Idiots, Inc.
29 March 2009 by Bob
U.N. body adopts resolution on religious defamation
GENEVA (Reuters) – A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning “defamation of religion” as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries. The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, with a vote of 23 states in favor and 11 against, with 13 abstentions. [...] Pakistan, speaking for the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said a “delicate balance” had to be struck between freedom of expression and respect for religions. The resolution said Muslim minorities had faced intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, including laws and administrative procedures that stigmatize religious followers. “Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence,” the adopted text read, adding that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
Do I want Muslims to be discriminated against? Of course not. Do I want places of worship to be desecrated and destroyed? Of course not — unless it’s by the believers themselves after seeing how stupid their beliefs were.
But this resolution obviously makes no sense. It would in effect make this blog illegal — which in one sense would be JAMES-DEAN-TOTALLY-FUCKING-COOL-FUCKING-GODLESS-REBELS, but in another sense would be completely stupid.
And just to show you how dumbasses even infect my profession, just take a look at some bullshit written by some guy from Pasadena City College:
[T]he most important thing to know about the belief that God exists is not that most citizens happen (for now anyway) to share it, that it tends to uphold public morality, and so forth. The most important thing to know about it is that it is true, and demonstrably so. Similarly, the most important thing to know about “same-sex marriage” is not that it has been lawlessly imposed by certain courts even though a majority of citizens happen (again, for now anyway) to oppose it. The most important thing to know about it is that the very idea is a metaphysical absurdity and a moral abomination, and (again) demonstrably so. It is no more up to the courts or “the people” to “define” marriage or to decide whether religion is a good thing than it is up to them to “define” whether the Pythagorean Theorem is true of right triangles, or whether water has the chemical structure H2O. In each case, what is at issue is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover rather than democratic procedure to stipulate.
Just can’t for the life of me believe that this idiot’s at the front of a classroom teaching Philosophy. Did stupid just get into the water supply? [*sigh*]
There was a really smart colleague of mine (I’m sure he’s still around…somewhere) who once said, “If you’re a believer, then you shouldn’t be at the front of a Philosophy classroom. Call it ‘theology’ if you want to, but don’t call it Philosophy.”
Christ, this Pasadena guy’s just embarrassing…UGH…
29 March 2009, on 2:43 pm
The most important thing to know about [God's existence] is that it is true, and demonstrably so.
God’s existence is demonstrable? How amazing. At the risk of contravening the new UN (Wacko) Resolution, the author of that comment must be an inmate of Pasadena City Institution for the Criminally Insane, not the City College as (hopefully)mistakenly reported.
That the author of that comment is allowed to keep his license to teach is an affront to reason, good sense and decency.
29 March 2009, on 4:02 pm
Well, yes, except that what he said is true, and demonstrably so. Hopefully, most of this teacher’s student will realize he is an idiot, and demonstrably so.
29 March 2009, on 4:54 pm
I had a moron teaching my first philosophy course as well.
As far as the resolution: The UN can suck my godless balls.
29 March 2009, on 6:27 pm
Cocksure
Those who insist on the inerrancy of the Scripture,
Have a disease that to this day does not have a cure.
They have piece of mind because they are cocksure,
Although, of their insanity, I’m not quite sure.
Their philosophy for the poor and uneducated has an allure,
But without realizing it they make for a murderous militant creature.
Their mistake is that this is all a conjecture.
Their own metaphors for their own needs they conjure.
This distortion so gross as to seem like a caricature,
And this travesty of course is the ultimate allure.
This hoax will eventually be uncovered as an ordure,
And hopefully lead to complete and utter composure.
29 March 2009, on 7:18 pm
The problem with that is that the fucking muslims are the ones who get to decide what “defamation” means. Legitimate criticism will be construed as defamation. Insistence on the country’s normal legal system instead of sharia-fucking-law will be construed as defamation. Pretty soon defamation will be construed as apostasy and they’ll go around killing everyone. If they want another crusades, bring it on. We’ll kick their asses back to medieval times. Oh, wait. They already live in medieval times.
29 March 2009, on 7:28 pm
The problem with that is that the fucking muslims are the ones who get to decide what “defamation” means. Legitimate criticism will be construed as defamation.
Exactly. This is just the beginning of their mission to implement Sharia Law throughout the world.
29 March 2009, on 9:56 pm
“…a “delicate balance” had to be struck between freedom of expression and respect for religions.”
Respect for religions?
You mean, respect for the outrageous clinging to totally obnoxious, unproven fantastical beliefs; based on nothing more than the often borrowed, even stolen, and made-up out of whole cloth, ancient ramblings of ignorant, even psychotic…so-called Bronze Age Prophets? Beliefs in voices from burning bushes, virgin births, a flying horse carrying an idiot pedophile up to heaven, the rising bodily from the dead (Zombies); not to mention all the tribal atrocities associated with the original lying promulgators of such madness?
And to top it off…eternal Hell-fire damnation for all those who don’t swallow all the utterly stupid, mean spirited so-called “Divine” BS.
In other words, their asking for respect for the totally outrageous tradition of brainwashed tribal insanity…or…a whole humongous, steaming pile, of total fucking Bullshit!
Respect…my ass!
Such stupid, ultra-arrogant fuckheads, IMO, don’t deserve one iota of respect in that regard.
For the U.N…in 2009, no less…to be diddling around, at all, with limiting free speech regarding such dangerous, mentally contaminating stupidity is beyond any truly sane comprehension.
It demonstrates, sadly, just how seriously mentally ill a HUGE portion of this world’s inhabitants are.
29 March 2009, on 10:24 pm
I wonder how long it’ll take Christians to whine about this. I mean, it’s “God’s will” to defame false religions, right?
29 March 2009, on 10:54 pm
The Pasadena guy brought back memories. I had a college professor (RC priest) who had “issues” with homosexuals, women, and birth control pills.
His Holiness would start class with a five minute rant which we were obligated to hear…We were terrified of grade retribution so the bullying was taken in complete silence.
I remember being on the pill at the time and almost laughing aloud when His Holiness declared that the pill killed women!!! LOL! Of course, Vatican science has advanced lo these many years and the pill is now responsible for MALE infertility caused by female urine polluting the environment. I never thought the Vatican would go green…
30 March 2009, on 3:27 am
Chuck,
You put what I feel into words so eloquently. It’s times like these when our so-called ‘lords and masters’ come out with such excruciatingly egregious excrement that I think it’s time to take the happy pills and drift off into oblivion.
I was about to take up the issue of ‘respect for religion’ and liken it to ‘respect for paedophilia’ and then I remembered – which means that I’d previously forgotten, but then I am near senile – that there had actually been a movement in the UK claiming respect for paedophiles and who had dressed their desires up in all sorts of high-falutin language to make it sound perfectly acceptable and normal, even, and an abuse of their human rights not to allow them to do what they will.
Does no-one else find it amusing that all these sick groups – religionists, paedophiles, etc – can demand special treatment, yet cantankerous and curmudgeonly old gits like me who just want the freedom to pile all all religionists into a heap and set fire to them and their places of worship are accused of all sorts of unpleasant things? Is that why these nice people in the white coats that care for my every need won’t let me play with matches any more?
Got to go now as here comes the nurse with my risperidone – strawberry flavour, my favourite.
30 March 2009, on 3:36 am
I wonder how long it’ll take Christians to whine about this. I mean, it’s “God’s will” to defame false religions, right?
In a sense you are perfectly correct – you will have no god but me etc – but those smarmy bastards who run religions tell us that ‘God’ and ‘Allah’ are one and the same, so really Xtianity and Islam (not to mention the Jews) are all ‘people of the book’ and supposed to respect each other.
Since when is a Muslim suicide-bomber showing respect for anyone or anything?
And when a Muslim man beats his wife for disobeying him, is that showing her respect?
Next they’ll be trying to tell us that their cowardly and ill-named ‘honour killings’ of women are an act of tender love.
Lapidation is such a comfortable death, don’t you think?
As I’ve said elsewhere‘The Loonies Have Taken Over The Asylum.”
30 March 2009, on 4:12 am
Actually, what I meant was how soon they’ll bitch that the law takes away THEIR right to defame, while agreeing that you shouldn’t be allowed to.
It’s the same shit with hate speech laws. They whine about not being able to bitch, but then whine when people do the same.
30 March 2009, on 4:20 am
And <a href=”http://nilsacrificiumintellectus.blogspot.com/2009/03/prosecuted-for-telling-truth-about.html”<here’s another egregious example of what happens to those who tell the truth about Islam.
30 March 2009, on 4:23 am
Sorry, folks, got the tags wrong again: here is the corrected version (I hope).
30 March 2009, on 4:49 am
This is just the beginning of their mission to implement Sharia Law throughout the world.
Their mission is being given succour and support by influential buffoons like this one.
And does that comment count as a double offence, since it is derogatory to Xtians and Muslims alike?
30 March 2009, on 4:52 am
Star,
I do wish you had a ‘preview’ function on your site as it would save old duffers like me from making so many HTML gaffs. In above post, for example, only the first line is meant to be emphasised – it is quoted from an earlier post of yours – but somehow I must have failed to close the tag and so the whole post is emphasised. Nevertheless, I realise that would probably be complicated a procedure and that most people are more capable of fettling the intricacies of HTML than I am.
30 March 2009, on 10:16 am
Holy shit, you crack me the fuck up Old Git. Fucking paedophiles demanding their “human rights”. It never ceases to amaze me when I see some folks peddling polished turds like that. One thing I am cocksure of is that philosophy has the potential to be a very interesting – hell even an important subject. Not enough good educators to go around I guess…
One issue I have with another crusade is that it just makes our country go into debt – hell it makes the saudi royals even richer. Political influence is bought and sold. Instead of running on literal horsepower, modern day crusades run on middle eastern petro power. Dont think for a second that george bush and richard cheney’s war was conceived for any reason relating to our public good – or that it was based on reason at all! Its all about making themselves and their saudi monarch buddies more and more cash. Restricting immigration and energy independance – now theres a start…
30 March 2009, on 10:39 am
I do wish you had a ‘preview’ function on your site as it would save old duffers like me from making so many HTML gaffs.
I will check into it and see what I can do, or I will send an email to Ron and ask about it. Several others have made the same suggestion.
30 March 2009, on 12:02 pm
Nevermind all that “shaaria law” stuff… I am still reeling from the fact that you Pasadenans force people into gay marriages!
That whole statement in the OP is laughable on so many levels. “[It's not] up to the courts or ‘the people’ to ‘define’ marriage”?! Who is it up to, then? Animals? Birds? Gives Twitter a whole new status… For that matter, what is a court if not people? Darn those bricks, making all those laws…
30 March 2009, on 12:16 pm
“[It's not] up to the courts or ‘the people’ to ‘define’ marriage”?! Who is it up to, then?
Why it’s up to ‘God’ of course, who else?
Don’t forget that Professor Prickhead from Pasadena claims he has demonstrable evidence that God objectively exists – and I hear that the Nobel Awards Committee are considering him for the science prize seeing as how no-one else over the millennia has ever managed to prove the spurious claim that (a) their version of ‘god’ exists and (b) that it is paramount to all the other versions of so-called ‘gods’ that mentally defective humans have invented over the ages.
In short, please don’t forget that we are dealing with an unhinge madman here. However, the real concern is that he is allowed to teach in an educational establishment and corrupt the minds of youth – oh, sorry, I forgot; that is what religion is all about!
30 March 2009, on 3:37 pm
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I just want to make it absolutely clear to the buffoons in the UN Human Rights Council and the delusional psychopaths in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference who claim to believe in the existence of ‘Allah’ that I am not defaming the Muslim religion by publishing this photograph.
30 March 2009, on 3:39 pm
^ Re above, those who want further comment on the piccie can find it here.
31 March 2009, on 3:20 am
Ooh, scary, since posting the above, I see that my site and profile were visited on 2 separate occasions yesterday by someone from the following address:-
Host Name tias-gw1.treas.gov
IP Address 199.196.144.11
ISP EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ASSET FORFEITURE
Domain TREAS.GOV
City WASHINGTON
Region DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Country UNITED STATES
They also visited this page on GIFS.
Looks like they’re closing in already!
Fortunately I’m an ancient geriatric and living on welfare benefits so there are no assets to seize in my case, but watch out the rest of you. LOL!
31 March 2009, on 10:29 am
Probably someone wasting their lunch hour like the rest of us
31 March 2009, on 10:52 am
Given the historical record I think there may be some rational and logical reason for defamation laws such as those suggested by this UN resolution.
Remember that “defamation” is: In law, issuance of false statements about a person that injure his reputation or that deter others from associating with him. Libel and slander are the legal subcategories of defamation…..The defense in defamation cases often takes the form of seeking to establish the truth of the statements in question. (For more information on defamation, visit Britannica.com.) The part of the definition mentioning “false statements” is the key to understanding here. And most democratic governments already have laws in place to prosecute anyone making slanderous or libelous statements against others. Freedom of expression and speech have always been limited by these laws and rightly so. Scientific investigation and rational arguments are not threatened by defamation laws.
The Muslim world has the history of the Christian Crusades to support their desire to seek some sort of legal protection. The UN resolution does not seek to protect just one religion from “defamation”, it clearly supports recognition of the rights of people to all beliefs, both religious and irreligious. It seems quite possible that those trying to install Sharia Law in their chosen countries will find that this UN resolution makes it even more difficult to utilize those parts of the law that criticize or prohibit non-Muslim religious expression.
Defamation is a big part of the propaganda machine that some governments use to control their populations and accomplish their goals. For example (taken from Wikipedia page on Nazi propaganda):
Hitler and Nazi propagandists played on the anti-Semitism and resentment present in Germany. The Jews were blamed for things such as robbing the German people of their hard work while themselves avoiding physical labor. Hitler blamed Jews for “two great wounds upon humanity: Circumcision of the Body and Conscience of the Soul.” Der Stürmer, a Nazi propaganda newspaper, told Germans that Jews kidnapped small children before Passover because “Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah.” Posters, films, cartoons, and fliers were seen throughout Germany which attacked the Jewish community, such as the film The Eternal Jew.
After watching a movie such as “The Pianist” I find my desire for freedom of expression slightly stifled by my desire to avoid inciting hatred, discrimination and abuse of fellow humans.
31 March 2009, on 1:31 pm
Sorry, Lynda, I don’t buy into your argument. No religion should be beyond criticism, yet that is exactly what the OIC is trying to do for Islam, however, to get it passed by the UN committee they had to make it a general motion applying to ‘religions’ and not specifically to Islam, but if anyone thinks that the OIC gives a damn about any religion other than Islam then they are too naive to be allowed out in the streets on their own.
As for your comment, It seems quite possible that those trying to install Sharia Law in their chosen countries will find that this UN resolution makes it even more difficult to utilize those parts of the law that criticize or prohibit non-Muslim religious expression., sorry, but I think that’s a load of tosh, and Muslims here are actively trying to bring Sharia into force in the UK – which version of Sharia (there are at least 5) is not clear – as they want this as part of their intention to silence all opposition to what their religion stands for and any critics of it.
Furthermore, Muslims in the UK have been clamouring for legal protection enabling them to bring prosecutions against anyone who criticises any aspect of their religion even though the commentator may have been accurately reporting facts. They cite our blasphemy laws protecting Christianity and claim that they want the same legal protection, but these laws are a dead letter, despite Xtians here trying unsuccessfully to use them to raise prosecutions recently.
Additionally, one can defame a person, but not a religion, for a religion does not have a personality in law and therefore cannot be defamed per se.
Religions no more deserve the protection of the law than, say, paedophilia or necromancy.
31 March 2009, on 3:51 pm
The question always comes down to who gets to decide what is considered “defaming”. An insulted group will necessarily have a much lower bar than non members. Do you wait until violence is actually incited, or say “well, this statement *could* incite violence”? WHO gets to say that?
You can say a lot of unpleasant things about most religions without lying. And people will get violent about almost anything.
31 March 2009, on 5:25 pm
Orzo,
Sorry if I did not make my point clear. Religions qua religions do not have a ‘legal personality’ and therefore, by definition, cannot be defamed. Whilst I can defame, say, a priest by calling him something untrue and unpleasant – because he does have a legal personality – I cannot be charged with defaming his religion by referring to it in similar vein, because it does not has a ‘legal personality’ and thus cannot be defamed.
However, Muslims, in both the UK and in OIC, are trying to have all comments that are critical of Islam classified as unlawful, irrespective if they are true, simply because they find it objectionable that their religion is exposed for what it is.
In effect, they are trying to bring in the equivalent of what Christians did when they imposed blasphemy laws on us (now a dead letter, I’m pleased to say); technically anyone who denied the existence of ‘God’ could be charged with committing an offence – and many were -but it was no defence to point out the fact that there is no objective evidence that the Christian ‘God’ (or any other, for that matter) had ever existed, therefore one could not be charged with a crime for simply pointing that ineluctable fact out.
In short, what we are really talking about here is that Muslims want anyone who questions them pushing their religion onto the rest of us to be silenced by law.
If you doubt that, just visit Saudi and walk about with a copy of the Bible in your hand and read a few passages in public aloud from time to time – then wait and see if the powers that be there are willing to respect your (espoused for the purposes of this experiment) religious beliefs. Not effing likely. And whilst they just might not sentence you to death for it, you will likely be flogged and incarcerated.
This resolution put before the UN had nothing to do with showing respect for all religions, but all to do with silencing any criticism of Islam.
31 March 2009, on 5:47 pm
And another thing, Orzo, your comment: Probably someone wasting their lunch hour like the rest of us
How you disappoint me; here was I thinking that you were a poor seeker after truth whilst in reality you’re just another time-wasting jobsworth stealing their boss’ bandwidth. How I am devastated to discover that!
(BTW, this post is a joke, mate – or as funny as this Old Git can be – so please don’t take it personally. When you become as old as I am, this is what passes for a social life, LOL)
1 April 2009, on 10:59 am
Old Git,
Defamation is recognized as applicable to “organizations” in Canada.
From http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/libel-slander-defamation-of-%20character.htm :
Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization’s reputation. I imagine definitions of legal terms vary with each country. While “organization” is more specific than “religion” it comes pretty darn close.
The UN resolution does not suggest that any religion “should be beyond criticism”. I’m assuming you read the resolution.
If one wishes to criticize a religion effectively and legally, he/she should be able to present truthful arguments. Defamation, such as that witnessed in Nazi Germany prior to and during WW II, creates bigotry and hatred. It is a very effective way to control populations and get people to do things they would normally consider ethically reprehensible. With this history still so fresh in our minds, is it any wonder that Muslims wish to find avenues to limit the rising tide of bigotry against them?
I did not state that Muslims would not seek or could not convince their chosen countries to install Sharia Law. Muslims have tried to do it here in Canada. I stated that certain parts of Sharia Law may be more difficult to utilize with this UN resolution in place.
This being stated, the United Nations has so little power to effect change that the whole matter seems completely overblown. Years ago the UN told a provincial government in Canada to quit supporting a separate Roman Catholic school system, but it’s still here and we still choose between public and RC school support when we pay our property taxes.
1 April 2009, on 11:03 am
No worries. Actually my comments were mostly in response to the post from Lynda right before yours.
As for wating my lunch hour, strictly CYA…
1 April 2009, on 11:26 am
“…mostly in response to the post from Lynda…”
I’m just making it worse, aren’t I?
1 April 2009, on 1:47 pm
Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization’s reputation. I imagine definitions of legal terms vary with each country. While “organization” is more specific than “religion” it comes pretty darn close.
The link you give is not to the specific statute, just a loose interpretation of it, so it is not much use in discovering what is meant by an ‘organization’. However, my understanding is that historically Canadian law is largely similar to English common law, and in the latter incorporated organisations, such as limited companies, have a ‘legal personality’ and therefore have rights in law, whereas unicorproated companies do not have ‘legal personality’ and therefore do not have rights in law. Religions are not incorporated organisations, and neither are specific denominations, such as the Roman Catholic or Anglican and, therefore, they do not have ‘legal personality’ – consequently they cannot be defamed as defamation laws apply only to things which have ‘legal personalities’. However, an office in the church, such as a Bishopric, does have a ‘legal personality’ – because it is an office not because it has anything to do with religion per se, and offices of this kind have ‘legal personality’ . Thus, the fact that a religion may have some similarities with an organisation, it does not follow that under Canadian law that they can be defamed unless there is something in your statute which extends defamation to include religion per se – and that I doubt is the case.
If one wishes to criticize a religion effectively and legally, he/she should be able to present truthful arguments.
Agreed, but then there are moves afoot, in this country and elsewhere, specifically by Muslims, to stop any questioning, criticism, or comment which they feel causes them offence – and that, you will appreciate, is a subjective test, not an objective one – so that the fact that the comment they take exception to is truthful and evidence-based is entirely irrelevant and no defence. Only recently our Government tried to introduce such a law – mainly at the behest of Muslims – but it took an organised campaign by supporters of free speech, comedians etc., to have it kicked into touch (for the moment). Nevertheless, Muslim pressure groups are pushing for its reintroduction – and also Sharia – and out Government is willing to concede on the grounds that if it doesn’t give Muslims what they want it will radicalise them and encourage more suicide attacks on the rest of us.
As for your charge that defamation causes bigotry and hatred, please don’t forget that religion has always been the greatest source of bigotry and hatred and remains so to this day – especially Islam, as the Qur’an exhorts those who are submissive to Allah’s will to extend the caliphate to the whole world and those of us who cannot be convinced to become Muslim are to be put to death.
Frankly, there are too many apologists for religion in this world who are prepared to allow religion and its adherents a freedom from criticism and are willing to allow them to continue to exert the power which they historically have had over everyone’s lives, believers and unbelievers alike.
In short, all religions are about one thing, dictatorship, since they involve a small number of unelected and self-appointed people being able to control the masses whilst they ruling cadre enjoys the fruits of our labours on their behalf.
If you are content to be a slave – which, incidentally is effectively what ‘Islam’ means (actually to be submissive to Allah) – carry on, but don’t expect me to lie down supinely and let religionists dictate to me how I should live my life. I imagine that I am not the only person subscribing to GIFS who feels this way.
Pax vobiscum
1 April 2009, on 7:49 pm
um…one question, I’m not saying he does exist but I’m just wondering what makes it so impossible for him to exist? I’m not sure whether he does or not and I just wanted to know if there was any logical explanation as to why he can’t exist?
By saying god doesn’t exist, isn’t that proselytizing the theists to become atheists? Wouldn’t you have to be neutral to not proselytize?
If god doesn’t exist as all of you say, what’s the point of life then? Shouldn’t we all just do whatever we want to do and not care whether it is right or wrong, if there is no god? So then, why should we worry about whether we break the law or not? Are you all saying I can go rob a bank? Or is there a reason that I shouldn’t do that?
Sorry for the biased questions, I’m just a little confused right now on the matter of whether or not god exists.
2 April 2009, on 12:56 am
^ Bob…
RE your: “um…one question…(etc.)”
One question?…I counted 9…?
Before I even start taking a personal stab at answering your questions, I suggest you check out this link, and do some reading on some of Austin Cline’s handy-dandy, nicely laid out info regarding your quest for answers.
Seriously! Austin’s Site is probably one of best blogs for all kinds of very intelligently expressed information on Agnosticism and Atheism. Check the “Must Reads” & “Scientifically, God Does Not Exist” articles:
http://atheism.about.com/
1) “I’m not sure whether he does or not and I just wanted to know if there was any logical explanation as to why he can’t exist?”
2) “I’m not saying he does exist but I’m just wondering what makes it so impossible for him to exist?”
As far as I know, no atheists make such a claim…i.e…that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for “him/her/it” to exist. We atheists simply don’t believe in ANY gods/or goddesses. No Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Allah, “God” or any other of the humongous number of gods that man has invented. See:
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/List_of_deities
WHY? There’s absolutely no Scientific evidence, or NEED for any such being in the observed Universe. Further…it’s up to those who claim such, to provide the evidence and/or logical proof for such a claim. As Carl Sagan, famously said:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
[That link covers a lot of this topic, quite well, I think.]
3 &4) “By saying god doesn’t exist, isn’t that proselytizing the theists to become atheists? Wouldn’t you have to be neutral to not proselytize?
I think “about us”, in the GifS info pretty much answers that. This is not a proselytizing Site; its set up for atheists. Personally , I think of it as a friendly to atheists…”oasis”; where, as the top of the page indicates, we express our opinions with each other; without concerning ourselves with pleasing, or proelytizing to ANY theists.
Kinda…”We don’t need no (any?) stinking neutrality!”
We tell it like it “T…I…IZ” (Pardon my 1970s reference?)
In other words…We’re not out lookin’ for the “Sheeple”…if they come here…they’re entering a sort of “Lions’ Den”.
5) “If god doesn’t exist as all of you say, what’s the point of life then?”
In a sense…there really is no ultimate “point to life”; it simply “is”. It’s up to US, individually, to make sense of our own lives. I’d say most atheists make the best of whatever life has dealt them; which includes intentionally doing no harm to others. In general, the old “golden rule” fits pretty well, generally.
6) Shouldn’t we all just do whatever we want to do and not care whether it is right or wrong, if there is no god?
Right or wrong (good/evil?) are concepts gained through long, hard won, human EXPERIENCE. Humans evolved the notions of right and wrong over thousands of years. There’s no need for any god source for what we’ve learned through experience as “social entities” in our trying to create group security and stability out of potential…chaos.
7, 8 and 9) “So then, why should we worry about whether we break the law or not? Are you all saying I can go rob a bank? Or is there a reason that I shouldn’t do that?
The only reason we might “worry” about breaking the law would certainly, I think, INCLUDE the fact that deciding to do so might contradict our own personal principles of right and wrong. Robbing a bank…stealing from others…would certainly contradict MY personal principles.
[i.e...If I can steal from others; they can steal from me! If that, indeed, was OK as a "Universal Principle", chaos would ensue, etc.]
AND…Given that we have established laws regarding that; jail time might be more than a likely result.
[I've experience, briefly, being in jail, behind bars (and not as a bartender!...drunk tank style...in my "wilder days")...ummm...
No fun, indeed!]
Anyway, Bob; I’m sure there are other “GifSters” here who could probably do a much better job of answering your questions than I. In fact, there’s a whole lot of good things residing in our archives from some very smart people who’ve commented here over the past few years.
At least I tried. And, like I said; Austin Cline’s Site is also, I think, excellent for a lot of Rational/Philosophical oriented information. He has a ton of articles on agnostic/atheist related subjects.
[Also check the article comments, as well.]
2 April 2009, on 4:07 am
Bob,
Forgive me if I traduce you, but I don’t think that you are an honest enquirer after truth and that you really are just another theist who is trying to amuse themselves or trying to be clever at the expense of those of us who don’t share your inability to make up our own minds on the basis of credible empiric evidence, rational thought, the application of logic and personal integrity. In other words, I really don’t believe your concluding comment: “[That you are] just a little confused right now on the matter of whether or not god exists.”
In any event, I don’t propose to waste my time in playing your little game – unlike my friend Chuck who has given you some perfectly good answers that you should have been able to work out for yourself by this stage of your life if you really were genuine. Nevertheless, I will respond, briefly, to you first and supposedly only ‘one question’ , not nine as Chuck correctly identifies:
“What makes it so impossible for ['God'] to exist?”
Your question presupposes that there is but one agent called ‘God’ whereas there are – and have been – thousands of allegedly sentient agents given that title and endowed with similar supernatural powers over the millennia but the claims made for most of these ‘gods’ , if not all of them, are for the large part contradictory and none are supported by any credible empiric evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, on a logical or rational basis these conflicting claims are equally impossible. Now, before I can deal with your question, you must tell me what makes it possible for the ‘God’ you have in mind to exist, and please support your argument with credible empiric evidence presented logically and rationally.
I await your response with interest.
2 April 2009, on 10:40 am
^ Thanks, for your generous support, TOG.
Considering your unfailing acumen on sniffing out questionable…”toads”(?); I’d say the “troll selection” setting on your uncanny fraud detector proves that it’s in perfect working order. You installed new batteries?
["Say what?" I'm in a ultra-stretching mood?]
I should’ve been as sharp, myself.
My excuse?…
It was ‘very late’ here…my brain was yawning (and dribbling)…and I got; it would seem…
totally suckered?
Just noting…It seems, since yesterday, if we were both to yodel(?)
[or maybe, blow those huge, low frequency, Buddhist monk horns.] …there’d be a VERY long GifS echo.
(I’m kidding about the lack of comments from Stardust, etc., the last couple of days.)
What!…Don’t venture too close to the “comment edge”? The rocks seem rather loose!
We have no safety lines, either…
and it’s a LONG way down!
“H-E-L-L-O-O-O-O-O-o-o-o-o-o-o-o!!!”
2 April 2009, on 10:42 am
And, I just remembered the title of this Post!
2 April 2009, on 1:16 pm
I think I smell a fundie troll.
Yep, definitely fundie troll. If bob, you feel compelled to ask this question at an atheist site, you are giving yourself away big time.
No, just clarifying that theists are idiots and delusional when it comes to god beliefs. Saying god doesn’t exist is taking a stance, not proselytizing. Now people who come around telling us we need zombie Jeebus in our hearts or we are going to be doomed to hell…that is proselytizing.
Yep, you are definitely a god botherer. The point of life is different for everyone, it’s what you make it to be. There is no designated point to life in general for all people except that we are born, live, die. The rest if up to you.
Why? It’s only god belief or fear of an imaginary man that you have morals and know right from wrong? In order to get along in society, we must cooperate, follow rules, etc. to live in a peaceful society.
Uh, because we don’t want to go to jail…isn’t that a big reason for people to behave? Mostly though, we all just want to live peacefully and not be bothered…therefore we do unto others, etc. etc. Didn’t your parents teach you that?
You are an idiot, indeed. You are the perfect example to go along with this post, Idiots, Inc. If you want to go rob a bank, be prepared to go to jail and spend some time getting butt-fucked by Bubba.
Why would you want to? It isn’t very civilized if you would want to just take what isn’t your’s ..and if you do, other humans are going to bring you to justice and hold you accountable.
Sorry, bullshit! And you probably love your imaginary friend and self-delusion with all your heart, yadda, yadda, yadda.
2 April 2009, on 1:53 pm
[*sigh*]
Could someone please point this fucking idiot in the direction of an intro to ethics class?
It’s called “Philosophy,” moron — and the discipline has been around for a little while.
2 April 2009, on 5:12 pm
Let’s not be too harsh on the ‘Not the real Bob’ for the question he raises are no more risible and disingenuous than those raised by far more august personages than he and, indeed, it has to be that way, for religionists who have the merest scintilla of insight know that the claims that they offer in an attempt to substantiate their spurious so-called ‘belief’ in ‘God’ do not stand up to even cursory examination.
The sharp-eyed amongst you will have noted that I stressed the word ‘insight’. Without sufficient insight to realise that their claims that ‘God’ exists are entirely without foundation in reality, religionist genuinely meet the criteria for the diagnosis of being delusional and, by definition, psychopathological. With insight, however, they are then what Georges Rey has described as ‘meta-atheists’; in other words, at some level they know full well that their professed beliefs are, frankly, lies. Incidentally, pathological liars also meet the criteria for being diagnosed as psychopathological, therefore, all theists are suffering from a mental disorder of one kind or another.
Here’s a prime example of the knowlingly fraudlent staements put out by theists which illustrate what I mean; this is from no less a personage than Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, who uses the following type of argument to defend his alleged ‘beliefs’ in ‘God’:
Astute readers, of which there are many on GIFS, will note that McGrath uses the word ‘belief’ throughout that quote, but he is a man of sufficient education to know that ‘belief’ is not a synonym for ‘faith’ and neither is it one for the state of affairs that psychologists and epistemologists call ‘justified true belief’. In short, his statement is wilfully disingenuous which, in turn, says little about his integrity, either as an academic or as a man. (those who wish to read more on this issue can follow this link.)
I doubt that we’ll ever hear from the ‘Not the real Bob’ again, which is a pity, perhaps, because I could do with some amusement laughing at his pathetic attempts to justify the unjustifiable.
If I can eat such august personages as Alister McGrath, people like ‘Not the real Bob’ hardly count as a tasty morsel.
3 April 2009, on 12:03 pm
Old Git,
As for your charge that defamation causes bigotry and hatred, please don’t forget that religion has always been the greatest source of bigotry and hatred and remains so to this day
One can hardly forget that religious beliefs can be the source of much bigotry and hatred, but your assumption that “religion has always been the greatest source of bigotry and hatred” really has not been established beyond doubt. I imagine there are a lot of people still studying the root of racism, sexism, nationalism and forms of bigotry. Sociology, psychology and anthropology have not managed to come to definitive answers as to why people hate and maintain unreasonable prejudices. Hatred has even deeper roots than religion, I suspect, and probably started long before the bicameral mind labeled its musings as the voice of god. Your charge against religion still does not negate the overwhelming evidence that defamation is part of most propaganda machines used to build walls, encourage bigotry and fuel terrorism and genocidal mania.
Religions are not incorporated organisations, and neither are specific denominations, such as the Roman Catholic or Anglican and, therefore, they do not have ‘legal personality’ – consequently they cannot be defamed as defamation laws apply only to things which have ‘legal personalities’.
If you insist that defamation laws cannot apply to personality-less religion, then I fail to see why anyone takes the UN resolution seriously. Why the upheaval over such a flawed and legally impossible idea? There must be some definition of “defamation” accepted by the writers of the resolution that can be applied to those without personality or character. Since the Canadian laws use the term “reputation” as being the thing damaged by defamation, it is entirely plausible that it could apply to a religion that does have a reputation to protect within a community.
If you are content to be a slave … carry on, but don’t expect me to lie down supinely and let religionists dictate to me how I should live my life.
While you associate religious belief with “slavery”, and I am not going to disagree, please don’t forget that we are all slaves to natural laws on a tiny planet in a massive unfriendly universe. Balance and compromise are required to keep this haven of humanity livable. The dogmatism of religious belief is not effectively silenced by dogmatism of an irreligious nature. Our best way of finding any truth in the universe is through scientific inquiry and the history of science tells us that dogmatism usually leads to chasing a tail in a circle.
3 April 2009, on 1:35 pm
Bob (onob):
“I just wanted to know if there was any logical explanation as to why he can’t exist?”
There have been whole books written that detail logical explanations for why PARTICULAR gods cannot exist. The limited nature of our ability to understand everything means the question of whether any god can’t exist will likely never be answered. Some people redefine their gods by the most current scientific evidence and philosophical thought available, but others prefer no god to an insufficiently defined god. A “god of the gaps” seems like a pretty flimsy personage to worship.
“By saying god doesn’t exist, isn’t that proselytizing the theists to become atheists?”
Since the definition of “proselytize” is to convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another, the basic answer to your question would be ‘yes’. If someone decides to become an atheist based on statements that god doesn’t exist, then you could call it proselytizing. HOWEVER, I think the majority of people see proselytizing as a focused effort to change or convert others to a different way of thinking, but one CAN make statements about one’s own belief without a desire to convince others to believe as he/she does. Here’s an example of how making a statement does not always fit the definition of proselytizing… If I say, “I think cake is the best dessert in the world,” I do not necessarily want others to believe the same thing. I don’t really care if someone else thinks ice cream is the best dessert in the world. I, also, do not want those who think ice cream is the best dessert in the world to force me to eat it and say that it is the best dessert when I prefer cake.
Some will say that the results of believing in god puts civilization and the human race at risk of war and destruction of the planet, those atheists would appear to have more reason to proselytize others to their way of thinking.
“If god doesn’t exist as all of you say, what’s the point of life then? ”
Does life have to have a point? Even when people believe in a god you often hear them saying, “Why am I here? What is god’s will for my life?” They don’t seem to have any better idea of “the point of life” than that they were created to worship god and bring glory to his name, which seems like a mighty poor excuse for living. Basically god-believers have decided to just accept that there’s this creator out there who has some plan for them that will eventually come to fruition. Don’t ask too many questions about it because no one can know the mind of this god. This acceptance is sufficient for many people, in fact the majority, but some of us think there may be some other answer that we can actually discover through investigation. So then, the point of life could be to investigate and discover and find meaning. Or perhaps, life doesn’t have a point. Life just IS. The sludge of organic matter that happened to settle on this planet may not have had any point to life evolving.
“Shouldn’t we all just do whatever we want to do and not care whether it is right or wrong, if there is no god? So then, why should we worry about whether we break the law or not?”
Some people don’t worry about breaking the law. What happens to them? If they get caught, they might go to jail, or be fined, or worse. There are usually good tangible consequences to breaking laws, just like the natural laws. If you step off the roof of a 23 story building without a parachute you will likely end up dead when you hit the ground below. This natural law does not appear to require any god to make it quite effective at getting you to behave in a sensible manner.
Now if you wish to examine the moral implications of your behavior and try to label some activities as right and others as wrong, then you are looking at a different problem. The labeling of right and wrong seems to be something that humans like to do. Whether this has some survival benefit is still being discussed and studied. Since humans often do NOT agree on what is right and wrong (for example, on the abortion or homosexuality or segregation of the races) it seems likely that the originator of morals or ethics is not a singular being such as a god. Cannibalism (which the majority of the world frowns upon now) was considered morally acceptable by some tribes right up until the early part of the 20th century (perhaps is even still acceptable to some) yet those same tribes had a religious belief in their particular god. So how does god’s existence make it any easier to define right or wrong?
“I’m just a little confused right now on the matter of whether or not god exists.”
Well, confusion is not a bad thing. I prefer confusion over dogmatism. Confusion is a good place to start when designing a hypothesis on which to base an experiment which will eventually lead to perhaps some reasonable ideas about what actually exists. Confusion leads to learning. Dogmatism leads to a closed mind.
3 April 2009, on 2:05 pm
Lynda,
I insisted on nothing other than pointing out that in law it is only agents who have legal personality who have rights. I also made it clear that under UK common law, religions do not have legal personality and are therefore unable, as relgions, to sue for defamation. However, I did not say that the UN could not pass legislation which granted legal personality to agents such as religions who do not enjoy that status in other legislations and, if it did, then it would be up to the UN to take any enforcement action. In other words, one would have to study the exact wording of the legislation in legislation in detail and then interpret it – probably by using what jurists call the ‘purposive approach’, i.e. that is an approach by courts to statutory interpretation which involves taking into account (a) what wrong or mischief the legislators were intending to achieve and (b) filling in the gaps which are perceived to exist in the legislation they actually passed in order to give the presumed to have been intended effect of it. Indeed, the fact that most Western nations were against the UN adopting the resolution put forward by OIC is strongly indicative of the fact that the UN does have the power to pass legislation protecting religions from defamation, otherwise there would have been no point in debating the issue in the first place.
Be that as it may, if you wish to spare religions from what they perceive to be defamation, then that’s your choice, but I wonder then why you bother posting on GIFS.
Personally, I do not accept that religions should be spared from criticism, ridicule, amusement or even abuse.
As for the charge which you level against me:
My answer is that it has been established to my satisfaction, though clearly you believe otherwise. On that, as on many other things, we’ll have to differ.
3 April 2009, on 2:06 pm
Chuck A,
“In general, the old ‘golden rule’ fits pretty well, generally.”
Every time I see or hear that “golden rule” I think of what someone once said, “Those who have the gold make the rules.”
3 April 2009, on 2:23 pm
Old Git,
“Be that as it may, if you wish to spare religions from what they perceive to be defamation, then that’s your choice, but I wonder then why you bother posting on GIFS.”
As I was attempting to state before, “defamation” has to do with FALSE statements that are designed to ruin the reputation of a person or entity. The persons posting at GIFS do not seem to indulge in making FALSE statements. For the most part I see a lot of reasonable and truthful statements here, unless you wish to disagree with me and show me some of the statements that you believe defame religion. Again, CRITICISM is not to be equated with DEFAMATION. If some Muslims have it in their minds that criticism will be silenced by anti-defamation resolutions then they are sadly mistaken.
The main statement of GIFS is “God is for suckers”. Sucker means ‘one who is easily deceived’. God means various things to various people, but for the majority “god” is some sort of first mover or creator or supernatural being. So the statement that this first mover/creator/supernatural being is for anyone who are easily deceived doesn’t really appear to be a false statement and is certainly up for debate. In a court of law it could hardly be proven as a false statement given the wide range of beliefs about who or what is god.
My main point all along is that the UN resolution is likely NOT as threatening to our freedoms as some are suggesting. It will certainly not make Muslims any less targets of bigotry based on what we’ve seen so far in reaction to the resolution.
3 April 2009, on 2:34 pm
Also, Old Git, I bother posting on GIFS because people here do not take things too seriously. They have a sense of humor which appears to be sadly lacking in the religious world. I also had communications with Sean, one of the originators of the GIFS web site, before he died and I guess I have a desire to see his thoughts live on a little longer.
3 April 2009, on 3:26 pm
If some Muslims have it in their minds that criticism will be silenced by anti-defamation resolutions then they are sadly mistaken.
But that is exactly what the OIC and the Muslim Council of GB etc do want to silence. It is a subjective test, not an objective one, rather like our ‘anti-racist laws’ which define a racist comment as any comment perceived by the person it was directed at as being racially offensive. It is an entirely subjective test. Thus, if one were to see a Semite with a particularly large proboscis and shout after him, “Hey, bignose!”, he could claim that it was a racial attack on his Jewishness and the law would have to act as if it were. The fact that one’s description would have been factually correct – and not racially motivated, i.e. one had no mens rea or guilty intent – or even that one had no knowledge of the person’s racial background or status is all irrelevant to the subjective claims made by the aggrieved party that he was the victim of racist abuse. Apart from anything else, this overturns the whole concept of criminal law, in that (a) there has to be a criminal act which has been carried out voluntarily, and (b) that one must have a guilty intent in carrying that act out; both factors must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for a guilty conviction to be handed down, but this goes out the window when the guilty intent (the mens rea) requirement is thrown out for a purely subjective test of what the alleged victim’s feeling are.
If you cannot see this as an extremely dangerous and slippery slope, then I am, frankly, incredulous.
And the same goes for the UN resolution; it does not have anything to do with defamation as you understand it and you are picking the wrong cause to support.
Anyway, that’s your choice, though I hope the day will not come when you regret it.
As for your following comment, it just doesn’t stand up to analysis, I’m afraid and indicates a rather naive view of the law:
Under the blasphemy laws it did not matter if the statement was not false, it was de facto unlawful, an insult to Xtianity, and therefore subject to punishment – incidentally in the UK this law was repealed only in May 2008 but it prevails in other jurisdictions still I believe.
Anyway, I don’t propose saying another word on the subject, so if you wish to pursue the issue please do not expect a reply from me.
3 April 2009, on 7:00 pm
Old Git,
“the same goes for the UN resolution; it does not have anything to do with defamation as you understand it and you are picking the wrong cause to support.”
I’m not sure what “cause” you think I am supporting. I support rational, thoughtful and skeptical thinking. Ridicule, abuse and insults are not required for me to do this.
3 April 2009, on 11:00 pm
^ ^ Lynda?…
Don’t hold me too strictly to that “Golden Rule” comment. I was somewhat groping for some commonly known principle to point to.
I’m certainly no dogmatist.
To my thinking the “Golden” in that Rule, turns rather quickly to green, when adhered to, by…let’s say…
a completely hard-core masochist, for example…?
Hmmm…somebody like…oh-I-dunno…
Jeebus?
4 April 2009, on 4:36 am
To paraphrase Euripides:“”Talk sense to an idiot and they call you stupid.”
4 April 2009, on 2:15 pm
^ Hmmm…as to your Euripedes paraphrase TOG…
[Paraphrasing a possible fan's response to him, when he said that?]:
“You sure rip do’z guys good!
Can we’z call you…ummm..’Rippy’, perhaps?”
[Euripedes (Rippy?)]:
“Get the fuck outa here, assholes!”
4 April 2009, on 2:19 pm
Sorry…wrong guy? I DID mean Euripides?
(mis-spelling…AGAIN! “D’uh!”)
“HARR!”
4 April 2009, on 2:47 pm
Chuck,
Don’t you mean Miss Spelling, Aaron’s daughter?
4 April 2009, on 3:44 pm
You’ve out-punned me again, TOG.
Come to think of it…SHE’S probably been “punned” a whole lot!
And not with a computer keyboard either…if you get my (non Viagra/‘rod of iron’) drift?
[I'm just kinda 'Post-sex-like' (non-smoking style) wondering...
should we just let this Idiot Post sorta die a natural GifS, "gradual sinking into the archives" demise now?]
You know…like your “Pax vobiscum”
(or is it: “Max…go frisk him!”?)…
“Requiescat in pace”?
7 April 2009, on 7:56 am
Put all the Jew Cunts, and Muslim pig bastards, any other religious fuckers who have an argument with any other religious group, on an island, arm them all with automatic weapons and let them blow shit out of one another. And let the rest of the world get on with living.