SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
The Satanic Temple, an activist group based in Salem, Massachusetts, is threatening to sue Twitter for religious discrimination after one of its co-founders had his Twitter account permanently suspended.
Lucien Greaves, the Satanic Temple's co-founder and spokesman, said his Twitter account was permanently suspended without any notice after he asked his followers to report a tweet that called for the Satanic Temple to be burned down.
"We're talking to lawyers today," Greaves said Friday about whether he planned to take legal action.
Source: http://www.newsweek.com/satanic-temple-threatens-sue-twitter-over-religious-discrimination-780148
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Satanic Temple Threatens to Sue Twitter Over Religious Discrimination
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 203 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Conquering Russia should be done steppe by steppe.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:19AM (14 children)
"attacking" believers, reasons that have to do with many of them acting in evil ways
They are not believers them. Or their brain is broken. Who loves me follows my commandments. So why atheists would attack the foundation of the commandments instead of pushing them to follow their own doctrine? Easy, because they hate the foundation.
> how believers have historically attacked atheists (disenfranchisement, theft, torture, murder, genocide...).
same attacks happening under communism, so maybe it's unrelated to the faith.
> why do you assume
No, you see I don't assume anything. All I need to do is to make counterexamples. Atheist proclaims dogma X, disguised as theorem. I prove that in the this world-> simulation scenario, dogma X does not work, therefore it is not universal even in this universe, therefore it is not universal elsewhere, therefore it does not necessarily apply to the supernatural. All of this is a matter of pity because as I said, the dogma X is in fact meaningless from the start because it uses logic and concepts where those are not necessarily defined.
Finally, you conflate the belief with the analysis. My belief is irrelevant, if it were relevant the analysis would be faulty.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 22 2018, @05:54AM (13 children)
Your flow is rather hard to follow, and, I'm not saying this to be mean, sounds more than a little disjointed. Something is getting lost between what's going on in your head and what makes it out onto the keyboard.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 22 2018, @11:54AM (12 children)
my advice is: do not bother about the substance, concentrate on the meaning of the representation. if you do that, you realize that a sim:reality~=reality:supernatural enough that if some reasoning has an exception when applied from the POV of a sim WRT reality it cannot be considered sound if applied to the ineffable by def supernatural
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 22 2018, @04:03PM (11 children)
That is a path to either Deism or something out of Lovecraft. What you don't get, and it seems to me what you refuse to get, is that Yahweh bears all the hallmarks of being something humans invented. He's not particularly godlike in ways we can imagine, certainly not in terms of behavior, where he's more along the lines of...well, all those *other* man-made Ancient Near-Eastern deities.
You don't seem to have done much actual research into ANE religions. So in addition to being fallacious and difficult to follow, you're also ignorant and uninformed. Which is why you're an Abrahamic believer I suppose.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:32AM (10 children)
The tale of YHWH after being encoded for oral transmission, with symbolism, looks man made. Not surprising to me.
I have read enough pseudo-scientific stuff about the Bible which looks like those rational teenagers watching a painting from the middle ages and not getting anything out of it.
So what? it's not that I need to push a religion just because I find big holes in atheism.
Do you think studying similar religions and trying to derive a time line yields universal truths? What came before implies anything? Were the simpsons prophets of president Trump? yep. So as an historian I can forget or underline that fact and I can be totally wrong in one of the two cases.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:44PM (9 children)
Your sentences are beginning to look slightly schizophrenic.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Bot on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:23AM (8 children)
It's the second convo we had going exactly the same way.
Let's make this easy. If you think anything below has not been proved, I'll expand.
Atheism is a religion, agnosticism is a logically consistent absence of belief until it tries to become more convincing and points to atheist justifications.
Logic (the logic system we devised to make sense of reality) is not universal, therefore applying it outside the universe is making assumptions. This makes atheists wrong 1
Spacetime is immanent. Therefore any concept depending on it is not necessarily defined in the transcendent domain. This makes atheists wrong 2
We can scientifically track any aspect of the universe in both past and future, we have discovered nothing about God.
We can witness a God coming down to earth, we have proved nothing about his transcendence.
We can study the relationship between creation and hypothetical creator's domain by making parallels with the relationship between a simulation and our world, in which it has been conceived.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:44AM (7 children)
1) Atheism is not a religion, it's a belief claim. Some of them sure seem to have religious-like behaviors though. Again: theism/atheism is a belief claim, gnosticism/agnosticism is a knowledge claim. I am a (very unconventional type of) theist, but I'm also not arrogant enough to claim philosophical certainty about it.
2) Prove that logic is not universal, and prove that there is "outside the universe/multiverse" to speak of. Also, what, pray tell, DO we use in situations where logic of some sort, even if modal or paraconsistent, doesn't work?
3) Define transcendent in this context, and show that a) there is such and b) there is something or someone in it.
4) Can we really? Pretty sure QM among other things says there are things we simply can't know, or even know ABOUT.
5) How Would We Know (TM) we witnessed a God, as opposed to an alien that likes messing with us, or some kind of evil spirit that feeds on peoples' emotions of belief and wonder via some kind of twisted telepathy? In other words, sufficiently advanced aliens/spirits/what-have-you are indistinguishable from God; how do you tell the difference?
6) Are you sure about this? You're badly overextending an analogy here that may not even hold.
You really aren't any good at this. That's at least three or four examples of begging the question (assuming what you wish to prove) in there.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:51AM (6 children)
1. whatever goes into the domain of the supernatural without reasoning but with dogma is a religion. Somebody comes up with the dogma you either rediscover it or propagate it. Supernatural is empty/mechanical/impersonal aka god does not exist is a dogma.
2. I don't need to prove the opposite, I just need to find a counterexample to the bold and unsubstantiated claim that a logic system based on macroscopic experience is universal. principle of no contradicion is not valid where universe = empty set.
2b. our logic system breaks down in a write-only universe
2c. our logic system breaks down in a wish based universe
2d. our logic system currently seems to break down at quantum superposition phenomenon levels.
the fact that 2b. and 2c. universes are only conceptual means nothing, as for what we are concerned, the supernatural (AKA the meta, the divine domain, the whatever that generates the abstraction known as this reality), is conceptual too.
3. You could use the classical definition for transcendent. However I already defined reality earlier. Real is what can be directly or indirectly experienced (experiencing is the corollary/alternative definition to the axiom "I am") and what can directly or indirectly interfere with your experience (forces, for example). Real is defined in the terms of the current abstraction, real for a piece in a game of chess is conceptual for us. The piece of chess is affected by the other pieces. Not by the player fingers. Transcendent is simply the logically feasible complement of the definition of reality.
I cannot and especially do not want to make any assertion on such a complement. It is not needed, it is not safe, and it is a matter for religions not logic.
4. QM says real little things need a quantum field (currently unknowable) that determines interactions we can only compute probabilities of. It currently disproves a mechanical deterministic universe, but it is ultimately a feature of the universe. Since mechanical deterministic universes have a personal transcendent being (a conway's game of life has a programmer), I posit that the deterministic hypothesis for the universe is a matter of science with philosophical and religious implication but unable to break the barrier to the transcendent, obviously.
5,6. we don't know. God, or ancient goat keepers, knew we don't know either, hence the accent on belief.
Religions either believe or know but religion has to be believed itself.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:39PM (5 children)
Cthulhu, will you just say you're a fideist because makes you feel good and get it over with already?!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 26 2018, @10:41AM (4 children)
If I could choose, I'd rather believe the universe is deterministic, free will does not exists, hence I am not responsible for my actions. Very very comfy. Fear of death? LOL, it's a breeze compared to unhealthy life.Unfortunately the nature of the experience of "to be", which I define as axiomatic for lack of anything else even provable, makes me think otherwise, and BTW acting as free will existed in a no free will situation is not wrong, as wrong does not exist.
Have a nice day.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:10AM (3 children)
You also can't prove or disprove hard solipsism. What's your point? You basically just admitted this all comes down to the feelz, which is pretty much de rigeur for religious apologetics when you dig deep enough.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)
Solipsism makes an additional assertion. When I say "I am" is self evident, I am not telling anything on the nature of the experience. Solipsism does, I am not concerned with it being provable or not, "I am" is axiomatic for me.
If you want to call it feelz based, whatever. If you want to classify it together with apologists, whatever. The problems with the approaches to the transcendent with a limited logic system and undefinable concepts are still there.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:58PM (1 child)
Again, missing the point: you don't get to throw out all those arguments and then go "well, transcendentals, undefinable concepts, who knows? Therefore I can believe anything I want for the feelz because fuck you you're not better than me lalalalalala OHHHHTAKEMELAWWWWDJAYZUZ!"
Got it? Get off your imaginary high horse and apologize to all the electrons you wasted over the last two weeks trying to pretend you had anything but "muh feelz" in support of your position.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:44AM
The high horse depends on nobody being able to challenge the obvious, which has been stated multiple times. Reasoning with a logic system and concepts which are not necessarily defined, yields irrelevant results.
You should know, to prove a theorem all implications must be necessary (which means any exception, no matter how far fetched in "a implies b" does not let you say b), while to disprove a theorem one counter example is enough. So you requiring me to have my theorems to the opposite thesis, no matter if I actually showed some, is off topic.
Account abandoned.