S

What possibility would that be? And how is it inherent? "I don't know" just means I don't know, not that it's possible. Some people seem to be reading...

It leaves both the possibility and impossibility of God's existence open. It isn't a stance about that, it's simply a stance about the lack of knowled...

Boring. Yes, we deal with things. And? No, wait, let me guess: this is terrible! Oh my god! The dishes! What a nightmare! We should all just kill ours...

The concept of the State is useful, hence it hasn't fallen out of use. No alternative concept is necessary, and alternative political theories where t...

NOS4A2 is full of contradictions and so should not be taken too seriously. Elsewhere on the forum he said the following, which clearly undermines his ...

It is really silly to call what I'm talking about "magical powers", and yes, of course one can learn how to spot what's going on and to resist it, if ...

Of course they can, silly. It's called manipulation, and it's a skill, although it comes more naturally to some than others. It is a fundamental part ...

It's unreasonable to ask him to list them all, but it shouldn't be difficult to figure out what that list would include. It would include things like ...

Indeed, and obviously it should not. I suspect the whole basis for those on the other side of this debate reaching the conclusion they do is similarly...

No.

Yeah, yeah. You have an answer for everything, right? You're somehow never wrong, even when caught red handed. I can tell why you're a fan of Trump.

Wait! I've just noticed that you inadvertently refuted your own stance! :rofl:

The following is not a question: It is a clear appeal to your own personal experience. And your question was either rhetorical or suggestive, appealin...

Ha!

How is that trolling? The answer is still obvious, clarification not withstanding. So the real question is why you're asking stupid questions. The dis...

I never said you said so, so there's no straw man. There was an "if" in my last reply that you seem to have missed. That was one possible interpretati...

Is this a joke? Are you pretending to be someone from another planet?

Not really. In practice, it's absorbed into atheism, hence why hardly anyone generally identifies their broader position with that term.

Yes, and extremely hypocritical.

Through the Feedback category or by contacting forum staff. The forum categories can be found via the menu on the home page.

It won't make any difference. If you don't know whether or not it's possible that God exists, it simply doesn't follow that you think that it's possib...

No, that's just an assumption on your part. It's an understandable assumption, but it's not necessarily the case. Your logic is invalid.

It was a fallacy of relevance, and more specifically a hasty generalisation if you were suggesting that the fact that hate speech such as Hitler’s spe...

No, that's a slippery slope fallacy.

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

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 sho...

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...

Not believing doesn't imply believing the contrary.

Beside the point.

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 wast...

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

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

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

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 figure out the answer from my replies?

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

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.

Then you're off topic.

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 ex...

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...

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 ...

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

What's ridiculous is your Donald Trump spokesperson act.

:lol::up:

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

But that's a good point.

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.

No, because there's a difference between science and science fiction. But there's no reason to believe that God is like microorganisms.

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