100 replies to this topic

[anwiii]

zanzibarjones, on 24 August 2010 - 04:41 PM, said:

And I would bet to say that there are more beliefs based on faith then there are beliefs based on facts.

what would YOU rather believe in? faith, or FACT?

[zanzibarjones]

anwiii, on 24 August 2010 - 05:13 PM, said:

what would YOU rather believe in? faith, or FACT?

Hmmmm... good question. Well fact is undeniable. "If I had seen it with my own eyes..."
But having faith allows you to believe at a different level I think. Fact is very concrete, no room for imagination.
Faith is belief based on trust. Fact is belief based on itself.
Man that's a good question....

I think i would rather believe in faith, gut feeling. I guess if I have concrete evidence for something, then I don't need to 'believe in it' it just IS a fact.

[Bikerman]

zanzibarjones, on 24 August 2010 - 04:41 PM, said:

There are many beliefs systems based on faith. All religions are based on faith. Your belief in science is based on faith.
There are too many uncertainties in this world to have anything based on fact. And I would bet to say that there are more beliefs based on faith then there are beliefs based on facts.

Faith is belief without evidence or in spite of evidence. Science does not rely on faith, it relies on adopting a sensible, rational approach to the evidence and where the evidence is lacking I do not believe.
I don't 'believe' in my house - I know for a reasonably certain fact that it exists. I don't 'believe' in science in the same way.

Edited by Bikerman, 24 August 2010 - 07:45 PM.

[thenewguy]

Extracts from Bikerman's posts:

Bikerman said:

I am a member of a group which is dedicated to protecting freedom of speech in the UK and supporting anyone who is targetted for expressing themselves...
ANYONE who threatens free speech is the target of our group.
Either you support free speech - which means the freedom for those you disagree with, as well as those you agree with, or you don't.

Bikerman said:

I was discussing the cartoon on another forum (Frih-host) with one of the other members, and a young muslim lad posted a stream of abuse and threats, telling us he would behead us ..and various other sillyness....
(I am a moderator at Frih so I had to ban him)

Makes me wonder...

Bikerman said:

I do not employ double-standards...

Side-note:

Bikerman said:

If the 'offence' occurred in the UK then you would be tried according to UK laws. If it occurred in Pakistan then Pakistan laws would apply.

Does that mean if Russian person launches a nuclear missile from Russia, destroying half of America, he will be tested according to Russian law?

[Bikerman]

thenewguy, on 24 August 2010 - 07:45 PM, said:

Extracts from Bikerman's posts:



Makes me wonder...

What makes you wonder?
There is no double standards - users of the Frih system sign up to Terms and Conditions. I said I HAD to ban him, not that I wanted to. He had broken terms and conditions and therefore the decision had to be made (in fact it wasn't really a decision, since there was no way I could have decided otherwise and still been acting properly).

I have not signed up for any terms and conditions on my own websites so I can and will say what I like. That is completely consistent and entirely rational. Forums are not generally entirely free speech. The owners and/or sponsors restrict what users can say and how they can say it. It is then up to the user whether they use the forum or not.

As for Russia - it would depend but yes, that would be the normal position. Obviously firing a nuke is not quite normal so you are not citing a comparable case. If a Russian shot your embassy staff then they would be tried in Russia, even though your embassy is US territory. Likewise if a Russian went to the US to kill someone and was caught, they would be tried in the US.
This is not rocket science - it is just standard application of international and national law.

Edited by Bikerman, 24 August 2010 - 07:56 PM.

[thenewguy]

Bikerman said:

Forums are not generally entirely free speech. The owners and/or sponsors restrict what users can say and how they can say it.

You have nothing against that limitation of free speech?

[Bikerman]

Just to make sure this point is clear: free speech is the default position. Under some circumstances it can be limited - specifically where it is used to incite violence against a person or group. I accept that restriction because it is rationally based and history tells us it protects society from the worst excesses of tyrants who are good orators. I trust I don't need to give examples?
It is a shame that this is necessary. In a rational world then it would not be - let anyone incite violence and the rational response is to ignore it, since it is always an appeal to either ignorance or emotion. The fact is that we don't live in a rational world and I think it is necessary.
Apart from that, there are other circumstances where free speech is not absolute. One would be if you work in a highly sensitive area - either in government or in a commercial firm. You will normally have to sign a contract promising not to speak about it. I have no problem with that - you sign or you don't.
Another one, related, is where you agree to some conditions when using a medium - this forum is an example. Again that is not a problem because you are free not to sign.

Imposing restrictions by threat, however, is a big problem. I am not a muslim and I have not signed up to say that I believe Allah is great or Mohammed is wonderful.

I do exercise some restraint voluntarily. I don't give my real opinion of Mohammed because I choose not to offend on that level - though I would support anyone's right to. Likewise I will support anyones right to write a book (a rather good book actually) imagining what might have happened in Mohammed's life and I support anyones right to make a serious point by drawing and publishing cartoons. Most of the people who complain haven't actually looked at the original cartoons - they have seen the fakes that were put out within hours to whip up the muslims. They also don't tend to read the article that went with the cartoons.
For this 3 people were almost murdered.

(PS sorry - I missed the word almost without realising it. Correction made as soon as I noticed)...

Edited by Bikerman, 24 August 2010 - 08:16 PM.

[anwiii]

hmmmmmm it seems like someone is doing their research and it's not me. looks like some created a fake account and decided to post bikermans mumbo jumbo from another forum in to a topic that isn't even related......or is it. people who decieve. one of the worlds biggest problems or not.... hmmmmm

personally, i would love to know who the new guy is. pm me if you can.....

[Bikerman]

anwiii, on 24 August 2010 - 08:06 PM, said:

hmmmmmm it seems like someone is doing their research and it's not me. looks like some created a fake account and decided to post bikermans mumbo jumbo from another forum in to a topic that isn't even related......or is it. people who decieve. one of the worlds biggest problems or not.... hmmmmm

personally, i would love to know who the new guy is. pm me if you can.....

You just can't resist it can you? I have decieved nobody and what happened to 'this is off topic, please stick to the point....'
Hypocrite.

[thenewguy]

Bikerman said:

Under some circumstances it can be limited...

Isn't that against the whole discussion?

Bikerman said:

So already we have restricted more things that can be said or drawn...

1 UP!

anwiii said:

bikermans mumbo jumbo from another forum in to a topic that isn't even related......or is it.

They are all from this same post. Took some time to read through; people repeat a lot of sentences.

anwiii said:

people who decieve. one of the worlds biggest problems or not.... hmmmmm

Point 11.

anwiii said:

personally, i would love to know who the new guy is. pm me if you can.....

All in good time.

Chris said:

There are 10 types of people - those who know binary and those who don't.

Reminded me of this Think-Geek shirt.

Edited by thenewguy, 24 August 2010 - 08:49 PM.