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This discussion has been archived.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 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.