Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

The problem with this is you did think some kinds of communication should be stopped, for example racism. But racists do not think they are lying. And neither do most of the theists you hate. They are believers.

Seriously.

youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Regards
DL

What they think is not as important as what they can prove or risk being accused of slander.

Every time someone says something of the Gods, it is a lie.

God is unknowable.

Regards
DL

So you think that everyone who speaks about gods ought to be censored.

Interesting. :-k

I ask you a general question about how lying would be detected and what to do about human errors. You cherry pick televangelists in response.

I don’t think ‘slander’ is what you mean, but in any case, this is the case right now. You can accuse them of lying or spreading falsehood. They have free speech and so do you. So I am not sure if you mean they should be censored or not.

That is simply not the case. Unless you are arguing that there are no theists.

How does one prove God does not exist?

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely ‘assumptive’ and useless.

Another counter to
“How does one prove God does not exist?”
is that the idea of God is a non-starter, moot.

Note my thread,
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility

Following your logic, what if one asked the following question:

  1. Do mind-independent objects and events which brains purportedly represent in the form of conscious experience of perceptual copies of these mind-independent objects and events exist?

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from the perspective of someone believing that there are mind-independent objects and events exists.
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is upon anyone believing in the existence of mind-independent objects and events to convert one’s assumption to fact first [i.e. prove mind-independent objects and events exist] else belief in mind-independent objects and events is assumptive and useless.

One can substitute ‘mind-independent objects and events’ with ‘other people’s consciousnesses’.

The existence of mind-independent objects and events and other people’s consciousness are ultimately a matter of faith, as there is no proof these exist. They’re in the same boat as God.

It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.

Asking you to demonstrate the truth of your assumption is not a request or demand for you to accept another position. It is precisely what it is: a request for you to defend your assertion.

The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.

Precisely the answers I wish I had given. Danke.

The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.

Definition of Assumption;
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without proof.
vocabulary.com/dictionary/assumption

Point is why should I defend myself based on another’s assumption which is unproven and illusory.
If I assume you kill X and demand you prove you did not kill X, there is no obligation on your part to prove you did not kill X. Whatever I assumed, the onus is on me to prove without doubts you had killed X.

Many theists commit a range of evils and violence [ kill and commit genocide] in accordance to the commands and in the name of their God. Surely these theists has an onus to prove their God exists as real to support their acts? It is evil to throw the onus of proof to the non-theists so they can get away and continue with murders and other evils.

Agree.

The consciousness of other people and the existence of mind-independent objects purportedly represented by the brain in and translated into the objects and environments appearing to sensory perception are also ‘unproven and illusory’, given that the only existence that appears is the conscious experience of a single person. Yet most believe in the existence of other people’s consciousness and mind-independent objects in the external world. Given that the only existence that shows itself is experience in the form of the subjective experience of a particular person, the existence of everything other than a person’s own consciousness is a matter of faith, with any possibility or probability of their existence being merely the level of a person’s belief in the existence of something outside a person’s consciousness.

God is in the same boat as other people’s consciousness and mind-independent, external world objects. One must have faith in his existence. For those asserting that he does not exist, one can argue that this is a prejudice based on the fact that, though God is in the same boat as other people’s consciousness and mind-independent objects, the one making the assertion has a particular strong disbelief in the existence of God, and at the same time, believes in the existence of the former. Everything is ultimately about belief, disbelief, and the various strengths of belief and disbelief leading to estimations of the “likelihood” or “probability” of the existence of something that is not the consciousness of a person.

Some theists commit evil and violence in the name of God. Others are kind, empathetic people that wouldn’t harm a fly and are better persons because of their belief. Again, proving God exists is as simple as proving other people’s consciousness exist or that mind-independent external world objects exist.

Again, once you make an assertion, you get an onus.

Again, because you made an assertion.

If Joe asserts there is a God, in a philosophy forum, in an academic setting, etc. someone noticing this can ask for justification and expect a response. If Jim asserts there is no God, the same onus arises there.

Did you not read that agnostics and even other atheists may expect justiication for your statement in a philosophical discussion setting? The evil of theists HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. We were talking about an ontological issue. With attendant epistemological issues. What evil acts has philosophical graffitte committed?

Agree.
[/quote]
Except you clearly did not, and continued to disagree in the rest of your post above.

You are conflating too many points here.

Note,

  1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
  2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
  3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being
  4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?

1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
The existence of human beings is easy prove via empirical testings.

2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
There are epistemological issues re existence Other Minds.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Despite the contentions, I believe the supporting arguments for the existence of other minds
are more convincing than the skeptics’ view.

However, there are loads of research from the psychology and other philosophical perspective to support the existence and knowledge of minds/consciousness other than one’s own. Note

It is not exactly easy, but it is not impossible to prove and convince the existence of other minds as above.

3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being.
I have argued God is ultimately and has to be a non-empirical being, i.e. an ontological God. There is no way a non-empirical ontological God can be proven with empirical methods.

If anyone claims their God is an empirical being then bring proofs to show God is an empirical being like a human being or any other mind-independent objects?

4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?
There are no evidence a non-empirical objects has a ‘mind’ like a human mind or even those of animals.
Therefore God as non-empirical cannot have a mind like a human mind.

Against the above points, there is no way you can prove God exists.

My onus is I have exposed the implication of an assumption is his assertion.

Note the sequence,

  1. Joe assert there is a God.
  2. Then only can Jim asserts there is no God.

In the above case Joe’s assertion takes priority and thus Joe has the onus to provide proofs for his claim. There is no priority and onus on Jim to prove his claim in this particular issue.

However I agree if Jim decide to take the initiative to kill off Joe’s claim, then Jim has the onus to prove his case.
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.

Note the focus should be on the primary claimant re God exists, not the secondary negating claim.

However, as an initiative and mentioned above;
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.

Greatest I Am,

What purpose, positive purpose, does hate serve? It is a very strong emotion which can get way out of hand and do a lot of destruction.

Can you give me an example of when and how hate is good. For instance, a scenario?

By taking a phrase like Freedom of Speech and equating it with a total lack of responsibility and consciousness toward whomever it addresses.

In other words, anything goes even if at some point it leads to the destruction of millions of Jews or African Americans or mentally ill or incapacitated children…et cetera. We just NEVER learn do we?

God is not only dead but never existed in the first place.

We cannot stop a volcano from erupting but we can put a muzzle on lack of consciousness and stupidity.
I am all for allowing the censorship of hate speech. Perhaps those who are not do not understand the necessity for self-discipline and clear thinking.

How would censorship lead to self-discipline? (wouldn’t it undercut the possibility to some degree?) Can one not express anger and think clearly?

Karpel Tunnel

This may not be a good example but think of the discipline of a time out that the parent gives the child for wrong and crazy behavior as a censorship. Do you not think that after enough of them, the child would come to some consciousness and self-discipline? Of course, it might also depend on the individual child.

Hate speech can be very contagious and before anyone knows what is happening, there is the mob, there is the unthinking Herd, there is the fanatic, there is the person just waiting for the excuse to kill someone or beat someone up. Hate speech can become so volatile. You hear some person on a tirade shouting ugly racist remarks about Jews and other anti-Semetics listening and become enraged. Suddenly someone spots a Jewish person and that person becomes physically attacked to an extreme degrees. It could be an adult or a child.

You can also think of the censorship of it as the water used to put a fire out before it causes damage.

Would that not depend on the individual? Is a mob or a racist capable of self-discipline and clear thinking?

Sure. Someone who is stable, pretty well balanced, is aware of their feelings and can be in control of them and who knows what is at stake and realizes that there can be a far better way to achieve something.

But seriously, can an actual hate speech express anger and clear thinking without becoming volatile? What could go wrong there, given the right (or wrong) moment? This is not a love speech, it is a hate speech. Humans are imperfect, faulty, our emotions more than rise to the moment also in the wrong way.