France and the cartoons of Mohammed; what's your take?

[MrDibble]

@Novelty_Bobble

I’m not a aware of a state sanction for public displays of hate.

“I’m not aware”, the mating call of the racism-oblivious. Of course, you won’t see these as displays of hate.

Unless “a aware” is a subtle double negation, not a typo…

@Novelty_Bobble

It is not necessarily a fallacy. It all depends whether there is a reasonable and plausible link between one action and a future consequence.

Yes. “Possible” is not a substitute for “reasonable and plausible”

@Novelty_Bobble

Both of course risk confusing correlation with causation where there is actually another larger force at work.

I’m not saying cartoons cause gas chambers. That would be stupid. I’m saying the kind of society that allows (and encourages) the cartoons is the same one that builds the chambers.

@Novelty_Bobble

Then I question your reading of history.

Yet there the history is.

@Novelty_Bobble

Plus, you assume that the restrictions being applied are sensible and that the targets of those restrictions are necessarily “racist”.

They are racist. Even people on your side of this argument admit as much.

@Novelty_Bobble

Lots of societies in the past have and continue to tolerate potentially offensive publications (Racism being just one aspect of this) and yet managed not to descend into totalitarian regimes.

Well, not totalitarian to you, at any rate… you’re not the one being dictated to and having absolute subservience to a particular state ideology demanded of you.

@Novelty_Bobble

What is it about a lack of belief in god that would lead a person to want to stamp out religion?

Fear of persecution would be a big one. “Get them before they get us” kind of thinking.

Seriously, you think atheism is some kind of proof against dumb thinking? How could it be, when atheism itself is a prime example of a not-completely-thought-out idea?

@Novelty_Bobble

Seriously, draw me the line here. Feel free to refer to the tenets of atheism that would take someone there (hint, there are no tenets).

Atheism doesn’t have tenets. Atheists frequently do have beliefs, often unspoken yet visibly manifest. One of those is a (grossly unfounded) belief in their inherent superiority over the theistic, either intellectually or morally, merely for being atheists. This often manifests in outright hostility (see posts in this thread for textual examples). But your otherwise-slippery-slope-believing self thinks that will always stop at mere words?

Why? It didn’t for theists.

(meanwhile, my non-theistic, non-atheistic ass is laughing at both sides)

@Novelty_Bobble

Atheism is not an ideology.

No, but it definitely contains distinctly atheist ideologies. Ones that could be corrupted just like any other.

@Novelty_Bobble

If someone does not believe in the Loch Ness Monster they could think that racist paedophilia is fine.

Dumb analogy is dumb. There’s no link between the two, like there definitely is between atheism and the theism mostly practiced by brown people that is Islam.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@MrDibble

Seriously, you think atheism is some kind of proof against dumb thinking?

No. It is neither a proof against dumb thinking nor a guarantee or a result of clear thinking

Atheism makes no requirement of any thought beyond “I don’t accept the proposition of a god”

@MrDibble

Atheism doesn’t have tenets. Atheists frequently do have beliefs

Then you’ve just proved my point. You are having to shoehorn extra beliefs in there that…to state it again…are not contingent on atheism.

@MrDibble

One of those is a (grossly unfounded) belief in their inherent superiority over the theistic, either intellectually or morally, merely for being atheists.

So feel free to draw a line from such a mindset to malicious actions and I’ll agree wholeheartedly. However what you won’t be able to do is show how that mindset arises from atheism.

@MrDibble

But your otherwise-slippery-slope-believing self thinks that will always stop at mere words?

Why? It didn’t for theists.

I find this interesting, you criticise slippery slope thinking while appealing to the slippery slope

@MrDibble

(meanwhile, my non-theistic, non-atheistic ass is laughing at both sides)

Either you are a theist or you are not. there’s no third option seeing as theist and atheist are direct negations.
Something is either “p” or “not p”.

@MrDibble

No, but it definitely contains distinctly atheist ideologies. Ones that could be corrupted just like any other.

No matter how many times you state such things it it wont become true. Atheists individually may have other ideologies, but atheism doesn’t contain or necessitate ideologies. You simply can’t draw that connecting line from atheism to racism. You can’t and smarter people than both of us have tried. It is neither sufficient nor necessary.

@MrDibble

Dumb analogy is dumb. There’s no link between the two, like there definitely is between atheism and the theism mostly practiced by brown people that is Islam.

Why is it dumb? It is a lack of a belief and subsequent harmful behaviour. You think it is ridiculous that you can start with “I don’t believe in the Loch Ness Monster” and get to “racist Paedophilia is fine” because, as you admit. There is no link. How can there be from a simple non-acceptance of a premise? It is an exact analogy to the “atheism can lead to racism” claim.

You think otherwise? OK, stop dancing and show me the steps. Start with “I don’t have a belief with god” and show me how that gets you to racism.

[MrDibble]

The idea that atheism exists independent of atheists is so ridiculous, I’m going to forgo my usual line-by-line just to point out that I originally said “atheist-based racism”, not “atheism-based racism”, and so all that verbiage about how perfect Platonic Atheism is, is irrelevant.

@Novelty_Bobble

Either you are a theist or you are not.

“atheist” and “not a theist” are not synonyms. And neither is a coherent philosophical stance.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@MrDibble

The idea that atheism exists independent of atheists is so ridiculous, I’m going to forgo my usual line-by-line just to point out that I originally said “ atheist -based racism”, not “atheism-based racism”, and so all that verbiage about how perfect Platonic Atheism is, is irrelevant.

Doesn’t matter how ridiculous you find it. If you intend to imply that the “atheist racism” is somehow arising from atheism itself you are wrong. You haven’t shown how that logically follows and I challenge you to do so or admit you cannot.

@MrDibble

“atheist” and “not a theist” are not synonyms. And neither is a coherent philosophical stance.

They absolutely are.

If someone asks you “Are you a theist?” and you answer “no”. You are an atheist at least. You may also be many other things besides.

And atheism has no burden of coherence as it is simply a negation of the “theist” position.
Someone who does not believe the claims of extraterrestrial visitation has no burden of coherence either beyond the statement that such claims have not met a burden of proof.

[MrDibble]

@Novelty_Bobble

Doesn’t matter how ridiculous you find it. If you intend to imply that the “atheist racism” is somehow arising from atheism itself you are wrong.

No, I successfully showed how “atheist racism” could possibly arise from atheists themselves. Not the thing you’d prefer I said, but what I actually said.

@Novelty_Bobble

You are an atheist at least .

No. You are merely not a theist. Atheism is not a passive state. It requires actually taking a position on the existence of deities. Rocks are not atheist. Birds are not atheist. Flowers are not atheist. And neither am I.

@Novelty_Bobble

And atheism has no burden of coherence as it is simply a negation of the “theist” position.

You can’t negate an incoherent position and remain coherent yourself. Not when the term you’re negating is itself incoherent.

Someone who does not believe the claims of extraterrestrial visitation has no burden of coherence either beyond the statement that such claims have not met a burden of proof.

They have a burden, which they’ve already met. The minimum coherence would be explaining what the concept of an extraterrestrial is, in a coherent way.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@MrDibble

No, I successfully showed how “atheist racism” could possibly arise from atheists themselves. Not the thing you’d prefer I said, but what I actually said.

if all you mean is that some atheists can be racist then that is true to the point of banality.
If you mean that atheism itself is somehow connected to that racism then you have not made that case and cannot make that case.

@MrDibble

No. You are merely not a theist. Atheism is not a passive state. It requires actually taking a position on the existence of deities.

No, no, and no. I don’t take a position on the existence of deities and I am most certainly an atheist.

Consider the marble analogy that has been used elsewhere.
A massive jar of marbles is placed in front of us. We’ve never seen it before and neither of us has any special knowledge about it that is denied to the other.
You say it contains 14,897 marbles. I say that I don’t accept you are right.
I’m not saying that you are wrong, I’m not saying that it must contain another specific figure and I do not have the burden of giving an estimate myself.
I have not taken a position on the number marbles in any way, just that I do not accept your claim to be right.
In the case above, you are the theist and I am the atheist.

@MrDibble

You can’t negate an incoherent position and remain coherent yourself. Not when the term you’re negating is itself incoherent.

negate in the this sense just means the negative, the “not” position. You can be in the position of not accepting an incoherent position without any requirement for coherence yourself. We do it all the time.

@MrDibble

They have a burden, which they’ve already met. The minimum coherence would be explaining what the concept of an extraterrestrial is, in a coherent way.

No, the person who claims ET’s exists has the burden of proof and coherence.

[Babale]

@MrDibble

“I’m not aware”, the mating call of the racism-oblivious. Of course, you won’t see these as displays of hate.

Unless “a aware” is a subtle double negation, not a typo…

They don’t show the actual cartoons that were projected in the video. Were they the “goat fucking” cartoons, or just ones depicting muhammed at all?

[Babale]

@MrDibble

Seriously, you think atheism is some kind of proof against dumb thinking? How could it be, when atheism itself is a prime example of a not-completely-thought-out idea?

Lol, this one i got to hear. How is atheism a not completely thought out idea?

[Babale]

@MrDibble

@Novelty_Bobble

Either you are a theist or you are not.

“atheist” and “not a theist” are not synonyms. And neither is a coherent philosophical stance.

You haven’t displayed one of those yet. Just “anything that’s offensive to people who matter is bad, and I, MrDibble, am the sole arbiter of what is offensive and which groups we care and do not care about causing offense to”.

[MrDibble]

@Novelty_Bobble

if all you mean is that some atheists can be racist then that is true to the point of banality.
If you mean that atheism itself is somehow connected to that racism then you have not made that case and cannot make that case.

Can, and did.

Note, I’m not making the case that something about atheism as a belief motivates the hypothetical racism. I’m saying something about a person being an atheist does. There’s a difference.

@Novelty_Bobble

Consider the marble analogy that has been used elsewhere.

My position is not covered in this analogy at all, and can’t be, which is where it falls apart. The proper analogy would be if there’s a xewic junbundit of flimmeries, and someone say it grittenates.

You say to them “I don’t accept that it does”. That’s your atheism.

And I say to them “What the fuck are you talking about, mate? Come back when you’re coherent.”

That’s not negating their statement. That’s not atheism.

@Novelty_Bobble

You can be in the position of not accepting an incoherent position without any requirement for coherence yourself.

There is the third position - where the question is itself meaningless (in the strict sense - it carries no meaningful information). This is not the same as not accepting the incoherent position.

@Novelty_Bobble

No, the person who claims ET’s exists has the burden of proof and coherence.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by coherence. If the a-ET-accepter has a shared meaningful concept of ETs with the ET-believer, then it’s coherent for both of them.

@Babale

They don’t show the actual cartoons that were projected in the video. Were they the “goat fucking” cartoons, or just ones depicting muhammed at all?

They were the hateful racist caricature ones (including racist hateful Jewish caricatures)

@Babale

Lol, this one i got to hear. How is atheism a not completely thought out idea?

The concept of “God” used in these arguments is completely meaningless. Atheism argues with theism as if it does.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@MrDibble

Can, and did.

can’t and haven’t

@MrDibble

Note, I’m not making the case that something about atheism as a belief motivates the hypothetical racism. I’m saying something about a person being an atheist does. There’s a difference.

And the “something” could not be said to come from their atheism. Glad you agree with me.

@MrDibble

My position is not covered in this analogy at all, and can’t be, which is where it falls apart. The proper analogy would be if there’s a xewic junbundit of flimmeries, and someone say it grittenates.
You say to them “I don’t accept that it does”. That’s your atheism.

And I say to them “What the fuck are you talking about, mate? Come back when you’re coherent.”

And you walk away not accepting the claim they were making. You are in the exact same state regarding that claim as I am.

@MrDibble

There is the third position - where the question is itself meaningless (in the strict sense - it carries no meaningful information). This is not the same as not accepting the incoherent position.

In which case you have not been moved from the default position.

@MrDibble

I don’t think you understand what I mean by coherence. If the a-ET-accepter has a shared meaningful concept of ETs with the ET-believer, then it’s coherent for both of them.

The only person who has a requirement to create a coherent concept is the person making the positive claim.
If they can’t do that, for whatever reason. If they choose to communicate it via nonsense words, whistles, smells or the medium of modern dance and the concept is not communicated in a way on which a judgement can be made then the claim is not supported and potentially not even identifiable and the other party walks away in the exact same belief state as they started with…i.e. none…i.e. unconvinced, i.e. without the belief…i.e…the equivalent of an atheist.

[QuickSilver]

@MrDibble

The concept of “God” used in these arguments is completely meaningless. Atheism argues with theism as if it does.

I would tell you that you’re absolutely wrong here, but given how you roll, I doubt anyone could tell you the time of day.

[Babale]

@MrDibble

They were the hateful racist caricature ones (including racist hateful Jewish caricatures)

Notice how you didn’t answer my question?

Just like you didn’t here:

@MrDibble

@Novelty_Bobble

if all you mean is that some atheists can be racist then that is true to the point of banality.

If you mean that atheism itself is somehow connected to that racism then you have not made that case and cannot make that case.

Can, and did.

Your “did not!” “Did too!” style of debating is quite grating outside a 2nd grade classroom. I am done here.

[Babale]

@QuickSilver

@MrDibble

The concept of “God” used in these arguments is completely meaningless. Atheism argues with theism as if it does.

I would tell you that you’re absolutely wrong here, but given how you roll, I doubt anyone could tell you the time of day

Yeah. I have no idea what TF he’s talking about. Most atheists I know adopted atheism precisely because they realized the conception of God presented by their religion wasn’t sensical. But of course MrDibble is gonna come here and tell us we’re both wrong without elaborating, so I’m done.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Babale

But of course MrDibble is gonna come here and tell us we’re both wrong without elaborating, so I’m done.

In this case, as well as in many other cases, there cannot be a “great” debate in the absence of a formal set of rules and an arbitrator. (In my opinion, of course.)

[QuickSilver]

For that I refer you to: MrDibble’s Undisputed and Diabolical Compendium of Knowledge About All Things Trite and Ponderous, aptly subtitled, ‘-Often Wrong But Never In Doubt-’.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Babale

{…} Most atheists I know adopted atheism precisely because they realized the conception of God presented by their religion wasn’t sensical. {…}

Gonna step out onto a limb here and suggest that MrDibble takes the position that no conception of (G)god presented by any religion is sensical . . . and the fact that no one is using the, relatively, common phrase that describes that view is telling.

[Babale]

@crowmanyclouds

Gonna step out onto a limb here and suggest that MrDibble takes the position that no conception of (G)god presented by any religion is sensical . . . and the fact that no one is using the, relatively, common phrase that describes that view is telling

I have no idea what phrase you are talking about or what you think the fact that no one used it implies. I would agree with the statement that no conception of God presented by any religion is sensical. I don’t see how in the world that would make me “not an atheist” as MrDibble claimed with no explanation.

[crowmanyclouds]

The thought of what America would be like
If the Classics Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy had a wide circulation
Troubles my sleep

[raventhief]

Moderating

Let’s knock off the atheism/ET /can too/ can not tangents. Start another thread if it’s a topic you really want to argue.