Blasphemy

[exchemist]

The ironies of this post are unbelievable. Are you that blind to your own contractions and hypocrisies?

So you may have had a mean grandmother, that justifies your conduct how?

Contractions? Is someone giving birth?

 

[Darkforbid]

If the Constitution gave Christians the right to impose their religion on the country,
then that would be the law of the land. But it prohibits establishment of religion.
Moreover, Christians are heading down below 75% of the populace.
Should they be able to violate the Constitution in order to impose their religion
upon the unwilling non-believers?
I guarantee that when we heathens become the majority, we won't prohibit
religion. And we won't force you to say ant-Christian mottos or oaths.

Ref....
Percentage of Christians in U.S. Drifting Down, but Still High

But only 3.1 identify themselves as atheist I wonder why

 

[Revoltingest]

But only 3.1 identify themselves as atheist I wonder why

Our conversion efforts are dismal.
Should we increase them?

 

[icehorse]

Well you said "Because what's CRUCIAL is free speech. The need for free speech vastly outweighs any individual's desire to "not be offended"

But what you really mean free speech as long as it agrees with my view

wait what? I've said no such thing. This is what I mean when I say "strawman" - this is the 2nd time you've put words in my mouth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

An appearance on TV by god.

Haha... some people will believe anything they see on TV...

 

[Darkforbid]

I don't believe this for an instant.

Can you give an example and show how it breaks this law?

Because I've been using the net for a long time and personally been convicted on 3 counts of section 4a public orders offence on 3 police officers by parodying the Northamptonshire polices website therefore causing them harassment, alarm or distress

Like I said thinking you can say what you like because the blasphemy law has now gone is completely untrue

 

[Revoltingest]

An appearance on TV by god.

 

[JJ50]

Because I've been using the net for a long time and personally been convicted on 3 counts of section 4a public orders offence on 3 police officers by parodying the Northamptonshire polices website therefore causing them harassment, alarm or distress

Like I said thinking you can say what you like because the blasphemy law has now gone is completely untrue

What an unpleasant person you are, your god must be so proud of you. I shall not respond to anymore of your posts.

 

[Darkforbid]

wait what? I've said no such thing. This is what I mean when I say "strawman" - this is the 2nd time you've put words in my mouth.

Yes, I have I'm trying to get some sort of idea of what you mean by free speech! I gave some extreme examples you said strawman, I gave a very narrow example you said strawman which by the way is the fallacist's fallacy

But no worries I'll just put you down as a poster of empty rhetoric

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, I have I'm trying to get some sort of idea of what you mean by free speech! I gave some extreme examples you said strawman, I gave a very narrow example you said strawman which by the way is the fallacist's fallacy

But no worries I'll just put you down as a poster of empty rhetoric

Being "in favor" of something and being of the mind that it should not be restricted by LAW are two entirely different things. That alone makes your dramatic swing to the extreme ridiculous and unwarranted. If it can't be demonstrated that words or propagated ideas (i.e. "propaganda") are hurting anyone, then I would be against there being any LAWFUL action taken to curtail it. And in the alternate case, where people are being hurt, then there's a discussion that needs to be had, and decisions to be made as to the best course of action to take by legal means.

 

[Darkforbid]

What an unpleasant person you are, your god must be so proud of you. I shall not respond to anymore of your posts.

Good! And I'm not sorry my early attempts at the legislation of cannabis in the UK and victimisation by the police for doing so make me unpleasant in your view

 

[12jtartar]

No, your exceptionally low bar for evidence is the reason you believe.

Altfish,
There is more, it seems, than being smart or wise, to being able to understanding God’s word. You must have a humble heart, like a child, Matthew 18:4-7. In today’s world that is not easy, as most are haughty, and have very little care for others, 2Timothy, 3:1-7.
A person must have a good heart, it seems, according to what the Bible shows as a good heart, Matthew 13,13-15, Mark 7:7,8,20-23.
It seems that if you want to get close to God, you would want to know His Personal, Proper Name, and use it regularly, especially in prayer. How many good friends do you have, that you do not know and use their name?Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13. Another Scripture mentioned at Jeremiah 10:24, leaves many to stop and think. Agape!!!

 

[Road Warrior]

Here in the UK the medieval blasphemy laws were eventually scrapped in 2008, far too late in the day, imo.

I think one should be permitted to say exactly what one likes about any god, especially as they are more than likely human creations.

Agreed on free speech. IMO, there is more to existence than eating, sleeping and screwing so, while human perceptions of God(s) are most probably flawed, I'm not as certain as you that they are 100% fabrications.

That said, if someone attend atheist conventions/rallies simply to heckle them for being frickin' morons, is that free speech IYO?

 

[Darkforbid]

Being "in favor" of something and being of the mind that it should not be restricted by LAW are two entirely different things. That alone makes your dramatic swing to the extreme ridiculous and unwarranted. If it can't be demonstrated that words or propagated ideas (i.e. "propaganda") are hurting anyone, then I would be against there being any LAWFUL action taken to curtail it. And in the alternate case, where people are being hurt, then there's a discussion that needs to be had, and decisions to be made as to the best course of action to take by legal means.

Things are always better in the open. But thanks I now know you're in favour of state control of free speech

 

[Shad]

We have free speech; but there is a 'hate/incitement' speech exemption.

Ergo you do not have free speech due to the hate exemption.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It was forced on me as a child. My EVIL grandmother, beat religion into her kids and from the age of two she kept telling me about the tortures of hell for naughty little girls like me. I literally danced on her grave when horrible woman did us all a favour and died in the 90s!

I'm sorry you went through all that! I understand your passion, now.

Christ was not that way, though.

 

[Erebus]

People should be able to insult whichever gods they choose without facing legal trouble and certainly without facing violence for it.

Keep in mind though that you aren't free from having your insults thrown right back at you. People sometimes forget that free speech works both ways.

 

[Notanumber]

Are atheists as easy to offend as theists?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Things are always better in the open. But thanks I now know you're in favour of state control of free speech

And now I know that you are a complete waste of anyone's time - literally no one should waste time walking to you because all you ever do is strawman people's statements by replacing their opinions with extreme versions of the things they say.

Note: did you see how STUPID I sounded when I used hyperbole to state that absolutely no one should waste time walking to you, or that you "always do [X]"... that was me, doing what you keep doing - which is blowing things out of proportion in order to claim someone is in acceptance of the most extreme position possible that makes them "look bad." Yeah... that's how stupid you look when you do this too.

 

[Darkforbid]

"And now I know that you are a complete waste of anyone's time - literally no oneshould waste time walking to you because all you ever do is strawman people's statements by replacing their opinions with extreme versions of the things they say."

"Note: did you see how STUPID I sounded when I used hyperbole to state that absolutely no one should waste time walking to you, or that you "always do [X]"... that was me, doing what you keep doing - which is blowing things out of proportion in order to claim someone is in acceptance of the most extreme position possible that makes them "look bad." Yeah... that's how stupid you look when you do this too."

No what makes you look stupid is using walking instead of talking twice in the same post and being seemingly unaware that confronting people with extremes of their view is a common and very successful debate tactic!

The post also shows you only have personal attacks left