Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

[Defeatist Elitist]

Muslims, radical or not, still take offense to visual depictions of Mohammed. This is not just about radical Muslims, and implying that it is only furthers your ignorance.

I can easily state the converse, that freedom of speech doesn't give you ANY ability to limit freedom of religion. Respect the religion of Islam and don't make visual depictions of Mohammed (especially if your only purpose in doing so is to incite Muslims). By doing so simply under the pretense of free speech, you're implicitly expressing intolerance to Islam.

You are going about this the wrong way. Hardly any law, or right, for that matter, is objectively fixed. Every statement is open to some form of interpretation and is subject under certain circumstances to being foregone. To compound this, certain statements will contradict each other; what determines if either should prevail? Adhering steadfastedly to a rule will result in absurdity when it is taken to the logical extreme. Use your common sense to think about what should and shouldn't be done.

And I'm saying it doesn't matter. A non radical muslim, whether offended or not by visual depictions of Mohammed, being non radical WON'T DO ANYTHING RADICAL ABOUT IT. People are allowed to be offended. I don't mind. The ideal outcome of it is that radical Islam is proven to be

And I am not limiting or suggesting we limit freedom of religion. Where did I even suggest that? Freedom of Religion doesn't mean we have to follow the rules of a religion. It doesn't mean we aren't allowed to offend people. It means we can believe what we choose to believe and not be discriminated against for it. Freedom of Religion in no way states that people shouldn't be allowed to draw Mohammed. When I said "Freedom of Religion doesn't give you any ability to limit Freedom of Speech", I literally meant that following Freedom of Religion will not prevent you from practicing Freedom of Speech.

Sure, interpretation, etc. Yeah. I don't see where you're going.

Let me ask, do you think Freedom of Religion means we should all be subject to the rules of any religion that invokes it? Do you believe that is what Freedom of Religion means? Hell, do you believe that Freedom of Speech should be limited by people getting offended? Should I not be allowed to say or do something that does not harm someone in any way, simply because it will offend them? Do you think this is a viable and successful way to run a nation?

Edited May 19, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[Aleph]

I think the real issue here is whether we can draw something that in its accompanied prevention of it being depicted is not really a known image.

I mean do any of you want to tell me what looks like?

Because I have no fucking clue.

Here's how I feel about the issue.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Xeld

[Crystal Shards]

Some of you might find this interesting:

[Esau of Isaac]

I can easily state the converse, that freedom of speech doesn't give you ANY ability to limit freedom of religion.

Well then I guess he's in luck, seeing as how he's not infringing on any freedoms of religion by drawing any form of offensive imagery relative to that religion.

Respect the religion of Islam and don't make visual depictions of Mohammed (especially if your only purpose in doing so is to incite Muslims). By doing so simply under the pretense of free speech, you're implicitly expressing intolerance to Islam.

Which is fine. I express intolerance to half a dozen lifestyles by the time I eat lunch. If people are thin-skinned enough to be truly offended by a drawing of a figure that I don't worship anyways, I don't really give a shit whether or not they're annoyed.

For example, on the first page I read Snowy_One's post, wherein he refers to atheism as a religion, and simultaneously states it to be amoral (lol). Should he be allowed to post this, if I bitch enough about it? Or is he allowed to have and express an opinion?

You are going about this the wrong way. Hardly any law, or right, for that matter, is objectively fixed. Every statement is open to some form of interpretation and is subject under certain circumstances to being foregone. To compound this, certain statements will contradict each other; what determines if either should prevail? Adhering steadfastedly to a rule will result in absurdity when it is taken to the logical extreme. Use your common sense to think about what should and shouldn't be done.

So let's be completely clear here; you are indeed fine with censoring one's ability to express imagery because some people of a given religion will find it offensive? Keep in mind that once you're fine with Mohammed, we're moving onto bigger fish, and boy will it be fun when programs, games, and imagery disappear because it portrays them in a negative light.

Oh man, it will be so awesome to make everyone re-paint all their belongings because colors other than black offend me.

[Snowy_One]

Alright. Now that this has been mentioned twice, I want to hit it head on.

(being a Atheist because you see it as freedom from morality;

Taken right from the dictionary:atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|

noun

the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Religion: • a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.

A religion is a series of beliefs which a person holds to be true by faith. In this sense, yes Atheism is a religion. A person may reinforce their belief in Atheism in facts, but so do other people in other religions (fun fact: Before Darwin, Christianity and Islam were the two main scientific religions and a large portion of science and philosophy has roots in one or the other. Then the Mongols happened and that killed Islam's scientific drive and Christianity became too bogged down in internal politics). However, in the end, there is no more proof that a God or gods do not exist then there is that they do. It is a matter of faith that they do not exist, and therefore, Atheism fits the qualifications of a religion.

Secondly, I did not say that it was a freedom from morality. Only that some people see it as a freedom from morality. I know that most Atheists do at least try to find some sense of morality and likely only a few likely use it as an excuse to act amoral.

[Shuuda]

the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Or, atheism can be defined as the absence of a belief in gods. It varies a lot among different people.

A religion is a series of beliefs which a person holds to be true by faith. In this sense, yes Atheism is a religion.

There is one very important thing you missed out of your definition of a religion; its beliefs also require a supernatural element, usually in the form of a deity or afterlife. Atheism does not pose anything supernatural, and in many cases it does not pose anything at all. Atheism does not require any faith, it can sometimes be the opposite; being unconvinced by arguments for the existence of god.

It is a matter of faith that they do not exist, and therefore, Atheism fits the qualifications of a religion.

It is no more a matter of faith than it is not believe in fairies. I guess that's a religion you and I share.

[Crystal Shards]

Um, atheism is a lack of faith, so no, it's not a "matter of faith." There is no evidence, therefore there is no reason to believe. Belief=/=faith. Not believing in ghosts isn't a religion. Why would that be any different for someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods? There are no rituals, no holy sacraments, no belief in the afterlife. Atheism is as much of a religion as fairy hunting is a science: it's not.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Snowy_One]

The difference between what you believe and what I believe is this.

I used dictionary terms. Yours was simply what your opinion is (that religion requires a supernatural element). Not even atheism is without it's own 'supernatural' in the sense that, even within a pure science, there are things that are beyond the natural realm (such as numbers. The Platonic Forms. And many other things). We do not even know this world as we perceive it exists, for it could be the illusion of a grand deceiver/mad scientist (Descartes for you). To believe this world exists requires faith in it's existence. It is no more different then having a faith in God or gods.

However, if we are to classify religion as I did (and I provided my term), and are to classify Atheism as I did, then yes it is a religion. I do not believe in faeries, however I also acknowledge my belief is technically faith based. I can create a view of the world that appears to function without faeries, and, assuming faeries come out whenever a tree is chopped down, I can chop down 99 trees. However, all I know is that of those 99 trees, no being that fits the agreed upon description of a faerie (presumably) appeared. I do not know that there will not be one in the next tree I chop down. It is a matter of faith that there will not be.

There is such a thing as a blind faith however. If I were to say that God always appears to defend the righteous from premature (I will define this as 'any death other than old age') death, and if righteousness was defined, and if I found a person fitting that definition, and if I killed him and God did not appear, then I can say that the belief that God always appears to defend the righteous is wrong. Because he did not appear that one time, therefore the qualification of 'always' is inaccurate. To continue to believe beyond that is blind faith. If someone said that a faerie appears every time someone chops down a tree, it does not matter if I chop down one tree, or one thousand, if no faeries appear; then the belief is wrong.

We take many things on faith. We believe we will survive until tomorrow morning, even though our sun may have exploded right now (as you read) and in 8 minutes we will likely all die. We may have our justifications. For the past (age of the earth), our sun has not exploded, therefore it will not explode again. However this is the gamblers fallacy in action (the belief that since you have gotten 3 heads in a row, the next flip will come up a certain way (heads or tails depending on how you view it), even though the next flip is a 50/50 chance of it coming up either way).

To believe that there is no god or gods is a matter of faith. There are two primary kinds of Atheism (that I have observed). One which claims that there is no God/s and that everything can be explained by science; and one which claims that there no God/s, but does not hide behind science.

All science can prove and show is what happens when. It is a observation of the senses. It can show what happened when you mixed hydrogen and oxygen under certain conditions in the past, and a person can be reasonably certain that it will happen again in the future given the same conditions. However, it is limited too that. Only what has happened, and not what will happen (I believe this is the point of ummm... guy who's name I can not spell cat experiment. I haven't done too much research into it though). Science can not be god, nor does it. Science can not guarantee the future, only predict it. Additionally, science is only limited to the physical realm; what can be observed by the five senses. If God is real, and if God is supernatual, then claiming that science has proven there is no God is like a mackerel claiming that there is nothing living upon land, because nothing in the ocean could not be explained by things found in the ocean and we haven't fully explored the ocean yet. So to claim that these 'shipwrecks' come from beings upon the land is foolish. After all, no mackerel could possibly go on land to make such things.

It is one thing to claim a trust in science, but in order to claim that there is no God and science has proven it is foolish. All science can show is that God does not act in a way which can be guaranteed scientifically. Do humans have a soul or not? Science can not say. Or, if it can say, it needs to know what to look for before it claims to know or not. If we weigh a person upon death and find their weight the same, all we confirm is that, if a soul exists, it does not seem to possess any weight.

You claim that it takes no faith to be unconvinced of God. I would claim, however, that it does take faith. The difference is, though, that most people do not realize it because they do not think about it. There either is a God or Gods, or there is not. It is either one or the other. If there is a God or Gods, then tell me, what is Atheism? I can think of only two possibilities. It is either ignorance, or faith. Ignorance would require not having been confronted with the concept of a God or having ever thought about it ever in ones life. To claim to not have faith in something, however, is not ignorance. You have been confronted with the idea and it is there, you have just denied it. However, it also means that you have faith that it is not true. The only time you can prove something untrue is when you can be guaranteed it. If I was guaranteed that a coin would always come up 50% of the time heads, and 50% of the time tales assuming I flipped it a even number of times, what would happen if it came up heads, heads, heads, tails? I would have disproved the claim. A coin does not always come up 50/50 assuming a even number of flips.

If God does not exist, it does not change Atheism from being faith-based. The only difference is that it is true this time. It does not change because it must still deny that God exists without any absolute certainty that he does not. Therefore, even then, it is faith-based, and thusly a religion.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Um, atheism is a lack of faith, so no, it's not a "matter of faith." There is no evidence, therefore there is no reason to believe. Belief=/=faith. Not believing in ghosts isn't a religion. Why would that be any different for someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods? There are no rituals, no holy sacraments, no belief in the afterlife. Atheism is as much of a religion as fairy hunting is a science: it's not.

I apologize if this sounds rude, but this is something I disagree with quite strongly.

It requires a LOT of faith to stand up and say that there is no God or gods, and to come out and believe this statement.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is just that. Agnosticism asks it's challengers to 'show me the evidence' one way or another. The so-called 'fence sitters', it requires far less faith to say that there may or may not be a God / gods than to be able to say that you believe for sure one way or another.

[Balcerzak]

Okay. I had planned on letting this go since you brought it up on page 1, due to it having been off-topic, and all, but now you're just getting ridiculous and I'm afraid I'm going to have to shoot you down. I will try to be quick, clean, and to the point about it.

Taken right from the dictionary:atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|

noun

the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Religion: • a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.

A religion is a series of beliefs which a person holds to be true by faith. In this sense, yes Atheism is a religion.

Failure to uphold even the definition you put forth yourself. The sign of poor argumentation. Religion, as you've defined it, requires faith and worship. Even if I grant you your argument that atheism requires faith, without a system of worship, the point would be meaningless. There is no generally accepted system of worship for atheism. QED. Atheism is no more a religion than Theism is.

On a further note, I submit for your consideration and future research the fact that there do exist actual religions that are atheistic (e.g. Buddhism, LaVeyan Satanism). Atheism is simply an umbrella classification, it can have religions that exist under its premises and are classified under it, just like Monotheism has Judaism and Christianity, and Polytheism has its own myriad members.

You claim that it takes no faith to be unconvinced of God. I would claim, however, that it does take faith. The difference is, though, that most people do not realize it because they do not think about it. There either is a God or Gods, or there is not. It is either one or the other. If there is a God or Gods, then tell me, what is Atheism? I can think of only two possibilities. It is either ignorance, or faith. Ignorance would require not having been confronted with the concept of a God or having ever thought about it ever in ones life. To claim to not have faith in something, however, is not ignorance. You have been confronted with the idea and it is there, you have just denied it. However, it also means that you have faith that it is not true. The only time you can prove something untrue is when you can be guaranteed it.

Nobody said atheists have a guaranteed proof that god (or gods) do not exist, except you. All one needs to be an atheist is to be unconvinced by the evidence that they do exist. An atheist can easily admit to the possibility of there being a god, but then follow up with the fact that he finds it an unlikely affair, and thus doesn't choose to allow the possibility to have any impact on how he lives his life.

Oh, and apparently here comes another.

I apologize if this sounds rude, but this is something I disagree with quite strongly.

It requires a LOT of faith to stand up and say that there is no God or gods, and to come out and believe this statement.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is just that. Agnosticism asks it's challengers to 'show me the evidence' one way or another. The so-called 'fence sitters', it requires far less faith to say that there may or may not be a God / gods than to be able to say that you believe for sure one way or another.

Only certain kinds of atheists claim that no Gods exist.

Here, let me divide things up for you in a way that I've found convenient and easy to understand. Atheism/Theism is a belief claim. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a knowledge claim. The two are not mutually exclusive. This allows for such groupings as:

• Agnostic Atheists: Who hold the opinion that they do not know for certain whether gods exist, but choose not to believe in them.
  
• Agnostic Theists: Who similarly are not positive whether or not gods exist, but have chosen one (or more) of them that they found convincing, or otherwise appealing, and believe in it (them).
  
• Gnostic Atheists: Who claim that they have disproved god(s), and thus don't believe in them.
  
• Gnostic Theists: Who claim to know that one (or more) god(s) exist, either by personal revelation or some other method, and thus believe and worship accordingly.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Balcerzak

[Esau of Isaac]

I used dictionary terms. Yours was simply what your opinion is (that religion requires a supernatural element).

What you need to understand is that there are different forms of atheism. There is strong atheism, which is the active belief that no god exists, and there is weak atheism, wherein one simply lacks belief in a god.

Not even atheism is without it's own 'supernatural' in the sense that, even within a pure science, there are things that are beyond the natural realm (such as numbers. The Platonic Forms. And many other things).

How are numbers beyond the natural realm, now?

We do not even know this world as we perceive it exists, for it could be the illusion of a grand deceiver/mad scientist (Descartes for you). To believe this world exists requires faith in it's existence. It is no more different then having a faith in God or gods.

No, it is quite different. I can observe reality. I can interact with it, and make note of its solidity.

However, if we are to classify religion as I did (and I provided my term), and are to classify Atheism as I did, then yes it is a religion. I do not believe in faeries, however I also acknowledge my belief is technically faith based. I can create a view of the world that appears to function without faeries, and, assuming faeries come out whenever a tree is chopped down, I can chop down 99 trees. However, all I know is that of those 99 trees, no being that fits the agreed upon description of a faerie (presumably) appeared. I do not know that there will not be one in the next tree I chop down. It is a matter of faith that there will not be.

Then everything is a matter of faith, and the word faith is rendered useless. It's moronic at best, and pure grasping at straws to equate methodical experimentation with irrational belief in the unacknowledged.

There is such a thing as a blind faith however. If I were to say that God always appears to defend the righteous from premature (I will define this as 'any death other than old age') death, and if righteousness was defined, and if I found a person fitting that definition, and if I killed him and God did not appear, then I can say that the belief that God always appears to defend the righteous is wrong. Because he did not appear that one time, therefore the qualification of 'always' is inaccurate. To continue to believe beyond that is blind faith. If someone said that a faerie appears every time someone chops down a tree, it does not matter if I chop down one tree, or one thousand, if no faeries appear; then the belief is wrong.

You cannot prove that; perhaps the fairy is invisible. Perhaps you are simply making it up that you cannot see it.

You're being defeated by your own logic here; it's a matter of faith that anything can be proved, or at least it has to be in your eyes.

We take many things on faith. We believe we will survive until tomorrow morning, even though our sun may have exploded right now (as you read) and in 8 minutes we will likely all die. We may have our justifications. For the past (age of the earth), our sun has not exploded, therefore it will not explode again. However this is the gamblers fallacy in action (the belief that since you have gotten 3 heads in a row, the next flip will come up a certain way (heads or tails depending on how you view it), even though the next flip is a 50/50 chance of it coming up either way).

How do you know that the Sun could explode? How do you know that the Sun even exists? How do you know the Sun hasn't exploded?

And since you're going to actually respond that you think all of these things are faith-based, why are you so crazy?

To believe that there is no god or gods is a matter of faith. There are two primary kinds of Atheism (that I have observed). One which claims that there is no God/s and that everything can be explained by science; and one which claims that there no God/s, but does not hide behind science.

You haven't seen very many kinds of atheism.

All science can prove and show is what happens when. It is a observation of the senses. It can show what happened when you mixed hydrogen and oxygen under certain conditions in the past, and a person can be reasonably certain that it will happen again in the future given the same conditions. However, it is limited too that. Only what has happened, and not what will happen (I believe this is the point of ummm... guy who's name I can not spell cat experiment. I haven't done too much research into it though). Science can not be god, nor does it. Science can not guarantee the future, only predict it. Additionally, science is only limited to the physical realm; what can be observed by the five senses. If God is real, and if God is supernatual, then claiming that science has proven there is no God is like a mackerel claiming that there is nothing living upon land, because nothing in the ocean could not be explained by things found in the ocean and we haven't fully explored the ocean yet. So to claim that these 'shipwrecks' come from beings upon the land is foolish. After all, no mackerel could possibly go on land to make such things.

That doesn't necessarily make it unreasonable for someone to conclude that God does not exist, in the same sense it doesn't make someone unreasonable for concluding that there are not miniature elves dancing on their brain stem.

It is one thing to claim a trust in science, but in order to claim that there is no God and science has proven it is foolish. All science can show is that God does not act in a way which can be guaranteed scientifically. Do humans have a soul or not? Science can not say. Or, if it can say, it needs to know what to look for before it claims to know or not. If we weigh a person upon death and find their weight the same, all we confirm is that, if a soul exists, it does not seem to possess any weight.

Can you reasonably claim that we are revolving around the Sun? If so, aren't you concluding that invisible monkeys that alter our perception don't exist? You'd have to in order to acknowledge heliocentrism.

You claim that it takes no faith to be unconvinced of God. I would claim, however, that it does take faith. The difference is, though, that most people do not realize it because they do not think about it. There either is a God or Gods, or there is not. It is either one or the other. If there is a God or Gods, then tell me, what is Atheism? I can think of only two possibilities. It is either ignorance, or faith. Ignorance would require not having been confronted with the concept of a God or having ever thought about it ever in ones life.

And if there isn't a god?

To claim to not have faith in something, however, is not ignorance. You have been confronted with the idea and it is there, you have just denied it. However, it also means that you have faith that it is not true. The only time you can prove something untrue is when you can be guaranteed it. If I was guaranteed that a coin would always come up 50% of the time heads, and 50% of the time tales assuming I flipped it a even number of times, what would happen if it came up heads, heads, heads, tails? I would have disproved the claim. A coin does not always come up 50/50 assuming a even number of flips.

You're not understanding how probability operates. 1/2 is the coin's true probability to land on heads or tails. Flipping it over and over again shows its empirical probability. As you continually flip it into infinity, the empirical probability slowly approaches its true probability.

If God does not exist, it does not change Atheism from being faith-based. The only difference is that it is true this time. It does not change because it must still deny that God exists without any absolute certainty that he does not. Therefore, even then, it is faith-based, and thusly a religion.

So then everything one believes is a religion. Cooking is now necessarily a religion.

Your logic is a fucking nightmare.

I apologize if this sounds rude, but this is something I disagree with quite strongly.

It requires a LOT of faith to stand up and say that there is no God or gods, and to come out and believe this statement.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is just that. Agnosticism asks it's challengers to 'show me the evidence' one way or another. The so-called 'fence sitters', it requires far less faith to say that there may or may not be a God / gods than to be able to say that you believe for sure one way or another.

You realize that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to either theism or atheism, right?

Edited May 19, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[dondon151]

And I'm saying it doesn't matter. A non radical muslim, whether offended or not by visual depictions of Mohammed, being non radical WON'T DO ANYTHING RADICAL ABOUT IT. People are allowed to be offended. I don't mind. The ideal outcome of it is that radical Islam is proven to be

Then what exactly is the point of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day?" I am not saying that you are not allowed to depict Mohammed; I am not even implying that you shouldn't be allowed to depict Mohammed. Do you think that most Muslims would simply stand back and nod their smiling faces in agreement with an action that is harmful to them, who aren't even the primary targets of this event?

Use a bit of your common sense. Is it wrong that a small portion of the Muslim community threatened the creators of South Park for depicting Mohammed? Probably. Is it prudent that we compound this problem by performing an inflammatory action against the entire Muslim community? Probably not. The right to free speech guarantees a lot of actions that one can do, but it does not follow that every guaranteed action is "right."

Well then I guess he's in luck, seeing as how he's not infringing on any freedoms of religion by drawing any form of offensive imagery relative to that religion.

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Notice how this statement applies both to Muslim and non-Muslim offenders. So yes, depicting Mohammed with malicious intent would generally be interpreted as an infringement on religious freedom.

Edited May 20, 2010 by dondon151

[Life]

It's going to start something, that's for sure. I'm pretty sure that countries like Iran and Pakistan won't take an insult like this lying down. Then again, the US has always liked to stand up for its principles and I don't expect that to change in any way, shape or form.

Basically if the US starts a war over this thing, good job. I've got my own problems with radical Islamic beliefs (DEATH TO ALL JEWS, MOHAMMED WILL ONLY COME BACK IF ALL THE JEWS DIE - says so in the Hadith in different words obviously) but I'm not getting involved in this personally.

[Snowy_One]

I want to reply, but I can't. I can't post a reply. I'm sorry. I did something stupid and I can't reply. Not for a few days. Not until I'm alone again.

[Life]

I want to reply, but I can't. I can't post a reply. I'm sorry. I did something stupid and I can't reply. Not for a few days. Not until I'm alone again.

It's possibly because you contradicted your own evidence and looked like an idiot. Don't worry, it happens to the best of us too.

EDIT: Actually, I was thinking of posting this in the other South Park topic but this seems better.

Welcome to Israel's world. The second that you decide to fight against terrorists, you're branded as evil. When you comply (basically because terrorists don't give a shit about diplomacy), you let terrorists get away with whatever they want. Either way, they win and you lose.

And people have the fucking balls to accuse Israel of being evil because they're fighting back for the sake of their citizens' safety? Why does this event have support? This world is full of fucking hypocrites.

Done my mini rant.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Life

[Snowy_One]

No. I made the mistake about talking about this in earshot of someone with a strong 'opinion'. It's better for all parties involved that I keep off the laptop until he leaves for home again. Right now he's at the store, but he may be back soon.

EDIT: He passed out on my doorstep... *sigh* curse my desire to help others.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Snowy_One

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

The way I see it, this day is saying, "We will not tolerate bullshit beyond this point."

Also, debating definitions is just what?

[Defeatist Elitist]

Then what exactly is the point of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day?" I am not saying that you are not allowed to depict Mohammed; I am not even implying that you shouldn't be allowed to depict Mohammed. Do you think that most Muslims would simply stand back and nod their smiling faces in agreement with an action that is harmful to them, who aren't even the primary targets of this event?

Use a bit of your common sense. Is it wrong that a small portion of the Muslim community threatened the creators of South Park for depicting Mohammed? Probably. Is it prudent that we compound this problem by performing an inflammatory action against the entire Muslim community? Probably not. The right to free speech guarantees a lot of actions that one can do, but it does not follow that every guaranteed action is "right."

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Notice how this statement applies both to Muslim and non-Muslim offenders. So yes, depicting Mohammed with malicious intent would generally be interpreted as an infringement on religious freedom.

The point is to prove that threats of violence will not work to defeat free speech. The point is to show we are not willing to shut up just because we might be in danger because of it. It doesn't harm ANY Muslims. Being offended is not being harmed.

I am using common sense. I don't care if people are offended, people are offended every day. I am offended by things every day, but I don't go out and say they shouldn't be allowed to occur or threaten to kill people who do them. In this way, I am similar to moderate Muslims. The whole point of this day is not to offend people, but to demonstrate that you can't threaten freedom of speech out of existence. If we offend people in the process, fine, that's part of what makes free speech great. If no one ever offended anyone, we'd live in a pretty goddamn shitty society.

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Notice how this statement applies both to Muslim and non-Muslim offenders. So yes, depicting Mohammed with malicious intent would generally be interpreted as an infringement on religious freedom.

Except it would not be. No one is suffering. Muslims are still free to profess, and by argument maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and those opinions will not affect their civil capacities.

[dondon151]

Suffering and harm aren't limited to physical means. Blindly asserting your right to free speech without taking others into consideration reeks of ignorance. You have myriad other ways to assert your right to free speech; I don't see why it is prudent or even necessary to pick the method that indirectly involves individuals that have nothing to do with the problem in the first place.

You seem to think that the right to free speech is unlimited. It is not. Offensive and harmful speech can be limited on a case by case basis. Under the pretense that the right to free speech is unlimited, then it would logically also be permissible for radical Muslims to spread death threats regarding visual depictions of Mohammed in the media, but you obviously disagree.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Suffering and harm aren't limited to physical means. Blindly asserting your right to free speech without taking others into consideration reeks of ignorance. You have myriad other ways to assert your right to free speech; I don't see why it is prudent or even necessary to pick the method that indirectly involves individuals that have nothing to do with the problem in the first place.

You seem to think that the right to free speech is unlimited. It is not. Offensive and harmful speech can be limited on a case by case basis. Under the pretense that the right to free speech is unlimited, then it would logically also be permissible for radical Muslims to spread death threats regarding visual depictions of Mohammed in the media, but you obviously disagree.

Those things are not equitable. Threats are different from offensive speech, which is different from harmful speech. Threats are a type of harmful speech, they are a form of intimidation. Threats of violence cannot be legal in a working system, because if they are, they essentially make it so that people are unable to go about their daily lives freely, without fear. Being offended doesn't actually harm you. Being offended doesn't prevent you from freely practicing your religion. Being offended doesn't do a lot of things threats do.

It's not like this is even hate speech. This is not "harmful" free speech.

[Esau of Isaac]

Suffering and harm aren't limited to physical means. Blindly asserting your right to free speech without taking others into consideration reeks of ignorance.

This offends me. I demand you remove this comment immediately.

[Defeatist Elitist]

This offends me. I demand you remove this comment immediately.

Man, you being on the internet is really terrible for me, because it removes my motivation to actually do anything because you do it better. Bawwwwwwww.

[Phoenix Wright]

So, what death threats were issued after this was finished?

[grandjackal]

Not sure about the entire reaction, but there is this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_hi_te/as_pakistan_internet_crackdown

Pakistan bans Youtube and Facebook (rather than just the channels and pages that had the content that was of such), extremists claiming they're ready to die to defend Mohammud's honor from blasphemers, debate in Pakistan sparked about the actions taken about it being an overreaction or rightful.

At least, that's what I gathered from the article.

[Snowy_One]

I apologize for the delay in responding. I had a 'friend' (read: unwanted houseguest who calls himself my friend, but who's only association with me is that he lives next door) decide to come over to visit for a few days while his sister moved back into the house from college (I don't want to know). He has a strong... how shall we say... 'opinion' on the topic that almost forced me to call the cops. Anyways, topic at hand.

Failure to uphold even the definition you put forth yourself. The sign of poor argumentation. Religion, as you've defined it, requires faith and worship. Even if I grant you your argument that atheism requires faith, without a system of worship, the point would be meaningless. There is no generally accepted system of worship for atheism. QED. Atheism is no more a religion than Theism is.

Worship (third term): • adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle.

While I will grant that there is no one defined method of worship, especially when one acknowledges that there are specific religions out there in which there is no deity. However, I must also ask what it is that makes you classify things such as Buddhism as a religion while claiming Atheism is not? Is it because they believe in a supernatural? Does not Atheism believe in the same, except that it's concept of the supernatural is one in which there is no God or gods? Is it worship? If so, what defines worship? I provided a dictionary term above, but even that begs the question of what adoration and devotion is and what allows for qualification of it. I would submit, however, that not all worship is of the hymn type and can be of various methods and means. I have seen people claim that they see going out into slums and working hard to help the impoverished and needy is a act of worship unto God (and have worked alongside them). If that is worship, then could not the same apply to a Atheist?

On a further note, I submit for your consideration and future research the fact that there do exist actual religions that are atheistic (e.g. Buddhism, LaVeyan Satanism). Atheism is simply an umbrella classification, it can have religions that exist under its premises and are classified under it, just like Monotheism has Judaism and Christianity, and Polytheism has its own myriad members.

It seems to be fairly clear that the Atheism being discussed here is of the type that believes it is non-religious and not one of these religions though.

Nobody said atheists have a guaranteed proof that god (or gods) do not exist, except you. All one needs to be an atheist is to be unconvinced by the evidence that they do exist. An atheist can easily admit to the possibility of there being a god, but then follow up with the fact that he finds it an unlikely affair, and thus doesn't choose to allow the possibility to have any impact on how he lives his life.

Copy-paste from Dictionary.com: a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It seems fairly clear-cut that, in order to be a Atheist, one must believe there is no God. Not that there might be a God, we just don't know it (that's something else. Agnostic I think), but that there is no God. Also... Crystal Shards said

Um, atheism is a lack of faith, so no, it's not a "matter of faith." There is no evidence, therefore there is no reason to believe. Belief=/=faith. Not believing in ghosts isn't a religion. Why would that be any different for someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods? There are no rituals, no holy sacraments, no belief in the afterlife. Atheism is as much of a religion as fairy hunting is a science: it's not.

Seems fairly clear-cut to me that someone else other than me is claiming that Atheists have a guaranteed proof that there is no God.

Only certain kinds of atheists claim that no Gods exist.

Here, let me divide things up for you in a way that I've found convenient and easy to understand. Atheism/Theism is a belief claim. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a knowledge claim. The two are not mutually exclusive. This allows for such groupings as:

Agnostic Atheists: Who hold the opinion that they do not know for certain whether gods exist, but choose not to believe in them.

Agnostic Theists: Who similarly are not positive whether or not gods exist, but have chosen one (or more) of them that they found convincing, or otherwise appealing, and believe in it (them).

Gnostic Atheists: Who claim that they have disproved god(s), and thus don't believe in them.

Gnostic Theists: Who claim to know that one (or more) god(s) exist, either by personal revelation or some other method, and thus believe and worship accordingly.

Then it would seem the types being discussed here are the Agnostic Atheists and the Gnostic Atheists since no one seems to dispute that believing in a deity (even if not fully convinced) is indeed a religion.

What you need to understand is that there are different forms of atheism. There is strong atheism, which is the active belief that no god exists, and there is weak atheism, wherein one simply lacks belief in a god.

And both require faith. Several hundred years ago, that at least one god existed was considered to be more or less of a universal fact (which deities depended on where you lived, but it was fairly universal) and people 'simply believed' in a deity. While I won't deny this was a bad thing since it gave the head of the religion the voice of god in his desires and debates, I am confident that no one here would dispute they were religious despite many being incapable of reading their sacred texts and, depending on the religion and location, mattering little outside of those special days which were significant.

Also, may I remind that atheism is the belief in no deities. Even if passive (ergo: the person simply doesn't care), it still takes a degree of faith. It may seem minor because the person is so distracted by his or her daily life that they simply never have the time to concern themselves, but that is little different from the hard-working farmer of medieval times who took God's existence for granted. Undeveloped/underdeveloped faith =/= a lack a faith or anything of the sort.

How are numbers beyond the natural realm, now?

Numbers are a concept that remains the same no matter where you go or what universe you are in. Nothing can be done to them to change them or what they are (no. A formula is not a change. Rather a statement of what plus what equals what or whatever variation). They are immaterial, and possess none of the qualities that are required to exist within a natural world. Following Plato, they are what is known as a 'form', something unchanging that is beyond the natural world. If you haven't studied philosophy, I would rather not try to explain it since it would likely require quite a bit of context.

No, it is quite different. I can observe reality. I can interact with it, and make note of its solidity.

What do they teach in schools these days? Your mind only registers impulses and is easy to deceive and trick. I'm sure you are familiar with the famous water trick, in which you immerse one hand in hot water, and the other in cold water or ice, then put both in a room-tempurature bowl? That's a very simple and easy trick to perform that can completely fool ones senses. There is nothing to prove that the reality we can see now is, indeed, the true one (The Matrix is a good example of a place in which everyone is tricked into believing the world about them in real. There's even hints that the 'real' world that everyone escaped too is in itself a simulation). Our senses lie, they can be deceived, and thusly, we can not prove this world is, in fact, the real world. Truthfully, we do not even know we have arms and legs, or rather, two arms and two legs. Our minds tell us we do, but our minds can be deceived. I would recommend you read Descartes's (f Cartesian Co-ordinates fame) five reflections soon.

Then everything is a matter of faith,

Bingo.

and the word faith is rendered useless.

So simply because everything requires a degree of faith (technically, even the past, since it requires faith that it actually happened. Ever have a false memory? Yup. Happens all the time.) in this world, faith is meaningless? I'm sorry, no. Even if this world is false, there must be a real one somewhere. If we are deceived, there is a deceiver. A mirror world, there is a original. A dream, there is a dreamer. Within that world, there are indeed things that can be stated objectively. If faeries exist or not is not a matter of faith. They either do or do not. However, if they do exist, nothing we believe can change that fact. Same for if they do not. Within the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, it can be stated objectively that Narnia does indeed exist. Yet when Lucy first comes back, her siblings do not believe her at first. They even go as far as entering the wardrobe to prove their point. However, their faith that it did not exist did not change the fact that it did.

Things can be stated objectively no matter if this world is true or not, and those require no faith. However, this does not alter the fact that everything a human being can believe does indeed require a degree of faith. If you read a history book, you need to have faith the author is not lying. If you recall your wedding day, you need to have faith that you remember properly. If you watch a video, you need to have faith that it has not been tampered (a problem I had with the Sixth Sense. If you saw the movie, you probably remember what I'm talking about. Doesn't relate to the topic at hand, but just a minor note).

You cannot prove that; perhaps the fairy is invisible. Perhaps you are simply making it up that you cannot see it.

You're being defeated by your own logic here; it's a matter of faith that anything can be proved, or at least it has to be in your eyes.

Ah. Clever. Or rather, at least this hit the right mark. Yes, it is possible that the fairy is invisible. After all, we are surrounded by invisible things every day (things called 'germs' and 'viruses'. Plus a lot of insects are VERY tiny. There's probably several crawling across your eye right now TBH). However, if I were to define a fairy as 'a small winged women about three feet tall who appears whenever a tree is chopped down' it can be assumed that it is also visible to the naked eye.

You haven't seen very many kinds of atheism.

I think I covered all the kinds there. Atheism requires a belief in no deities, and there are only two kinds. Those that claim science, and those that don't. Granted, it is a broad term, after all; there are only two kinds of ice cream as well. Chocolate, and not chocolate. While technically true (if it is not chocolate, it can be one of any of the other flavors for certain), it is very vague admittedly. However, these are also the only kinds I have seen.

That doesn't necessarily make it unreasonable for someone to conclude that God does not exist, in the same sense it doesn't make someone unreasonable for concluding that there are not miniature elves dancing on their brain stem.

I don't believe I claimed that it was necessarily unreasonable. Just that it was still a faith.

Can you reasonably claim that we are revolving around the Sun? If so, aren't you concluding that invisible monkeys that alter our perception don't exist? You'd have to in order to acknowledge heliocentrism.

I claim that, as far as I know, it appears that way. I also claim that it is possible for us to discover more about the universe we observe which may alter what we perceive as heliocentrism in the future (we are always discovering new things through science. To claim we know everything about anything is very bad scientifically).

Besides, even acknowledging heliocentrism does not deny that what I see may also be an illusion. In a dream, we acknowledge the possibility that we are being chased by a big giant T-rex as fact (especially in the more realistic dreams). That doesn't change that it is still a dream and it doesn't really exist.

And if there isn't a god?

Then Atheism is either ignorance or faith. Ignorance would not change, and the faith would simply be that there isn't one. Only real difference is that the faith is not wrong in that example.

You're not understanding how probability operates. 1/2 is the coin's true probability to land on heads or tails. Flipping it over and over again shows its empirical probability. As you continually flip it into infinity, the empirical probability slowly approaches its true probability.

*slow clap* congratulations. You missed the point of the example entirely. The point is that the only time something can be certifiably proven untrue is when it is guaranteed. In the example, that a coin is not always guaranteed to have 50% heads and 50% tails after a even number of flips.

So then everything one believes is a religion. Cooking is now necessarily a religion.

Cooking? I'm sorry, what? Do you mean 'enjoying cooking is now a religion'? If so, then no. What a person enjoys (hopefully) is not a matter of faith.

As for your second sentence with a curse word I do not desire to repeat. I'm sorry, but what? My logic is aweful... yet I backed up my terms with definitions and with reasoning and examples provided by acclaimed philosophers and scientists? Are you somehow greater then them? Then the English Language?

You realize that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to either theism or atheism, right?

Theism, no. Atheism, yes. Atheism requires there be no deity at all. If there is a deity, it is not atheism.

Now, I am not intent on continuing this argument, least not within this topic. If you desire to continue, please make a separate topic. Also, PLEASE don't make it a circular debate and at least do some philosophical research before saying anything! At least into Plato and Descartes if nothing else!