But that leads to an infinite regression. It’s “I don’t know” all the way down. — NOS4A2

No, that's a slippery slope fallacy.

Quibbling again. — NOS4A2

It has become clear that that's your "go to" hand wave.

I’m sorry, maybe I misinterpreted your argument. Could you reformulate it without false analogies and quibbling? — NOS4A2

It's not a false analogy, and the quibbling is coming from you. You haven't bothered to explain yourself one iota. I gave you a comparable example showing the fault in the kind of reasoning you're relying on, and you have yet to explain what your problem is with that; you've just made false accusations and hand waves.

Why should I reformulate something that doesn't need to be reformulated? It isn't difficult to understand, unless you're a simpleton or something.

I just want to ask an agnostic if he believes it is possible for a god to exist or not. — NOS4A2

But asking a single agnostic that question won't make any difference in the bigger picture. Just because one agnostic likes Marmite, that doesn't mean that they all do.

How can one remain agnostic if he doesn’t believe in the possibility of a god existing? That’s what I’m having trouble with. It seems to me that in order to say “I don’t know whether god exists” relies on that underlying assumption. — NOS4A2

Not believing doesn't imply believing the contrary.

Are you an agnostic? — NOS4A2

Beside the point.

Hate speech is legal in some jurisdictions. — NOS4A2

That's beside the point. I made a point showing the error in the reasoning behind your conclusion. You can either respond properly or continue to waste time.

I’d rather not. It has nothing to do with the topic. — NOS4A2

Of course it does, analogically. Are you daft or trolling?

The topic is about whether hate speech should be allowed and I’m arguing that it should be. Your quibbling is a red herring. — NOS4A2

Which is a matter of law, so stop going around in circles, get back on track, and respond to my point.

Does an agnostic believe it is possible a god might exist? A simple yes or no will suffice. — NOS4A2

I can't give a simple "yes" or "no" to a question like that, because it is like asking whether an agnostic likes Marmite.

Quibbling. It’s also a discussion relating to hate speech. — NOS4A2

Lol. It's not quibbling, that's the main focus of the entire discussion, and pointing out that it's a discussion about hate speech misses the point.

Can’t answer the question? — NOS4A2

Can't figure out the answer from my replies?

So an agnostic doesn’t think it is possible a god might exist? — NOS4A2

Thank you for confirming that it's the latter, i.e. you're bad at logic.

I am fully on topic. — NOS4A2

No, you're clearly not. Read the discussion title. The question of whether hate speech should be allowed is obviously a discussion relating to law.

I’m not talking about laws. — NOS4A2

Then you're off topic.

To say they don’t know whether god exists is to cling to the possibility that god exists. — NOS4A2

No, that doesn't follow. You either don't know what agnosticism is or you're bad at logic. An agnostic is not committed to the possibility that God exists.

It is certainly relevant if the speech causes the opposite reaction as people claim. — NOS4A2

But it doesn't in the cases that matter. Laws aren't based on exceptions like that. That would be extremely foolish. Should drink driving become legal again because you've driven home over the limit a number of times without accident?

Both agnosticisms cling to the possibility of God existing, which seems to me something the agnostic should remain agnostic about. — NOS4A2

No, an agnostic, by virtue of being an agnostic, isn't committed to the existence of God being possible, just that they don't know whether or not God exists.

Does Do Hitler’s speeches incite you to hatred or violence? Hitler’s speeches incite me to the opposite, actually, to the hatred of Hitler. — NOS4A2

That is of no relevance, given that there are actual cases contrary to your own personal experience.

Perhaps, but publicly criticizing the president before he even arrives is far more ridiculous. — NOS4A2

What's ridiculous is your Donald Trump spokesperson act.

But in order to have any responsibility for causing someone to do something, you literally have to physically grab their body and move it around. Kind of like puppeteering. And your emotional and behavioural responses to speech acts are just like menu items you pick and choose at your whim regardless of context. — Baden

:lol::up:

No, of course hate speech (as defined by law) shouldn't be allowed. The Second World War is in living memory.

He has said "Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read the Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about Nazism." — thewonder

But that's a good point.

You could tell a kid that there is a dimension that Harry Potter magic exists but not our dimension. Then you could make it plain that it is completely up to the kid whether to believe this or not. It would have no bearing on the practical matters of life. Kind of like the multiverse. — Noah Te Stroete

It's alarming that you'd say that. I hope you're never in such a real world scenario with any vulnerable person, because you could do real harm.

A good point is a good point, irrespective of where it has come from or what category it falls under, whether that be new atheism or otherwise.

Then how about microorganisms. Did Lewenhook bring them into existence? — T Clark

No, because there's a difference between science and science fiction.

But there's no reason to believe that God is like microorganisms.

To me it makes sense. — god must be atheist

Yes, because you interpret it other than how it was worded. I can do that, too.

I am suggesting that that Trump is in office is evidence that the system can not be meaningfully reformed in so far as such things are allowed. — thewonder

And that is, in itself, meaningless unless you have a better alternative system, which you do not.

Before the Bible or any other religious text was written, or more specifically before its respective religion came about, did that religion have a God as far as humans knew? — Maureen

Your question actually makes no sense. You ask, before a religion came about, did that religion have a God. But obviously there was no such religion. So the reference fails.

But there might still have existed a God, and that might have even been known, and that there was a God at that time might even be known by someone now, but obviously anyone actually claiming these things is deluded or a joker.

No, as a matter of fact, the exact opposite is true. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. There's hardly a better example making the case for doxastic involuntarism than the impossibility, in practice, of succeeding to "choose" to believe something of which one is not in the least bit convinced, such as that this planet does not exist. You yourself said that that is a fact, and I too am aware that that is a fact. So how could I "choose" to believe the contrary? That would literally be madness, and I have not taken leave of my senses.

I disagree. I would think it is any language one does not understand. In which case the paradigm speaker of gobbledygook is the parrot.

By writing more like me and less like someone like @Mww. Except when I'm doing a parody of someone like @Mww.

Famous masters of the arts of gobbledygook include Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida, and Kant.

What is the most effective way to write possible? Well, you start by finding the letter 'p' on your keyboard...

I for one would never dream of doing that, because apricot.

But what the chair means in general, when analysed, is found to require a specific set of circumstances, otherwise it wouldn't mean what it does at all. And that specific set of circumstances includes the kind of things which we were talking about earlier, like consensus among a community of language users. It requires a history, a familiarisation, a learned association. It also requires cooperation, or playing by the rules. And what I meant there was that you had in mind just this sort of case, and not the kind of idiosyncratic scenarios of Terrapin's imagination.

Hmm... :chin:

Needs more chair.

Yes, the implied circumstance. Did you think he was just saying what he said in absolute terms, context free? :brow:

No. By applying the principle of charity, I don't think it's difficult to make sense of what he said. Just compare it with what he has previously said in this discussion. The correct meaning, given x, y, z. It's just that that last part was left implicit.

When Heidegger was thrown into the world, I think he must have hit his head.

Right, so we should both stop complaining and do something about it. Thanks for inadvertently bringing me back to reality. Only I can't really do anything about his complaining, except either try to make him see the error of his ways, also known as mission impossible, or basically just walk away.

I'll go with the latter.

He'll never take my crown. :lol:

No, I'll respond if I feel like it.