|
On December 13 2010 19:33 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:30 Sanjuro wrote:
if you know something will enrage someone, and then you do that something, why are you suprised or try to defend yourself with freedom of speech crap.
Its just a matter of action getting a reaction. if you cant deal with the reaction then dont do it.
Because you are protected by the right to free speech. It's a legitimate defense. You don't get the right to hurt someone because you don't like what they said: the person is still legally protected.
why must people respect your views (free of speech) when you cant respect other peoples view (dont draw that), yes you are protected legally but why bother youself with the repurcussions is my point,
and do you think they give a damn about your legal mambo jambo(your faith in the law) when you cant respect their legal mambo jambo (the law of their faith).
if you want freedom of speech support wikileaks
|
Question is: should religion be above cristicism (because caricature is a form of criticism)? I think it MUST not because, especially because most religions do not evolve alongside society. Hence, a lot of rules that were important or useful are completely void of purpose today. Ergo, if we are not allowed to question religion or religious acts how can we expect religion to adapt to societal changes and, more importantly, to provide answers for the questions that hundreds of years ago, no one even imagined to ask.
|
This reminds me of that picture of the Atheist Apocalypse...
Mocking religon, mocking your political leaders, mocking an idea.
All part of free speech and essential.
Over the years, religon has lost its power in alot of the western world, did they like it being mocked in the beginning? Surely not, but it goes a long way to say how free of religious oppression you are when you can mock religon, making way for a more secular civilization.
Now here comes something from the old testament, you mock my god, I blow you up.
Would it be a christian fanatic, we would feel horrible for victims but also abit: mentaly ill persons can do anything... it would not change laws or even come close to tampering with freedom of speech.
Now extremist islam, just like any little countryside christian cult which worships jesus taking any heretic that strolls by their village and tying him up to be a sheep to butcher at the holy altar of jerusalem( in exile (tm)) can they not convert him first ofc. Sidetracked...
They are not the majority of islam/muslims that consider this. They are a tiny minority trying to impose their dark age beliefs(yeah, extremist islam they are kinda having abit of a islamic dark age going atm since they missed ours, poor gallileo).
And they should be mocked, if we alter our behaviour, if we say: Islam can't be touched because its a religon(religon does not mean you get instant respect for nothing, respecting religon because its religon is like respecting your drunk village idiot just because he is closer to the ancient spirits). Well, many people fought long and hard and at a whole we are far better off without the repressing fetters of religon to worry about to much, going back to wearing thoose chains because a small minority so can scare us is wrong, be it an extremist member of the witnesses, KKK or islam they should not be allowed to win by influencing laws and society to be silent rather then offend.
There should be more religious caricatures painted, more jokes made and by god(^_^) atleast make them witty, else they are the same level of humour as 'How many *censored word because i dont want to offend nobody* can you fit in a volkswagen?'
Being able to laugh at your belief is a sign of mental health as far as I'am concerned.
MOD EDIT: Please properly format your posts, thanks.
|
A being that is omniscient and omnipotent, how do you explain that? I am at least being honest and saying that I don't know where the universe comes from.
|
On December 13 2010 20:09 Sanjuro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:33 cz wrote:On December 13 2010 19:30 Sanjuro wrote:
if you know something will enrage someone, and then you do that something, why are you suprised or try to defend yourself with freedom of speech crap.
Its just a matter of action getting a reaction. if you cant deal with the reaction then dont do it.
Because you are protected by the right to free speech. It's a legitimate defense. You don't get the right to hurt someone because you don't like what they said: the person is still legally protected. why must people respect your views (free of speech) when you cant respect other peoples view (dont draw that), yes you are protected legally but why bother youself with the repurcussions is my point, and do you think they give a damn about your legal mambo jambo(your faith in the law) when you cant respect their legal mambo jambo (the law of their faith). if you want freedom of speech support wikileaks
Freedom of speech doesn't mean people are obligated to respect your views, it means you're free to express them without prosecution from the government. If they insult someone that person needs to deal with it. They could kill the person, but thats still considered murder, and they need to deal with the consequences, because being insulted doesn't give you the right to deprive someone of their right to life. You thinking that it does makes you a terrorist. Please, screw up like that other guy and only blow yourself up.
|
Wow the amount of ignorance in this thread is ridiculous. So much hate towards a religion that 1.6 billion people follow, the majority of which are not even Arab. Any argument suggesting that Muslims are a violent people or that Islam allows that kind of behaviour is just illogical.
Regarding free speech, in my opinion even free speech should have it limits. As soon as your "free speech" trespassing on someone else freedom it should not go unpunished. They should not put prohibitions on the cartoons because they are scared but rather because it is the right thing to do. It starts out as cartoons but eventually it will escalate to hate and division.
To all the people who don't understand why muslims would be upset over the pictures put yourself in their shoes. Lets simplify this, would you not be upset if I insulted your mom? Like really in your face insulted your mom. You would because that's the proper response. Now for most people they would just shrug it off and ignore me, but for a small number of people i'm sure they would want to hurt me. Same thing with Muslims it's completely understandable. Now just think about it with someone's religion it's a whole different level. People live to follow their religion so obviously they would take it offensively.
As for the comment about the Quran having older parts. First you say you read it then you say something completely ignorant. The Quran is not like the bible, their is no old testament and new testament. It was all brought down over the span of the prophets life.
|
On December 13 2010 20:17 Hadron. wrote:
A being that is omniscient and omnipotent, how do you explain that? I am at least being honest and saying that I don't know where the universe comes from.
"The complexity of an omniscient and omnipotent God is highly improbable and requires some immense proof."
I'm not claiming to try and explain anything. I'm just saying that it's not nearly as complex and difficult to fit God into the universe as you'd imagine; if you're willing to take the time to look into why it's feasible. And really, it doesn't require any more proof than anything else.
And then of course you can always toss the Problem of Induction onto the heap and then we're all fucked. xD
...to this day, I'm still not sure where I stand on David Hume.
I guess really, I just dislike the intellectually dismissive tone that a lot of atheists give to Theists and people of religion in general. There are just as many intelligent people who believe in God as there are who disbelieve, and not all of us are antagonistic cunts who shout from our pulpits at the tops of our lungs that you're going to hell and that we should kill non-believers. There are rational reasons to believe in a God. And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there...
Edit: And as for the omnipotence, if he created the universe, and is the only one to fully understand it's machinations, then for all intensive purposes, he's omnipotent, or as close as you're going to get.
Omiscient=see determinism and make God the Watchmaker.
|
It is extremely important, as an honest athiest to actually be open to the idea of God. Because that is what being a good atheist is all about, actually thinking logically. It will probably take more evidence to bring me over, but if you are right then you can hopefully show it.
Omnipotence is extremely improbable, how would you suggest such a being came to existence? And what reason do you actually have that he exists?
|
Ridiculous. They came to a Western society and they must abide by Western strictures and norms. The systematic terror campaign against the cartoonists is disgusting.
People can and do say offensive and disagreeable things in an open and free society. Most of the time society doesn't stand for racketeering with the threat of death looming in the background.
Even accepting the fact that they were insulted and lets even throw in that the cartoons were absolutely arbitrary and designed just to offend muslims. Still doesn't justify any sort of death threats.
|
On December 13 2010 19:20 Blobskillz wrote:
And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists.
I agree with this here. Images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are banned in Islam because he is to be remembered for his deeds, not his appearance. So, people should ignore the extremists altogether and refrain from making cartoons, paintings, drawings etc. of him out of respect for the vast majority of Muslims (myself included).
I would like to state, for the record, that yes I am a Muslim and yes the images offended me, but I am not crazy.
|
On December 13 2010 19:44 PaPoolee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:41 Blobskillz wrote:On December 13 2010 19:32 PaPoolee wrote:On December 13 2010 19:28 BeWat3r wrote:On December 13 2010 19:15 daz wrote:On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote:
I think T.O.P has some good points on his side.
One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?. I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection. Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
|
I think people should care less about the subject. Every time a Muhammad cartoon is made the western countries react like we are getting an acoplyps. its only a cartoon and jes people will be offended by it but here we have free speech and should let it go.
|
lol i love it when cultures clash and people try to force their values on one another. I could care less about that shit. Western society can do whatever the fuck they want to do, and you can do whatever the fuck you want to do. -insert joker quote-
|
On December 13 2010 20:44 Aflixion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:20 Blobskillz wrote:
And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists. I agree with this here. Images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are banned in Islam because he is to be remembered for his deeds, not his appearance. So, people should ignore the extremists altogether and refrain from making cartoons, paintings, drawings etc. of him out of respect for the vast majority of Muslims (myself included). I would like to state, for the record, that yes I am a Muslim and yes the images offended me, but I am not crazy.
This leads to a difficult situation where muslims come to western countries, which value free speech and criticism of religion (no matter how silly the actual criticism might be) and muslims who don't accept criticism of their religion.
But why should I respect Islam? Why should it be free from criticism?
|
On December 13 2010 20:35 amarai wrote:
Wow the amount of ignorance in this thread is ridiculous. So much hate towards a religion that 1.6 billion people follow, the majority of which are not even Arab. Any argument suggesting that Muslims are a violent people or that Islam allows that kind of behaviour is just illogical.
Regarding free speech, in my opinion even free speech should have it limits. As soon as your "free speech" trespassing on someone else freedom it should not go unpunished. They should not put prohibitions on the cartoons because they are scared but rather because it is the right thing to do. It starts out as cartoons but eventually it will escalate to hate and division.
To all the people who don't understand why muslims would be upset over the pictures put yourself in their shoes. Lets simplify this, would you not be upset if I insulted your mom? Like really in your face insulted your mom. You would because that's the proper response. Now for most people they would just shrug it off and ignore me, but for a small number of people i'm sure they would want to hurt me. Same thing with Muslims it's completely understandable. Now just think about it with someone's religion it's a whole different level. People live to follow their religion so obviously they would take it offensively.
As for the comment about the Quran having older parts. First you say you read it then you say something completely ignorant. The Quran is not like the bible, their is no old testament and new testament. It was all brought down over the span of the prophets life.
But who gets to decide what "the right thing to do" is?" In western culture, freedom of speech has historically meant that you can say what you want even if it does offend someone (with limits on fraud, imminent danger [fire in theater]).
So yes, you have a right to criticism my mother or anyone else I care about. And I have a right to criticize you. And you don't deserve to have $150,000 put on your head, like the Swedish artist.
The whole point of freedom of speech is that it protects the right to offend.
|
On December 13 2010 20:44 Aflixion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:20 Blobskillz wrote:
And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists. I agree with this here. Images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are banned in Islam because he is to be remembered for his deeds, not his appearance. So, people should ignore the extremists altogether and refrain from making cartoons, paintings, drawings etc. of him out of respect for the vast majority of Muslims (myself included). I would like to state, for the record, that yes I am a Muslim and yes the images offended me, but I am not crazy.
The people who draw the pictures dont have respect for muslims which is fine they are not morally or legally obligated to, i personally think all religions are morally wrong and teach disgusting horrible things to children and allow abuse to happen and to be covered up because of the nature of the infallibility of god and any mention of religions offends me greatly, but i cant do anything about someones beliefs and i will defend your right to have freedom of religion just like i will defend someone elses right to mock religions because they are at the end of the day a stupid cult founded on ignorance that has gotten out of hand
|
On December 13 2010 20:40 Hadron. wrote:
It is extremely important, as an honest athiest to actually be open to the idea of God. Because that is what being a good atheist is all about, actually thinking logically. It will probably take more evidence to bring me over, but if you are right then you can hopefully show it.
Omnipotence is extremely improbable, how would you suggest such a being came to existence? And what reason do you actually have that he exists?
I'm not here to proselytize.
And see, there's an issue that alot of people take for granted. That is, empiricism, and logic can't always match up. Historically this is a resultant of the technological limitations, or scientific understandings of the time. Logically, the retro-grade motions that Ptolemy applied to the celestial bodies was a sound thing to do considering the knowledge available to him at the time, as well as the fact that it DID explain the movements (if inaccurately). However, empirically it was impossible to prove one way or the other until we had at our disposal a new way to study the heavens.
I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that "thinking logically" and the empiricism of the time don't have to match up. It's just a matter of choosing to believe what you can see right in front of you (the best way to determine something) or choosing to believe what you can logically determine is coming (has a potential for an equally high pay off without any limiting factors of empirical collection aside from your own mind and the soundness of your logical proof).
To answer your questions, and I forewarn you that all of my answer's can do no better than break even with you, I'll ask you whether gravity as a law of physics is functional at a sub-atomic level?
It's not. Similarly I think of the constraints of our existence as being limited by our immersion within that existence dictates that we would naturally be incapable of conceiving laws and universal phenomena at such a higher level (without the aid of technology of course). Take that, and apply it to God for the Omnipotence. What we perceive as "omnipotent" may scale to an entirely different dimension for a God.
As for his actual existence, because of what I just mentioned, combined with the predictable functionality of our universe I believe that it is reasonable to think that there was a design.
However, my view is just as empirically valid as yours since I do buy into the Big Bang and all that science has provided, and depending on your philosophical rebuttal, just as logically valid, and I can't "Prove" any of it no more than you can disprove. Of course we could get into a whole deal about how you can't prove a negative anyway, but, meh, that's neither here nor there.
|
On December 13 2010 20:44 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:44 PaPoolee wrote:On December 13 2010 19:41 Blobskillz wrote:On December 13 2010 19:32 PaPoolee wrote:On December 13 2010 19:28 BeWat3r wrote:On December 13 2010 19:15 daz wrote:On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote:
I think T.O.P has some good points on his side.
One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?. I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection. Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid. So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
|
prohibit muhammed drawings? that would never happend and if it did there would be riots in the streets
|
Of course freedom of speech is absolute, what kind of question is that?
But, for example, publishing a fake article about some guy to make that someone look bad should of course be a criminal offense.
But that's not really limits to freedom of speech. When it comes to these cartoons and what not, anyone suggesting it's wrong are simply wrong themselves
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
