When broken down to the personal level, god is your higher self, your inner voice. It is that voice we want to get in touch with in the silence, as in meditation.
Freedom of Speech to be Returned!!!
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Cliffy, your posts on this thread reveal to all that you are a dyed-in-the-wool a-Thor-ist! it would be bad enough if you made your comments yesterday, but on Thor's Day, really! Thor exists! Have you never heard thunder ( same root as Thor) and shouted, "Gawd that was close!"
As you well know, Thor drives a chariot pulled by two goats. I, personally, have touched goats. Former neighbours have raised goats. Are you claiming goats are not real?
And some might say the radioactive element thorium (Th) is congealed sweat from Thor's brow. Thorium may well be the answer to our energy needs.
And, Santa's sleigh is pulled by reindeer, one of whom is called Donar, another of Thor's names. Surely you believe in Santa!?
Thor bless Canada and protect her from the Midgard serpent!
My Gawd Spade, we were talking about God not Gawd. You know as well as I they are not the same being, even if they are mythological.
I thought thorium was the sweat off Thor's gonads. Mother Earth herself has enough energy to power this planet for eternity. We don't need Thor's gonad sweat.
I raised goats for a decade, BTW, and they are as far from godly as can be. They are satanic. Just look into their eyes. And don't get me started on that coke swilling pedophile Santa.
Good Gawd man, get a grip on reality.
It's all about checks and balances freedom of speech as long as it does not offend people and since this is a double edge sword people will learn to say it without hurting people or causing other people to do harm to the subject you talked on.
'as long as it does not offend people' is not an appropriate measure. Some people are offended by 'taking the Lord's name in vain', others are offended by using 'swear words', some are offended by playing cards on Sunday.
I maintain the right to be offensive, as long as we also maintain the right to be offended.
Let's tell the story of two preconceptions: mine and yours.
I came into this argument knowing that wouldn't be able to keep it on topic. That you were bent on making your God argument regardless of where our discussion would have taken us. I could have, and seriously considered, heading off this argument before you made it. Your concept of God is riddled with contradictions. There are several avenues one could take to rip apart your moral argument on logic alone, forget the empirical route which others have attempted. But that would have been divergent. It has nothing to do with my opinions on free speech, which is what this is about.
But you came into this argument solely to make your God argument and knowing my atheism assumed that any denial of your moral argument was not from logic but because I didn't want to believe in God. You have no evidence that my opinions on free speech stem from a desire to not believe in God and I provided you with no such evidence. I laid out what my opinions were and provided arguments to back them up. You ignored those arguments and instead accused me of making them only because I refused to believe in God.
I didn't act on what I assumed about you and I turned out to be right. You did act on what you assumed about me but you have no evidence to support that assumption.
If you think that my argument for free speech is insufficient, then argue against it. Pick apart all the holes in the logic or explain why it is a moral question.
It doesn't put us at a stalemate. You could try arguing why you think it is a moral question. You could argue against my argument from utility.