Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LegoLord]

A lot of those cases would be torts at worst, but some things might involve overnight in the slammer, for repeat offense mostly.

Of course, that's assuming the authority realizes that missionaries are bothering people, and aren't even invited most of the time.

[Sordid]

Trying to convert people infringes on their right to believe what they want.

Not unless you force them to listen to your ramblings or intrude into their personal space in some way, which nobody here is doing.

Preachers don't have to go and find people to preach to.

Preachers, yes. Missionaries, no. The definition of a missionary is that he goes out and seeks people to convert.

Hence missionary work being unconstitutional.

I'll need to see your Supreme Court judge ID card before I take your word for that.

Disbelief is incorrect. Belief is incorrect. There is nothing to be had of it, Mr. 'I represent all of atheism'. There is no belief or disbelief to be had. There is nothing to make any belief or disbelief of.

Are you even listening to yourself? I'll put it simply: The more outlandish the claim, the more skepticism needs to be applied to it. And God is about as big as claims get.

[LegoLord]

Oh?  So the only people allowed to debate the constitutionality of an action are the supreme court?  Do you even now how little the current supreme court does?  There are lesser courts, and they are nomally those that decide tort cases.  Torts rarely reach the supreme court, compared to other cases.  Forcing them to listen would be false imprisonment, which is its own separate tort, not a requirement for something to be a tort.

Do you ever think that you sound outlandish for saying that everyone should be atheist, and then claiming you do it to make them think?

[Sordid]

Oh?  So the only people allowed to debate the constitutionality of an action are the supreme court?

Debate? No, certainly not. Make authoritative statements about? Yep, pretty much.

Do you ever think that you sound outlandish for saying that everyone should be atheist, and then claiming you do it to make them think?

I never claimed I engaged in this discussion to make anyone think, on the contrary, right at the beginning I clearly stated that I do so for my own amusement. And no, I don't think the idea that people shouldn't believe in imaginary beings is outlandish at all.

[MrWiggles]

I think Idioum is saying since we don't have absolute knowledge then we can never discuss anything.

Which is irrelevant bullshit. We can discuss within the realm we do know from the tools at hand. As long as we shift our understanding when new information then we're fine.

However proclaim or just good ole claiming that something exist with no evidence is silly. Childish. Why still god but not santa? How can you demonstrate that it was your god, and not santa?

AS for missionary and first admenment. Suggestion new ideas is the point of saying what you want. By stating your new idea, isn't infringing on anyone rights. Now if they cohorce(sp) you, then that different. But simply saying stuff about their god and saying believe in my god or you'll go to hell is fine.

And sunday school teacher can arguably  be forcing and making kids believe in what some kind of christian.

[RAM]

Relying upon the constitution of 'The united States of America' as a reference for morality, while probably about as definitive a reference as those who are subject to it can get, is flawed, in that it is not widely accepted beyond those limits.

Freedom is flawed, maximum freedom exists at 50%, where all freedoms have an opposing limitation. The freedom to any belief is opposed by the limitation preventing restricting belief. The freedom to walk is opposed my the limitation that one cannot obstruct the walking of others. The freedom to murder is opposed by the limitation that murders cannot be opposed. Introducing subtlety complicates matters, but this is most likely true.

Lesser forms of freedom exist, where one community possesses freedoms over another. Such as with slaves, who, while the property of others, have value, and therefore are usually maintained, and there are far worse things in this world... And with the Nazis to the victims of the holocaust, who had no rights as enforced by legal and military power. And also those who have more money than others, who, while generally constrained by local laws, can still one will to be more limited than another. And of course there are humans and non-humans, however that is defined at the time, be it in the form of the treatment of animals, which even today is worse than anything done to humans. Or in inequality of races, or the complete disregard for the rights of plants, fungi, or anything else that humans cannot see familiarity in. And of course the utter disregard shared by almost all humans for the dignity of inanimate objects.

And 100% freedom is impossible, even at the cost of the freedoms of all others. No monarch can feed their people only because they choose to and no religious leader can ascend into the sky simple by the force of their will.


I would like your belief to be true, if I found a true belief then surely I could determine it's truth, or at least it's likeliness. To say simply that the truth cannot be determined is to deny any hope of being correct. There are far too many opposing beliefs for the truth simply to be stumbled upon with any confidence. I believe that belief is insufficient, many beliefs are retracted, it does not require reason or logic to be confident that, alone, faith will betray you. To have confidence in a belief requires ignorance or reason, many religious people believe that they have reasons, I would like to know these to assess them for myself...

Sorry for my tendency to lack focus...

[Virex]

You said that yes, but you are ignoring the fact that in many cases, rights do overlap. I gave you the example that forbiding someone to preach might and can very well infring their first amendment, because preaching is a central part of their religion. So why would, in said case, the annoyance of one make it so that someone else is forbidden from following their religion?

(In case you didn't notice, I am playing the devils advocate now, mainly to see how well you can define "infringement" untill we need to get into specifick cases)

I'm not ignoring anything.  You can have religion, you can gather, you can preach with other same religion believers... walking up to someone else on the street and handing them a pamphlet, knocking on their door, or invading their daily life with your religion would be illegal.  If someone decided to seek out your religion, they may feel free, and upon that time you may converse with them about it.

Why would it be illegal? The first amendment may forbid ths, but the freedom of speech says you can walk up to anyone and say anything you want to that person. Now, it is ofcourse possible that the first amendment takes precedence over the freedom of speech, but this isn't naturaly so, it can't be deducted from the nature of these rules (in contrast with freedom of speech and the laws against blackmailing for example).

And to come back to my original example, the first amendment as you are proposing it can actualy create a paradox. Take for example a religion that's structured in such a way that actively converting others is a centrall requirement for actively participatin gin that religion. Then the first amendement makes it illegal to actively practice this religion, which though possible, seems contradictory to the nature of the rule.

Lastely, if someone is convinced that he'll go to hell unless he actively tries to convert people, then the first amendement would cause him far more grief and annoyance then it prevents him from causing that to others, right? So if we assume that laws exist to limit the grief and problems caused by the functioning of society, then the rule can, and will often work against it's own goal.

[¿]

Oh wait, here's the thread I was looking for.

I think Idioum is saying since we don't have absolute knowledge then we can never discuss anything.

Which is irrelevant bullshit. We can discuss within the realm we do know from the tools at hand. As long as we shift our understanding when new information then we're fine.

However proclaim or just good ole claiming that something exist with no evidence is silly. Childish. Why still god but not santa? How can you demonstrate that it was your god, and not santa?

He believes there is no absolute knowledge on the particular subject of religion, so everyone should stop trying to be asses. The tools at hand for the subject are completely irrelevant. It's like trying to prove or disprove art by using a calculator.

The ole claim that something doesn't exist without evidence is childish bullshit as well. Idiom is saying anyone to claim anything about fourth fucking continent of the seventh planet from the star nearest us a few galaxies over is childish. Like trying to claim anything about santa. Can you disprove it was santa, Mr Wiggles, if you can't even come up with solid evidence to begin with?

But then I would be bored.

Oh, and guess what, everyone's an atheist.

Damn it, people doing that again. You do not represent all atheists. There is no religion out there besides my current set of belief that I do not outright believe to be wrong, which isn't even in your definition of 'simple lack of belief' atheism. But I do happen to be an avegetarian according to you.

[Andir]

I use The Constitution of the United States of America because that's where I live, and those are the laws I follow.  It's not about morality.  It's about working with your fellow man.  A person's morality is judged by the law for the greater good.  This is an important interpretation if you are to understand where I stand on this issue.  No religious (or perceived) right shall ever override another man's rights.  Period.

The freedom to walk is opposed my the limitation that one cannot obstruct the walking of others. The freedom to murder is opposed by the limitation that murders cannot be opposed. Introducing subtlety complicates matters, but this is most likely true.

There is no freedom to walk, but walking into someone else could be construed as assault, in which point there are rules about "right of way" that have to be considered.

Lesser forms of freedom exist, where one community possesses freedoms over another. Such as with slaves, who, while the property of others,

Slavery is the violation of the Right to live.  It is also illegal as stated in the Thirteenth amendment, though I think the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves make the Thirteenth redundant.  The Constitution is a document of the people.  All people living under it, not just slave owners and the Bill of Rights grants all people who abide by the Constitution the right to be free people.

[RE: Nazi Germany] ...who had no rights as enforced by legal and military power.

I don't live in Nazi Germany, nor do I follow their laws.  It is however, illegal to be forced to harbor or support military personnel in the States.

And also those who have more money than others, who, while generally constrained by local laws, can still one will to be more limited than another.

I live in a Federalist Republic.  A person's wealth does not obtain them more rights than another.  "All men are created equal..." as Jefferson stated in The Declaration of Independence.  (Of course he to go and discredit the phrase as he denied equality to others...but that's another conversation.)

And of course there are humans and non-humans, however that is defined at the time, be it in the form of the treatment of animals, which even today is worse than anything done to humans. Or in inequality of races, or the complete disregard for the rights of plants, fungi, or anything else that humans cannot see familiarity in. And of course the utter disregard shared by almost all humans for the dignity of inanimate objects.

I'm discussing human rights.  If cows want their own laws and country, they are free to form them.

And 100% freedom is impossible, even at the cost of the freedoms of all others. No monarch can feed their people only because they choose to and no religious leader can ascend into the sky simple by the force of their will.

I'm talking about freedoms of life and living.  Beyond that "realist" scope is purely religious preference and non-evidential possibility.

But yes, 100% freedom is impossible.  That's why we have laws granting you your freedom up to said points.  In order for humans to work together in harmony, they have to respect all other human's rights and allow for their rights to end where the other person's begins.  That's the key.  You're right to preach your belief ends at another human's right to be ignorant of your belief.  We all voluntarily accept this to live within the protection of it.  And yes, limitation of another person's right to infringe on your rights is all the protection you really need.

[Sordid]

He believes there is no absolute knowledge on the particular subject of religion, so everyone should stop trying to be asses. The tools at hand for the subject are completely irrelevant. It's like trying to prove or disprove art by using a calculator.

No it isn't, because there's nothing to disprove about art, it doesn't make any claims about the world. Religions, on the other hand, do.

The ole claim that something doesn't exist without evidence is childish bullshit as well.

Oh absolutely, I couldn't agree more. So it's a good thing nobody here is saying that, isn't it?

Idiom is saying anyone to claim anything about fourth fucking continent of the seventh planet from the star nearest us a few galaxies over is childish. Like trying to claim anything about santa. Can you disprove it was santa, Mr Wiggles, if you can't even come up with solid evidence to begin with?

Which is exactly why any such claims should be disbelieved by default and evidence demanded. Replace "continent of the blah blah blah" with "god" and you get atheism.

Oh, and guess what, everyone's an atheist.

Damn it, people doing that again. You do not represent all atheists. There is no religion out there besides my current set of belief that I do not outright believe to be wrong, which isn't even in your definition of 'simple lack of belief' atheism. But I do happen to be an avegetarian according to you.

I am sorry, but you're simply going to have to at least try to be coherent if we are to have an intelligent conversation. Perhaps you would understand my statement better if you bothered to read the rest of it that you ever so conveniently failed to quote. Here, I'll even copypaste it into this post for you so you don't have to go looking for it:
The only difference is which gods we disbelieve in. Believe in Yahweh? Atheist towards Zeus, Thor, and all the others. Unless of course you believe in all the gods humanity has managed to invent, as well as all the conceivable and inconceivable gods that might exist. At which point I'd guess your head would explode.

[¿]

The ole claim that something doesn't exist without evidence is childish bullshit as well.

Oh absolutely, I couldn't agree more. So it's a good thing nobody here is saying that, isn't it?

Then quit impressing it on people like there's a gun pointed at your head. Seriously. You're worse than I am on a bad day.

He believes there is no absolute knowledge on the particular subject of religion, so everyone should stop trying to be asses. The tools at hand for the subject are completely irrelevant. It's like trying to prove or disprove art by using a calculator.

No it isn't, because there's nothing to disprove about art, it doesn't make any claims about the world. Religions, on the other hand, do.

It is because the calculator is unrelated to art. If I handed you two boxes and told you to prove the contents of the other box by merely observing what was in the first, could you? Everything we have is irrelevant outside of our box.

Idiom is saying anyone to claim anything about fourth fucking continent of the seventh planet from the star nearest us a few galaxies over is childish. Like trying to claim anything about santa. Can you disprove it was santa, Mr Wiggles, if you can't even come up with solid evidence to begin with?

Which is exactly why any such claims should be disbelieved by default and evidence demanded. Replace "continent of the blah blah blah" with "god" and you get atheism.

No. You do not disbelieve either. Right there at the bolded, your are contradicting what you claim atheism to be. So it's a good thing nobody here is saying that, isn't it?

Isn't it?

Now I have to say it. There is nothing to believe OR disbelieve.

You have a definition of "atheist" worthy of a politician's doing. You are making the definition of atheism to be something it's not. You are making what is EXCLUSIVELY for people who do NOT have a solid belief AND a disbelief and claiming that includes people who have NEITHER a solid belief NOR a solid disbelief.

See this poll:
Is there a God?
A) Yes. Theist.
B) No. A-(as in not)-thesit.
C) I don't know. Neither.

Oh, and guess what, everyone's an atheist.

Damn it, people doing that again. You do not represent all atheists. There is no religion out there besides my current set of belief that I do not outright believe to be wrong, which isn't even in your definition of 'simple lack of belief' atheism. But I do happen to be an avegetarian according to you.

I am sorry, but you're simply going to have to at least try to be coherent if we are to have an intelligent conversation. Perhaps you would understand my statement better if you bothered to read the rest of it that you ever so conveniently failed to quote. Here, I'll even copypaste it into this post for you so you don't have to go looking for it:
The only difference is which gods we disbelieve in. Believe in Yahweh? Atheist towards Zeus, Thor, and all the others. Unless of course you believe in all the gods humanity has managed to invent, as well as all the conceivable and inconceivable gods that might exist. At which point I'd guess your head would explode.

I am sorry, but you're simply going to have to at least try to be coherent and not self contradictory if we are to have an intelligent conversation. Perhaps you would understand my statement better if you bothered to read the rest of it that you ever so conveniently failed to bother with:

outright believe to be wrong, which isn't even in your definition of 'simple lack of belief' atheism.

edit:
stupid disappearing quote tags.

[Ampersand]

Why do you hate Joe Pesci?

[LegoLord]

I would like to point out one last thing:

You do not have the right to say whatever you want in America.  You do not have the right to go up to someone and say "I'm gonna beat the crap out of you."  Even if you never carry it out, you have committed the crime of assault.  Assault is not the use of force.  Battery is the use of force.  Assault is the threat of force through verbal or physical intimidation.  By threatening to beat the crap out of someone, you have committed a crime.  Assault can also be a tort (which in case you do not know, is a crime dealt with in a civil trial, as opposed to a criminal trial), but the tort of assault is much more difficult to prove than the crime, because it is based on the victim's interpretation of events, which may not necessarily involve an obvious threat.

[Sordid]

Then quit impressing it on people like there's a gun pointed at your head. Seriously. You're worse than I am on a bad day.

I have already addressed this line of objection, so only briefly: Words to the effect of "no".

It is because the calculator is unrelated to art. If I handed you two boxes and told you to prove the contents of the other box by merely observing what was in the first, could you? Everything we have is irrelevant outside of our box.

What part of "No it isn't, because there's nothing to disprove about art, it doesn't make any claims about the world. Religions, on the other hand, do." did you not understand?

No. You do not disbelieve either. Right there at the bolded, your are contradicting what you claim atheism to be. So it's a good thing nobody here is saying that, isn't it?

Isn't it?

Now I have to say it. There is nothing to believe OR disbelieve.

There's a difference between claiming that there is nothing and rejecting a claim that there is something because it is unsupported by evidence. I have already said so, you must have missed it.

You have a definition of "atheist" worthy of a politician's doing. You are making the definition of atheism to be something it's not.

Right back at you.

I am sorry, but you're simply going to have to at least try to be coherent and not self contradictory if we are to have an intelligent conversation. Perhaps you would understand my statement better if you bothered to read the rest of it that you ever so conveniently failed to bother with:

outright believe to be wrong, which isn't even in your definition of 'simple lack of belief' atheism.

I do not bother with the irrelevant, so please stop your pathetic attempts at derailing the discussion. Thank you.

[DJ]

I'd just like to say that banning missionary work is equivalent to banning political activism.