Our friend wrote — “Where ‘hate’ is directed at human features that cannot be changed easily, e.g. race, color, genetic elements, physical deformities, and the likes then such hate related speech, writings and expression MUST be censored and nipped in the bud with heavy penalties.”
I read this as his speaking about racism and other discriminations without a just cause.
Do you think we should allow discrimination in speech without a just cause?
Is that not what we call misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism?
I believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in the freedom to knowingly lie and discriminate without a just cause.
Okay, so you are for censorship. Any speech not covered by the umbrella of “just cause” ought to be censored.
The concept of “just cause” is vague. Certainly, it means different things to different people. The most important meaning will be the one chosen by the authorities which control the police forces. It’s going to be abused and misused.
Freedom of speech means that people can say things which are misogynist, homophobic or antisemitic. (Or they are perceived as such by the listener, rightly or wrongly.)
Somehow you manage to convince yourself that you do not support censorship, although everything you write indicates that you do. I guess the concept of “just cause” makes you feel good about censorship.
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.
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.
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.
Following your logic, what if one asked the following question:
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.