died in order to enable his opponent to speak the desired words, the opponent would undoubtably suffer the legal consequences of slander, lying etc etc.
Voltaire didn't express a view AFAIK, about the "vehemence" with which view/words were expressed. I don't mind somebody saying "god doesn't exist". I would prefer "god doesn't exist, IMHO". But I do object to somebody saying "god doesn't exist, you can't prove he does, therefore you are an idiot" especially when the mantra is repeated ad-nauseum but with added venom each time.
Cheers
Don
I think there are (and always were) quite a few exceptions eg slander, lying. Perhaps Voltaire should have added a rider, pointing out that having died in order to enable his opponent to speak the desired words, the opponent would undoubtably suffer the legal consequences of slander, lying etc etc.
Voltaire didn't express a view AFAIK, about the "vehemence" with which view/words were expressed. I don't mind somebody saying "god doesn't exist". I would prefer "god doesn't exist, IMHO". But I do object to somebody saying "god doesn't exist, you can't prove he does, therefore you are an idiot" especially when the mantra is repeated ad-nauseum but with added venom each time.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
Boo hoo.
Wrong thread, or are you looking for a fight?
Wrong thread, or are you looking for a fight?
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Derry
As far as I am concerned people can think what they like and say what they like (and how they like) within the law of whatever land (including la-la land) they inhabit.
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Paper Plane
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
... to defend your right to say them...
Lookig at some of the rather intolrant posts here of late, jst wondering what people might think of this?
Personally I think Voltaire was off his rocker when he said that.
I wouldn't fight for the right of racist scumbags, white supremacists and similar fellow travellers to spout their filth.
Nor would I go out of my way to give much air to religious bigots of any flavour.
steve
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Phil Cork
I believe that with freedom comes responsibility. So with the freedom of speech that we enjoy there comes a moral and social responsibility to exercise that freedom with sound moral and social judgement.
People, being people, often exercise the former without due regard to the latter, and therefore we unfortunately need laws to 'curtail' absolute freedom of speech.
It's always been that way, and probably always will be...
Phil
People, being people, often exercise the former without due regard to the latter, and therefore we unfortunately need laws to 'curtail' absolute freedom of speech.
It's always been that way, and probably always will be...
Phil
Posted on: 15 January 2010 by ianmacd
quote:Originally posted by Phil Cork:
I believe that with freedom comes responsibility.
Phil
Well said, Phil.
Everyone seems very quick to point out their rights these days but not their responsibilities.
In my naive little way, I really wish The European Commission for Human Rights was called The European Commission for Human Responsibility...
Regards, Ian
Posted on: 15 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Paper Plane:
I wouldn't fight for the right of racist scumbags, white supremacists and similar fellow travellers to spout their filth.
Nor would I go out of my way to give much air to religious bigots of any flavour.
steve
This is where it gets tricky.
We either have freedom of speech, or we do not. It follows that such clowns *should* be given space to air their views; I enjoy watching them make utter, utter fools of themselves.
Posted on: 15 January 2010 by winkyincanada
My two cents...
When it comes to religion, I respect the rights of people to believe whatever tin-pot fantasy they choose. However, I absolutely do not respect the belief itself. I hold the beliefs themselves of all religions in utter contempt and feel it is perfectly valid exercise to ridicule those beliefs mercilessly. That this potentially causes offense to those who hold those beliefs is an unfortunate side effect (especially should those holding beliefs choose to kill me in response). The way to undermine my contempt and ridicule is to present some real evidence that the beliefs are not contemptuous and ridiculous. This, of course, never happens.
Separate the belief and the believer. There are very plausible reasons why otherwise rational people believe in the sky-fairy (systematic childhood indoctrination during the impressionable development period when rational thought is still under development, for example.) Those reasons of course do not include the existence of an actual sky fairy. The beliefs themselves remain ridiculous.
When it comes to religion, I respect the rights of people to believe whatever tin-pot fantasy they choose. However, I absolutely do not respect the belief itself. I hold the beliefs themselves of all religions in utter contempt and feel it is perfectly valid exercise to ridicule those beliefs mercilessly. That this potentially causes offense to those who hold those beliefs is an unfortunate side effect (especially should those holding beliefs choose to kill me in response). The way to undermine my contempt and ridicule is to present some real evidence that the beliefs are not contemptuous and ridiculous. This, of course, never happens.
Separate the belief and the believer. There are very plausible reasons why otherwise rational people believe in the sky-fairy (systematic childhood indoctrination during the impressionable development period when rational thought is still under development, for example.) Those reasons of course do not include the existence of an actual sky fairy. The beliefs themselves remain ridiculous.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Mike-B
winkyincanada .... thanks, the most sensible two cents worth I have read about religion on this forum for quite a while.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
I should point out, that winkyincanada is not me operating under an alias. Anyway, he's either far too polite or hasn't yet been driven to spitting out feathers by the typical ad neauseum response this argument gets, from religious people missing the point. Yet...
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by tonym
quote:Originally posted by winkyincanada:
My two cents...
When it comes to religion, I respect the rights of people to believe whatever tin-pot fantasy they choose. However, I absolutely do not respect the belief itself. I hold the beliefs themselves of all religions in utter contempt and feel it is perfectly valid exercise to ridicule those beliefs mercilessly. That this potentially causes offense to those who hold those beliefs is an unfortunate side effect (especially should those holding beliefs choose to kill me in response). The way to undermine my contempt and ridicule is to present some real evidence that the beliefs are not contemptuous and ridiculous. This, of course, never happens.
Separate the belief and the believer. There are very plausible reasons why otherwise rational people believe in the sky-fairy (systematic childhood indoctrination during the impressionable development period when rational thought is still under development, for example.) Those reasons of course do not include the existence of an actual sky fairy. The beliefs themselves remain ridiculous.
I fail to understand why you or anyone else should think it's OK to ridicule the beliefs of others. It's impolite and hurtful to the individuals involved and serves no purpose other than satisfying some inner streak of vindictiveness.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by JMB
I'm with Winkyincanada on this - a breath of fresh air.
Mike
Mike
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:I fail to understand why you or anyone else should think it's OK to ridicule the beliefs of others. It's impolite and hurtful to the individuals involved and serves no purpose other than satisfying some inner streak of vindictiveness.
Agreed.
And IMHO "beliefs" includes those who believe/hope there is no "god" as well as those who believe/hope there is one.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by winkyincanada
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:quote:I fail to understand why you or anyone else should think it's OK to ridicule the beliefs of others. It's impolite and hurtful to the individuals involved and serves no purpose other than satisfying some inner streak of vindictiveness.
Agreed.
And IMHO "beliefs" includes those who believe/hope there is no "god" as well as those who believe/hope there is one.
Cheers
Don
I don't "believe/hope" there is no god. I know there is no evidence of a god. I therefore "do not believe" there is a god. A very important distinction that is lost on many. Not believing in something is not the same as believing in its non-existence.
In practice, I am quite polite and don't overtly ridicule others' beliefs, not matter how ridiculous they are. I think I probably should, but either I'm not brave enough and/or do actually care about others' "feelings". I will sometimes engage in debate, but the irrationality of the counter-points that are presented drives me nuts. I think the whole demand for respect thing is actually strong evidence of the weakness of the position. The beliefs must not be attacked because they can't be defended.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by tonym
With the greatest respect, this is not about one's perception of the weakness of someone's argument. It's about respecting other people's beliefs, much as you might disagree with them.
Again, why do you believe you "probably should" ridicule other's beliefs? The irrationality of their arguments are only your perception. There are religious people who on the contrary can put forward very robust arguments to support their beliefs.
Again, why do you believe you "probably should" ridicule other's beliefs? The irrationality of their arguments are only your perception. There are religious people who on the contrary can put forward very robust arguments to support their beliefs.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:. I know there is no evidence of a god.
I think you are wrong. If you had said "I know there is no "scientific" evidence of a god", I, personally would agree. Howvever lots of people are satisfied that there is plenty of evidence for a god. You might not see it, you might be satisfied with their evidence. You might be right. You might be wrong. And you can't put an absolute probability on being right (or wrong).
I put the word "belief" in quotes in my previous post to try to avoid confusion with "religious belief". I was also using the word "hope" in a similar sense to that espoused by Droozilla.
Cheers
Don
PS I have copied this over into the other thread, so as to keep Mike's more aligned with his title
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by winkyincanada
quote:Originally posted by tonym:
With the greatest respect, this is not about one's perception of the weakness of someone's argument. It's about respecting other people's beliefs, much as you might disagree with them.
Again, why do you believe you "probably should" ridicule other's beliefs? The irrationality of their arguments are only your perception. There are religious people who on the contrary can put forward very robust arguments to support their beliefs.
There is nothing I can do to respect the beliefs themselves. I find the beliefs ridiculous. I can, and do, respect those that hold those beliefs.
I do not ridicule those beliefs other than in the spirit of dialogue and debate. If my arguments are causing distress to those hearing them, I will stop. I do not preach my position from street corners or to bible classes full of impressionable children. It is perhaps the non-believers who are treated with a lack of respect.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by u5227470736789439
Strangely, watching someone ridicule the faith I have merely means they are different to me! I cannot convince them on a Forum, and nor will I try! But if they knew me they might have a different view! Of course they might not ...
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by winkyincanada:
My two cents...
... and feel it is perfectly valid exercise to ridicule those beliefs mercilessly.
As long as you don't do this in the company of Beleivers - who would almost certainly be offended by ths stance - no problem.
quote:The beliefs themselves remain ridiculous.
As does Aetheism to Believers. But I think they are too tolerant to tell you.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by tonym:
I fail to understand why you or anyone else should think it's OK to ridicule the beliefs of others. It's impolite and hurtful to the individuals involved and serves no purpose other than satisfying some inner streak of vindictiveness.
Ah, you beat me to it.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by winkyincanada
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
As does Aetheism to Beleivers. But I think they are too tolerant to tell you.
Are you kidding? The religious are too tolerant to tell atheists what they think of them? Not in my universe.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:quote:Originally posted by tonym:
I fail to understand why you or anyone else should think it's OK to ridicule the beliefs of others. It's impolite and hurtful to the individuals involved and serves no purpose other than satisfying some inner streak of vindictiveness.
Ah, you beat me to it.
Did oo nasty Atheist hurt oo? Mummy kiss it better...
Oh well. I suppose you'll just have to forgive us, then.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by winkyincanada:quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
As does Aetheism to Beleivers. But I think they are too tolerant to tell you.
Are you kidding? The religious are too tolerant to tell atheists what they think of them? Not in my universe.
Fair enough; the Religious protagonists do seem to make a very great deal of noise over on that side of the pond; the vile Westboro Baptists, for example. Things seem to be a bit more polite in the UK. WRT the Religious, that is.
Posted on: 16 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Mike Dudley:quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:quote:Originally posted by tonym:
I fail to understand why you or anyone else should think it's OK to ridicule the beliefs of others. It's impolite and hurtful to the individuals involved and serves no purpose other than satisfying some inner streak of vindictiveness.
Ah, you beat me to it.
Did oo nasty Atheist hurt oo? Mummy kiss it better...
Oh well. I suppose you'll just have to forgive us, then.
Dudster, for the fourth thime now, I am not a Christian.
Just vastly more tolerant than you.