That's Novy's point, brainchild.
Pastafarians Remind the Real Motivation of the Modern Atheistic Movement
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Yes, they are designed to influence opinion. If you didn't notice, he makes fun of believers as much as I do. Is he also a hateful bigot?
I don't deny that sometimes taking a didactic approach is pointless. No amount of patient understanding, for instance, will break through the brick wall of Jan's religious-based ignorance.
My solution is converting as many people to atheism as possible, failing that to at least have them confront their religious assumptions with skepticism. Failing that to ridicule them mercilessly.
Sometimes we elevate, sometimes we keep it in the gutter for no other reason than it's fucking funny. We don't have to be pretentious lecturers all the time. So what if it makes us feel better. I find it empowering. This isn't the reason I'm an atheist though. To assume that is to underestimate the movement.
I single out religion because it makes a virtue of faith. And because it's so common. It's not the only ideology that can corrupt, but it's the main one.
What implications? We haven't been tolerated for centuries, nothing new.
I just meant that, unlike Christianity, there is no orthodoxy. There is unified ideology in Christianity, that's why we can apply that label to them. To be a Christian requires that you believe certain things, otherwise you aren't a Christian. To be an atheist means only that you don't believe in god. So I'm sure there are hypocrites who say they value reason while they rub a dwarfs head for luck. I'm sure some are just haters. It's the same strength as the occupy movement, who refused to develop a distinct ideology which could be refuted point by point.
But you still haven't explain what is the poor behavior? Getting the DMV to grant a religious exemption for a strainer is brilliant activism, something no atheist should be ashamed of. It makes a mockery of religious exemptions to the law. These exemptions, by the way, are becoming quite serious. They are backdoors to lawful discrimination and theocracy.
I really don't understand you. Is it brilliant or is it bad? We are fighting theocracy, not some pastors religious right to diddle kids with impunity.
What are you talking about? I embrace irrationality in some areas like art. Dadaism is incredible. Burroughs' cut-up method is fantastic. I'm sure in the origins of religion somewhere there was some creative genius who made up stories to entertain the tribe and make them think. But later a humorless degenerate made it into a religion and started cutting off heads in it's name.
I'm just saying, absolute skepticism would mean we don't make any tentative assumptions, which are necessary to achieve objective results. Faith is not tentative, it's not an experiment to see what happens. In science, statistical analysis don't have to show absolute correlation, only significant correlation. I suppose some personal judgement is required to come to a conclusion about what degree of confidence one can have about a result, but this isn't the abandonment of reason.
It already has. Evolution has told the story of humanity better than any religious mythology.
Go for it. I think it's a lost cause and we are better off without it.
But when it's the religion that makes them assholes, and not their own fault, that's a special case. It's my particular axe to grind. I'm sure you have your own causes.
Atheists generally understand religion better than believers do. We have to in order to debate it. Please don't pretend it's that esoteric. They teach this crap to children. I make exceptions for religions that aren't supernatural or theistic in nature, there are some decent ones out there.
Seems to me it's working. Atheism is rising. I'm sure Christians and others will continue to play the oppressed card, whining about how they no longer have freedom to limit other people's freedom. Fuck 'em. With a dong of thorns.
Notes Around
Is it too much to ask that you respect the context of what you respond to?
"While not particularly relevant to the issue of Mr. Novy and his head-sieve", it is relevant to my discussion with Billvon.
But, you know, if you have to recast everything in order to accommodate your straw doll, we can certainly leave you to play in its textures and folds.
Alright. If you can't manage good faith, I'm happy to abide by that.
Would you assert that Pastafarians are theists?
See, the problem with your argument is that there is a difference between what people say and what they do. In this case, you describe an action. To the other, we already have a description of the action. You're simply trying to recast bigotry as something noble.
I get the point that these people are tired of religious bigots. But bigotry does not suddenly become noble just because it's atheistic, or Pastafarian, or whatever the hell.
One might as well say that refusing black people entrance to his business is making the point of applying the same rules to everyone, i.e., Everyone gets to make their own business decisions.
He's much better at it than you. Indeed, I don't often see Myers slip into open bigotry.
Perhaps yor brand of patient understanding is neither patient nor understanding.
You clearly don't have a clue what you're dealing with. Imagine being in the operating room:
Before you can perform surgery successfully, you do need some medical education.
Similarly, before you dissect religion, you probably ought to know something about its anatomy and dynamics.
You argue against a political beast and call it religion.
In other words, your solution is to do whatever you can to make things worse.
Empowerment through bigotry is empowerment through bigotry.
Friendship?
Love?
I mean, you do realize that "falling madly in love" is actually accurate, do you not? It looks, in the brain, just like psychosis.
But I don't see atheists trying to solve this particular problem that results in so much human misery when relationships break down and people start trying to hurt and destroy one another. Maybe that's because your hatred would have to hit a little too close to home? Like, say, the face in the mirror?
The implications of bigotry in atheistic politics.
In theory.
The thing that gets in the way of seeing whatever point you're trying to make is the sense that you're trying desperately to whitewash the conduct of some atheists just like you spend plenty of words polishing your own knob.
I'm trying to think of an example from Occupy that wouldn't be a magnification of the sort that you get to complain about some quasi-Godwinesque inflation of the issues. But could you at least show me the Occupy protester who issued demands that he be empowered to commit the very financial crimes he denounced?
Actually, I've repeated my accusation of that poor behavior a few times in this thread, but since you couldn't be bothered to read the topic post and source article, I'm not surprised that you missed those reiterations of what I consider poor behavior on Mr. Nový's part.
I honestly don't believe you're so stupid that you cannot understand that one can be excellent at committing evil.
No, really, think about it. The dude who tried to rob a store with a bat'lleth? That's pretty piss-poor evil.
Wall Street execs exploiting the laws to take bonuses for running their companies, as well as the American and world economies into chaos? Well, come on. That's pretty sharp. And it's hardly a new idea.
So, really, you can't figure out how an act can be both morally wrong (bad) and excellently devised and executed (brilliant)?
Okay.
This royal bollocking of the point is brought to you by Atheism.
What is this thing about trying to change the topic all the time? It's pretty stupid, and getting fairly predictable: If there is a substantive point to resolve, it will be pushed aside for a change of subject.
You offered Hitchens as an answer to the broader application of skepticism; he "often addressed the issue of art and architecture appreciation, since much of it is religious".
The question of the myth of art exists independently of religion. Pointing out that address "since much of it is religious" only reiterates that the only myth that qualifies for this heightened scrutiny is religion.
Free religion? The world would be a better place if all the dishonest conservatives in the United States didn't exist, but I'm not going to try to suppress them. I'm not going to try to take away their right to free expression. And I'm not going to fight back by behaving as badly as they do. Perhaps some might laugh at the preceding statement, but come on, they would have to be kidding.
I don't see the juristic difference between my liberalism and, say, Lightgigantic's faith. That is, sure, I can laugh at what I consider his silly excuses for logic, but I can't imagine the government getting involved that way.
As I pointed out to Iceaura:
I have reiterated the point to Gmilam, discussed it with Quinnsong in the context of her inquiry about apathism, and adapted its expression for Yazata.
Gmilam and Yazata have yet to respond; I'm not so concerned about Quinnsong's response insofar as she's not defending the underlying process. Indeed, the most constructive dialogue I've had so far in this thread is with Quinnsong, and given the mess atheists are making of this discussion, QS and I can always deal with those other issues another time.
And I'm not asking you to be as paranoid as one of our Sciforums neighbors has shown himself to be, but you don't apply this sort of skepticism to the myth of the State. Or the myth of the Economy.
Just sayin'.
So what is the meaning of life?
Or is that not what you intended when you changed the subject?
And you have no idea what that would do to humanity, largely because you don't care. Watch people writhe in the heat of neurosis, and then recite your insensate balbutive about getting rid of religion. And if you don't want to be a part of human progress, but would rather exacerbate the problems our species faces within its societies, there are, in fact, a few words to describe that outlook. Villainous comes to mind. Selfish, as well. Antisocial fits in there somewhere.
But, hey, let's run ourselves into an extinction-level crisis by arbitrarily dismantling the most pervasive moral structures in human history without a thought toward what we might fill that vacuum with. Because, after all, it would make you happy, and that's what's important. Right?
You have no idea.
You cannot simply pull out religion like a sliver.
It's the difference between participating constructively in the human endeavor and telling humanity to go fuck itself to death.
Your particular axe is painted with the colors of bigotry. That's your problem; don't go making it everyone else's.
Like I said, setting the bar low. If we reserve the idea of believers to include only the evangelical Christians, radical Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, and so on, well, yes, atheists probably do understand religion better than the faithful.
But once we open the consideration to include other people of religious persuasion, your argument is bullshit.
Again ... are you willing to take a one-question pop-quiz? Gmilam won't commit, and you haven't answered.
To take Sciforums as an example, though it is hardly unique or even rare, the atheists here are more interested in discussing the politics related to religion than religion itself.
Bare logic is one thing. The naked contradictions between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are obvious to even the most superficial perusal. But that superficiality is problematic.
True, a member of John Hagee's congregation is more likely to be that sort of superficial religious idiot, but even the religious instructors I didn't like in my educational tale were smarter than the half-witted, self-superior crap we keep hearing from atheists in the public discourse.
I support your fight for equality, but not your quest to legitimize bigotry.
So ... how about that one-question pop-quiz?
Yes, they do. As do many atheists teach crap to children. The problem is teaching crap to children, not whether or not it's religious.
Such as?
And since you used the plural, please don't fall back to a single answer like Buddhism, since it has some insanely supernatural ideas built into it.
Yes, the rising atheistic movement is definitely succeeding in its endeavor to make things worse.
Don't give them a legitimate reason to play the oppression card.
Rape advocacy and atheism. I hadn't paired those two before.
Thanks for that one.
____________________
Notes:
Spooner, Lysander. Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty. 1875. LysanderSpooner.org. August 7, 2013. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/46
Yazata said:
Is it too much to ask that you respect the context of what you respond to?
"While not particularly relevant to the issue of Mr. Novy and his head-sieve", it is relevant to my discussion with Billvon.
But, you know, if you have to recast everything in order to accommodate your straw doll, we can certainly leave you to play in its textures and folds.
Alright. If you can't manage good faith, I'm happy to abide by that.
• • •
Gmilam said:
Would you assert that Pastafarians are theists?
See, the problem with your argument is that there is a difference between what people say and what they do. In this case, you describe an action. To the other, we already have a description of the action. You're simply trying to recast bigotry as something noble.
I get the point that these people are tired of religious bigots. But bigotry does not suddenly become noble just because it's atheistic, or Pastafarian, or whatever the hell.
One might as well say that refusing black people entrance to his business is making the point of applying the same rules to everyone, i.e., Everyone gets to make their own business decisions.
• • •
Spidergoat said:
He's much better at it than you. Indeed, I don't often see Myers slip into open bigotry.
Perhaps yor brand of patient understanding is neither patient nor understanding.
You clearly don't have a clue what you're dealing with. Imagine being in the operating room:
Chief Surgeon: Look at that! Throbbing like it's got an alien ready to burst out. We need to remove it before it kills him!
Nurse: Um ... well ... that's his heart.
Nurse: Um ... well ... that's his heart.
Before you can perform surgery successfully, you do need some medical education.
Similarly, before you dissect religion, you probably ought to know something about its anatomy and dynamics.
You argue against a political beast and call it religion.
In other words, your solution is to do whatever you can to make things worse.
Empowerment through bigotry is empowerment through bigotry.
Friendship?
Love?
I mean, you do realize that "falling madly in love" is actually accurate, do you not? It looks, in the brain, just like psychosis.
But I don't see atheists trying to solve this particular problem that results in so much human misery when relationships break down and people start trying to hurt and destroy one another. Maybe that's because your hatred would have to hit a little too close to home? Like, say, the face in the mirror?
The implications of bigotry in atheistic politics.
In theory.
The thing that gets in the way of seeing whatever point you're trying to make is the sense that you're trying desperately to whitewash the conduct of some atheists just like you spend plenty of words polishing your own knob.
I'm trying to think of an example from Occupy that wouldn't be a magnification of the sort that you get to complain about some quasi-Godwinesque inflation of the issues. But could you at least show me the Occupy protester who issued demands that he be empowered to commit the very financial crimes he denounced?
Actually, I've repeated my accusation of that poor behavior a few times in this thread, but since you couldn't be bothered to read the topic post and source article, I'm not surprised that you missed those reiterations of what I consider poor behavior on Mr. Nový's part.
I honestly don't believe you're so stupid that you cannot understand that one can be excellent at committing evil.
No, really, think about it. The dude who tried to rob a store with a bat'lleth? That's pretty piss-poor evil.
Wall Street execs exploiting the laws to take bonuses for running their companies, as well as the American and world economies into chaos? Well, come on. That's pretty sharp. And it's hardly a new idea.
In the first place, the great crimes committed in the world are mostly prompted by avarice and ambition.
The greatest of all crimes are the wars that are carried on by governments, to plunder, enslave, and destroy mankind.
The next greatest crimes committed in the world are equally prompted by avarice and ambition; and are committed, not on sudden passion, but by men of calculation, who keep their heads cool and clear, and who have no thought whatever of going to prison for them. They are committed, not so much by men who violate the laws, as by men who, either by themselves or by their instruments, make the laws; by men who have combined to usurp arbitrary power, and to maintain it by force and fraud, and whose purpose in usurping and maintaining it is by unjust and unequal legislation, to secure to themselves such advantages and monopolies as will enable them to control and extort the labor and properties of other men, and thus impoverish them, in order to minister to their own wealth and aggrandizement. The robberies and wrongs thus committed by these men, in conformity with the laws—that is, their own laws—are as mountains to molehills, compared with the crimes committed by all other criminals, in violation of the laws.
But, thirdly, there are vast numbers of frauds, of various kinds, committed in the transactions of trade, whose perpetrators, by their coolness and sagacity, evade the operation of the laws. And it is only their cool and clear heads that enable them to do it.
(Spooner)
The greatest of all crimes are the wars that are carried on by governments, to plunder, enslave, and destroy mankind.
The next greatest crimes committed in the world are equally prompted by avarice and ambition; and are committed, not on sudden passion, but by men of calculation, who keep their heads cool and clear, and who have no thought whatever of going to prison for them. They are committed, not so much by men who violate the laws, as by men who, either by themselves or by their instruments, make the laws; by men who have combined to usurp arbitrary power, and to maintain it by force and fraud, and whose purpose in usurping and maintaining it is by unjust and unequal legislation, to secure to themselves such advantages and monopolies as will enable them to control and extort the labor and properties of other men, and thus impoverish them, in order to minister to their own wealth and aggrandizement. The robberies and wrongs thus committed by these men, in conformity with the laws—that is, their own laws—are as mountains to molehills, compared with the crimes committed by all other criminals, in violation of the laws.
But, thirdly, there are vast numbers of frauds, of various kinds, committed in the transactions of trade, whose perpetrators, by their coolness and sagacity, evade the operation of the laws. And it is only their cool and clear heads that enable them to do it.
(Spooner)
So, really, you can't figure out how an act can be both morally wrong (bad) and excellently devised and executed (brilliant)?
Okay.
This royal bollocking of the point is brought to you by Atheism.
What is this thing about trying to change the topic all the time? It's pretty stupid, and getting fairly predictable: If there is a substantive point to resolve, it will be pushed aside for a change of subject.
You offered Hitchens as an answer to the broader application of skepticism; he "often addressed the issue of art and architecture appreciation, since much of it is religious".
The question of the myth of art exists independently of religion. Pointing out that address "since much of it is religious" only reiterates that the only myth that qualifies for this heightened scrutiny is religion.
Free religion? The world would be a better place if all the dishonest conservatives in the United States didn't exist, but I'm not going to try to suppress them. I'm not going to try to take away their right to free expression. And I'm not going to fight back by behaving as badly as they do. Perhaps some might laugh at the preceding statement, but come on, they would have to be kidding.
I don't see the juristic difference between my liberalism and, say, Lightgigantic's faith. That is, sure, I can laugh at what I consider his silly excuses for logic, but I can't imagine the government getting involved that way.
As I pointed out to Iceaura:
(2) Furthermore, by your argument, I could make the following argument and expect the Czech government to accept it:
• The only dogma of my religion is to reject all dogma.
• By church dogma, I am obliged to wear a t-shirt that says, "Niggers Should Hang" on the front, and recites the Sandbox Joke on the back, wherever I go.
• I refuse to abide by the tenets of my faith and reject this dogmatic demand that is violative of my religion.
∴ Therefore I demand government endorsement of this dogmatic obligation that actually violates my religious faith, in the name of my religious freedom.
• By church dogma, I am obliged to wear a t-shirt that says, "Niggers Should Hang" on the front, and recites the Sandbox Joke on the back, wherever I go.
• I refuse to abide by the tenets of my faith and reject this dogmatic demand that is violative of my religion.
∴ Therefore I demand government endorsement of this dogmatic obligation that actually violates my religious faith, in the name of my religious freedom.
I have reiterated the point to Gmilam, discussed it with Quinnsong in the context of her inquiry about apathism, and adapted its expression for Yazata.
Gmilam and Yazata have yet to respond; I'm not so concerned about Quinnsong's response insofar as she's not defending the underlying process. Indeed, the most constructive dialogue I've had so far in this thread is with Quinnsong, and given the mess atheists are making of this discussion, QS and I can always deal with those other issues another time.
And I'm not asking you to be as paranoid as one of our Sciforums neighbors has shown himself to be, but you don't apply this sort of skepticism to the myth of the State. Or the myth of the Economy.
Just sayin'.
So what is the meaning of life?
Or is that not what you intended when you changed the subject?
And you have no idea what that would do to humanity, largely because you don't care. Watch people writhe in the heat of neurosis, and then recite your insensate balbutive about getting rid of religion. And if you don't want to be a part of human progress, but would rather exacerbate the problems our species faces within its societies, there are, in fact, a few words to describe that outlook. Villainous comes to mind. Selfish, as well. Antisocial fits in there somewhere.
But, hey, let's run ourselves into an extinction-level crisis by arbitrarily dismantling the most pervasive moral structures in human history without a thought toward what we might fill that vacuum with. Because, after all, it would make you happy, and that's what's important. Right?
You have no idea.
You cannot simply pull out religion like a sliver.
It's the difference between participating constructively in the human endeavor and telling humanity to go fuck itself to death.
Your particular axe is painted with the colors of bigotry. That's your problem; don't go making it everyone else's.
Like I said, setting the bar low. If we reserve the idea of believers to include only the evangelical Christians, radical Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, and so on, well, yes, atheists probably do understand religion better than the faithful.
But once we open the consideration to include other people of religious persuasion, your argument is bullshit.
Again ... are you willing to take a one-question pop-quiz? Gmilam won't commit, and you haven't answered.
To take Sciforums as an example, though it is hardly unique or even rare, the atheists here are more interested in discussing the politics related to religion than religion itself.
Bare logic is one thing. The naked contradictions between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are obvious to even the most superficial perusal. But that superficiality is problematic.
True, a member of John Hagee's congregation is more likely to be that sort of superficial religious idiot, but even the religious instructors I didn't like in my educational tale were smarter than the half-witted, self-superior crap we keep hearing from atheists in the public discourse.
I support your fight for equality, but not your quest to legitimize bigotry.
So ... how about that one-question pop-quiz?
Yes, they do. As do many atheists teach crap to children. The problem is teaching crap to children, not whether or not it's religious.
Such as?
And since you used the plural, please don't fall back to a single answer like Buddhism, since it has some insanely supernatural ideas built into it.
Yes, the rising atheistic movement is definitely succeeding in its endeavor to make things worse.
Don't give them a legitimate reason to play the oppression card.
Rape advocacy and atheism. I hadn't paired those two before.
Thanks for that one.
____________________
Notes:
Spooner, Lysander. Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty. 1875. LysanderSpooner.org. August 7, 2013. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/46
Please. Keep your weird sexual practises to yourself.
here's what I heard, "Now you might be wondering what it is. I’ve got it, and I still am. It’s one of those thingumabobs that fits words like “eclectic” and “ooooh” and “oh, what a colossal time sink”. It’s a…well, it’s a…" What were they doing?
To me the atheistic movement is about as political as forming any party on a single issue: it grabs headlines (for good or bad) where that single point is concerned but is impotent when anything else is discussed.
I take your points, Tiassa. I hope I have understood them.
To a large extent I think I agree.
Although I find it amusing (but no less valid) that you raise issue with us discussing the politics of religion rather than religion itself, and you do so in a thread you have raised about the politics of atheism.
Personally I think the increasing apathy toward religion is the real atheist movement. And by atheist I do not limit it to the anti-theist movement that perhaps your focus is on. It is a gradual shift of people reaching their own conclusions from society around them as to what to make of meaning, existence, ethics, morals etc.
As for Pastafarianism and sieve-wearing, where does one draw the line between mockery and bigotry. Can mocking lead to, or be led from bigotry? Sure, to mock someone for race or sexual orientation would be examples.
But is mocking a religious belief quite the same?
Is mocking someone's opinion a sign of bigotry? And is religion not merely an opinion that one holds as the foundation on which to structure their life? While it may be therefore worthy of more respect, is it bigoted merely to be disrespectful?
I offer these as open questions, not as indication of my opinion on the matter.
I take your points, Tiassa. I hope I have understood them.
To a large extent I think I agree.
Although I find it amusing (but no less valid) that you raise issue with us discussing the politics of religion rather than religion itself, and you do so in a thread you have raised about the politics of atheism.
Personally I think the increasing apathy toward religion is the real atheist movement. And by atheist I do not limit it to the anti-theist movement that perhaps your focus is on. It is a gradual shift of people reaching their own conclusions from society around them as to what to make of meaning, existence, ethics, morals etc.
As for Pastafarianism and sieve-wearing, where does one draw the line between mockery and bigotry. Can mocking lead to, or be led from bigotry? Sure, to mock someone for race or sexual orientation would be examples.
But is mocking a religious belief quite the same?
Is mocking someone's opinion a sign of bigotry? And is religion not merely an opinion that one holds as the foundation on which to structure their life? While it may be therefore worthy of more respect, is it bigoted merely to be disrespectful?
I offer these as open questions, not as indication of my opinion on the matter.
I couldn't bring myself to slough through all four pages of this nonsense, so you'll have to forgive me if I ask questions to which answers have been given on previous pages.
If I have it right, the two men in question here fought for the right to wear sieves on their heads on ID cards, citing Pastafarianism in both cases as the religious or "professed" reasoning for the headgear. Okay. Fine. I think it's hysterical, and probably important that they both succeeded. Our dear friend (whom I've warmed to over the last several months, honestly) has, in one of his tersest OPs ever, reminded me why we've butt heads on so many occasions, with the internet forum equivalent of a prison-forged shiv in the kidneys.
Right there, right from the first sentence, you've missed the mark. If we were bowling, that would have been a gutterball...three lanes over.
To put it succinctly, there is no theological conundrum, because there is no theology. Pastafarianism is a satirical movement founded on the simple premise that the concessions made by our government for religion are absurd. That two men succeeded in wearing sieves on their heads in official government identification photos is not only right in line with what Pastafarianism, or any other jab at the obscene interminglings of church and state, but a huge triumph of it.
I don't know where you get the notion that these acts translate to a hatred toward people at all, let alone for being religious. Of course it's mockery, but how do you make the jump from that to bigotry of all things? No, seriously, you need to answer how you make the reckless and irresponsible jump from "they're making fun of religion" to "they're all bigots who hate religious people." This must be addressed. Perhaps you have earlier in this thread, but you're a loquacious chap and I'm sure you won't mind repeating yourself here, or at least directing me to a previous response.
Again, you've made the leap from "Here's what happened," to "They're all bigots" as if no explanation were necessary. That trick works wonders feeding the sheep listening to right-wing radio, or the sheep watching Maddow, but it's not going to fly with me. How do we get from mockery of state policy to bigotry as a tool of self-empowerment? Explain.
Ah, the fabulous (and predictable) straw man of straw men. "If you like being a bigot, why not just say so?"
You've used this rhetorical device before, so you're keenly aware of how dishonest it is, but for those who are new to Tiassa-Speak, let me set the record straight: Mocking religion is not bigotry. And what happened here was not even that, but the mockery of how the state trips over itself to appease ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression. Maybe that makes you uncomfortable. You have every right to feel that way, even if I think it's misguided. But to call it bigotry just because you don't like it is every bit as ridiculous as the laws these Pastafarians lampoon. It's the reason we can't have civil discourse about these things and are forced to wear sieves on our heads in the first place. Any criticism whatsoever becomes hatred and bigotry, and you're so practiced at it by this point you don't even bother explaining your asinine assertion.
Seriously.
I'd love to get into a discussion about the politics of atheism, but before I can even begin with that, I need to know how you intend to support your claim that it's all about self-empowerment through bigotry. I mean, it's such a broad and vague claim that I can't get my head around it.
If I have it right, the two men in question here fought for the right to wear sieves on their heads on ID cards, citing Pastafarianism in both cases as the religious or "professed" reasoning for the headgear. Okay. Fine. I think it's hysterical, and probably important that they both succeeded. Our dear friend (whom I've warmed to over the last several months, honestly) has, in one of his tersest OPs ever, reminded me why we've butt heads on so many occasions, with the internet forum equivalent of a prison-forged shiv in the kidneys.
Tiassa said:
Right there, right from the first sentence, you've missed the mark. If we were bowling, that would have been a gutterball...three lanes over.
To put it succinctly, there is no theological conundrum, because there is no theology. Pastafarianism is a satirical movement founded on the simple premise that the concessions made by our government for religion are absurd. That two men succeeded in wearing sieves on their heads in official government identification photos is not only right in line with what Pastafarianism, or any other jab at the obscene interminglings of church and state, but a huge triumph of it.
I don't know where you get the notion that these acts translate to a hatred toward people at all, let alone for being religious. Of course it's mockery, but how do you make the jump from that to bigotry of all things? No, seriously, you need to answer how you make the reckless and irresponsible jump from "they're making fun of religion" to "they're all bigots who hate religious people." This must be addressed. Perhaps you have earlier in this thread, but you're a loquacious chap and I'm sure you won't mind repeating yourself here, or at least directing me to a previous response.
Again, you've made the leap from "Here's what happened," to "They're all bigots" as if no explanation were necessary. That trick works wonders feeding the sheep listening to right-wing radio, or the sheep watching Maddow, but it's not going to fly with me. How do we get from mockery of state policy to bigotry as a tool of self-empowerment? Explain.
Ah, the fabulous (and predictable) straw man of straw men. "If you like being a bigot, why not just say so?"
You've used this rhetorical device before, so you're keenly aware of how dishonest it is, but for those who are new to Tiassa-Speak, let me set the record straight: Mocking religion is not bigotry. And what happened here was not even that, but the mockery of how the state trips over itself to appease ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression. Maybe that makes you uncomfortable. You have every right to feel that way, even if I think it's misguided. But to call it bigotry just because you don't like it is every bit as ridiculous as the laws these Pastafarians lampoon. It's the reason we can't have civil discourse about these things and are forced to wear sieves on our heads in the first place. Any criticism whatsoever becomes hatred and bigotry, and you're so practiced at it by this point you don't even bother explaining your asinine assertion.
Seriously.
I'd love to get into a discussion about the politics of atheism, but before I can even begin with that, I need to know how you intend to support your claim that it's all about self-empowerment through bigotry. I mean, it's such a broad and vague claim that I can't get my head around it.
We Have Finally Struck Gold so Why Keep Clutching Your Pennies?
Does no one understand that Tiassa has finally taken a religious thread to a place where we are no longer going in circles? I believe I understand the real goal here and using Pastafanarianism to get here is genius!
Maybe because of my own experience as an organizer dealing with all strata of the American population, this one time moderate conservative Christian became apathetic toward religion and decided it is a side issue compared to the real issue. Changing peoples minds is never done with personal attacks on what they may deem as sacred and their truths. It just will not work!
There are much more intelligent people than I here in this thread and personally I cannot believe you cannot see the gold in what Tiassa is saying here. Why get side-tracked and attack religion when this is the real problem:
In the first place, the great crimes committed in the world are mostly prompted by avarice and ambition.
The greatest of all crimes are the wars that are carried on by governments, to plunder, enslave, and destroy mankind.
The next greatest crimes committed in the world are equally prompted by avarice and ambition; and are committed, not on sudden passion, but by men of calculation, who keep their heads cool and clear, and who have no thought whatever of going to prison for them. They are committed, not so much by men who violate the laws, as by men who, either by themselves or by their instruments, make the laws; by men who have combined to usurp arbitrary power, and to maintain it by force and fraud, and whose purpose in usurping and maintaining it is by unjust and unequal legislation, to secure to themselves such advantages and monopolies as will enable them to control and extort the labor and properties of other men, and thus impoverish them, in order to minister to their own wealth and aggrandizement. The robberies and wrongs thus committed by these men, in conformity with the laws—that is, their own laws—are as mountains to molehills, compared with the crimes committed by all other criminals, in violation of the laws.
But, thirdly, there are vast numbers of frauds, of various kinds, committed in the transactions of trade, whose perpetrators, by their coolness and sagacity, evade the operation of the laws. And it is only their cool and clear heads that enable them to do it.
(Spooner)
Maybe because to tackle this goal is so overwhelming, seemingly so unattainable that we consistently find ourselves at odds over (name your X here). So keep on clutching your pennies I want the gold. But to attain that we must remain as cool and clear as those that perpetrate the real evils in our societies.
I may be totally off here but this is my take on it.
Does no one understand that Tiassa has finally taken a religious thread to a place where we are no longer going in circles? I believe I understand the real goal here and using Pastafanarianism to get here is genius!
Maybe because of my own experience as an organizer dealing with all strata of the American population, this one time moderate conservative Christian became apathetic toward religion and decided it is a side issue compared to the real issue. Changing peoples minds is never done with personal attacks on what they may deem as sacred and their truths. It just will not work!
There are much more intelligent people than I here in this thread and personally I cannot believe you cannot see the gold in what Tiassa is saying here. Why get side-tracked and attack religion when this is the real problem:
In the first place, the great crimes committed in the world are mostly prompted by avarice and ambition.
The greatest of all crimes are the wars that are carried on by governments, to plunder, enslave, and destroy mankind.
The next greatest crimes committed in the world are equally prompted by avarice and ambition; and are committed, not on sudden passion, but by men of calculation, who keep their heads cool and clear, and who have no thought whatever of going to prison for them. They are committed, not so much by men who violate the laws, as by men who, either by themselves or by their instruments, make the laws; by men who have combined to usurp arbitrary power, and to maintain it by force and fraud, and whose purpose in usurping and maintaining it is by unjust and unequal legislation, to secure to themselves such advantages and monopolies as will enable them to control and extort the labor and properties of other men, and thus impoverish them, in order to minister to their own wealth and aggrandizement. The robberies and wrongs thus committed by these men, in conformity with the laws—that is, their own laws—are as mountains to molehills, compared with the crimes committed by all other criminals, in violation of the laws.
But, thirdly, there are vast numbers of frauds, of various kinds, committed in the transactions of trade, whose perpetrators, by their coolness and sagacity, evade the operation of the laws. And it is only their cool and clear heads that enable them to do it.
(Spooner)
Maybe because to tackle this goal is so overwhelming, seemingly so unattainable that we consistently find ourselves at odds over (name your X here). So keep on clutching your pennies I want the gold. But to attain that we must remain as cool and clear as those that perpetrate the real evils in our societies.
I may be totally off here but this is my take on it.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I disagree. Greed I can understand. The worst crimes are committed by people who think they are doing gods work, like when Islamists throw acid into some poor woman's face. It's painfully obvious Tiassa doesn't understand the term bigot. And doesn't understand that granting special privileges to religion is discrimination on the basis of tradition. No one wants to take away their freedom, we just want the same freedom. Appeasement with religious bullies is not an option. Pastafarianism is a bit of theater, but it's not as shallow as you think. It's not simply ridicule of religion, it's turning the tables on it and seeing how they like their own medicine.
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
I am not of the opinion that people are so weak they must be lied to otherwise they fall into psychological trauma. Get rid of the crutch of religion and they might discover that they can walk after all.
Been there, done that. I give you the Courtier's Reply.
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
There is nothing immoral about Mr. Pastafarian's actions. Unless you think that offending religious sensibilities are immoral, which is just stupid.
We are talking about atheism after all. Atheism largely limits itself to a single issue. Go watch mythbusters if you want all the world's myths debunked, that isn't the atheist's main concern.
Yes. The cognitive dissonance required to believe this is no less than that required to believe many religions. It's none of the government's business to dissect my religious views. They must accept them because I call them religious.
If your position is that it is causal and not symptomatic then yes I can see how you would disagree. But I see it as symptomatic, sooo to me your approach to religion is a big fail. You take on religion and I will take on the much harder task of the economic sociopaths who thank religion everyday of their lives.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Theists cannot have it both ways. They cannot point to the horrors of the Soviet Union and attribute them to lack of theism if they don't also attribute the horrors of organized religion to religion. Suicide bombers would not blow themselves up if they didn't think paradise was awaiting them. This isn't my opinion, you can listen to their pre-recorded messages. People in Africa would not burn others alive if they didn't believe in witches, which Christianity supports. I doubt preachers would be railing against gays in the pulpit if their sacred text didn't say it was an abomination. The sacred part is important, it's not just a text, which can be refuted, it is the word of the infinitely powerful creator of everything, which cannot. Remember, in places where religion dominates, it's not possible to disbelieve openly, so doubts tend to die with their originators and gain no traction.
How many places on this beautiful Earth does religion dominate completely? What are their economies like? What is their literacy rate? What are their opportunities? Is their access to educational facilities? Is it because of Islam these problems exist? Or did Islam just fill this vacuum?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
There are quite a few areas where religion dominates, even in an ostensibly secular societies, the deep south of the US, Israel, Africa, Indonesia... and it's not just Islam.
CarolinaG.
Registered Member
If you reject dogma... simply do your own research into it.... then it is no longer dogma.
Most atheists are simply rejectors of religions. Not the concept of God per say as they do not truly even understand what God is, yet claim to be against it.
I reject religion, but I am not atheist. I am by myself in all my understandings because they come from within me, if I share them and others agree, they are now theirs too, but not any less mine.
Most atheists are simply rejectors of religions. Not the concept of God per say as they do not truly even understand what God is, yet claim to be against it.
I reject religion, but I am not atheist. I am by myself in all my understandings because they come from within me, if I share them and others agree, they are now theirs too, but not any less mine.
Of course it is not just Islam, but that was not really where I was trying to go. I would much rather stay in America anyway and you brought up the deep South so I will go there. That is where much of my life was spent so I do know how to whistle Dixie.
Why do you think Southerners cling to their religion?
Notes Around
Oh, I agree. Unfortunately, someone asked.
I would point out that I did open with the theological conundrum, and the best answer to it so far is that two wrongs make a right.
I would note that the idea of apathism is one to be included alongside theist, atheist, and agnostic.
I would suggest that undertaking the effort to earn a state endorsement of a practical joke intended to denigrate billions—i.e., hate speech—is the problematic element. As you'll see in this thread, some of our atheistic neighbors are just fine with hate speech, as long as it's their kind of hate speech.
Actually, if the theological argument he made isn't a theological argument, then the Czech officials screwed up even worse.
And as you've raised the question of "our" government (we are Americans, not Czech or Austrian citizens), I would point out the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That these religious traditions predate the First Amendment, what we have in effect, according to your point about "concessions" is the death of free religion, i.e., You can have free religion, but only if you modify your religion to state-established standards.
The joke is escalated by the effort to earn the state's imprimateur. See #19 in this thread:
The Islamic headscarf, for instance, while we can certainly argue it denigrates Muslim women, was never intended as a specific denigration of any other religion. Sieveheads? Denigration of billions of people, deliberate and calculated insult, is their purpose.
I would suggest you're missing a few things. In the first place, there is a difference between the statement—
—and your summary:
Well, as you've noted, sometimes my posts get pretty long. It would be easier to point you to the Religion Archives at this site. To wit, one of our best Religion threads, ever: "The Crucifixion was a Fraud". There you see atheists tangling with theology. And those arguments are only better served by the sort of historical examinations those who defend Pastafarianism eschew.
From #6 in this thread:
This has been an ongoing process. And it does, in some ways, seem related to the rise in political and juristic influence of organized atheism.
The underlying problem might well be something that is not unique in any way to atheists; it is a disregard for history.
Indeed, you have fallen into that pit, as well:
Now, then:
It would probably be helpful, then, for you to acknowledge the proposition of an emerging thesis. Please see the aforementioned difference between the statement and your summary.
I would also note Quinnsong's post at #68. Setting aside the egocentric glow such praise can inspire, one might note the post offers very few solutions; that's just fine, as it's a complex issue. But the post also recognizes history, something absent from many atheistic theological assertions; see point (2) in the prior section of this post.
The problem history presents those who would support Mr. Nový's action is that once history is introduced and properly considered, the difference between the contradictions inherent in a monolithic view of religion and a deliberately-constructed rhetorical sleight intended to empower state-endorsed mockery of billions of people becomes apparent.
Refusing history is exceptionally problematic, both argumentatively and ethically.
I would also ask you the same question I've put to Mr. Nový's defenders: Are you willing to take a one-question pop-quiz?
(Some background on that inquiry, since you haven't read through the thread: This is an effort to get atheists to demonstrate their superior grasp of religion, which has been largely implied in this thread, and in at least one case explicitly proclaimed. As that superior grasp of religion is absent in this thread, I'm trying to find a way to allow those who would hold such a view an explicit opportunity to demonstrate the claim, since the implicit opportunities to show that intellectual power is apparently too subtle in such discussions as these for them to recognize.)
It is a wonderful application of the concept. In truth, though, I only raised it because one of our neighbors couldn't comprehend the idea of someone being brilliant about committing evil. I don't know, maybe they're taking cinematic supervillains too seriously, but that's why the trope of monologuing exists in movies. No real villain is going to take the time to explain everything to James Bond, or Superman, before trying to kill him. This is why alleged evil geniuses like Lex Luthor always come off as idiots. Indeed, I adore the mockery of the trope in The Incredibles.
Functionally, it's the same thing: Using the law to protect evil.
However, have you at least figured out how something can be both bad and brilliant, yet? Or are you still confused?
You cannot pull religion out like a sliver.
(A note aside to Balerion: See? Lots of talk, but no substance. I do wonder why he is unwilling to back his claim that "Atheists generally understand religion better than believers do".)
Exactly. Extraordinary scrutiny for the things you hate, and give a pass to the things you like. Kind of like Republicans in that way.
And there you show your ignorance.
Want to show your better understanding? Okay. You in for the one-question pop-quiz?
Captain Kremmen said:
Oh, I agree. Unfortunately, someone asked.
• • •
Sarkus said:
I would point out that I did open with the theological conundrum, and the best answer to it so far is that two wrongs make a right.
I would note that the idea of apathism is one to be included alongside theist, atheist, and agnostic.
I would suggest that undertaking the effort to earn a state endorsement of a practical joke intended to denigrate billions—i.e., hate speech—is the problematic element. As you'll see in this thread, some of our atheistic neighbors are just fine with hate speech, as long as it's their kind of hate speech.
Actually, if the theological argument he made isn't a theological argument, then the Czech officials screwed up even worse.
And as you've raised the question of "our" government (we are Americans, not Czech or Austrian citizens), I would point out the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That these religious traditions predate the First Amendment, what we have in effect, according to your point about "concessions" is the death of free religion, i.e., You can have free religion, but only if you modify your religion to state-established standards.
The joke is escalated by the effort to earn the state's imprimateur. See #19 in this thread:
The idea of wearing a colander on one's head as a joke against religion isn't actually problematic. Rather, it's the state endorsement of that bigotry against religion.
The Islamic headscarf, for instance, while we can certainly argue it denigrates Muslim women, was never intended as a specific denigration of any other religion. Sieveheads? Denigration of billions of people, deliberate and calculated insult, is their purpose.
I would suggest you're missing a few things. In the first place, there is a difference between the statement—
It is also affirmative evidence toward a thesis emerging over recent decades, that the modern atheistic movment isn't about any question pertaining to God, but, rather, self-empowerment through bigotry.
—and your summary:
Again, you've made the leap from "Here's what happened," to "They're all bigots" as if no explanation were necessary.
Well, as you've noted, sometimes my posts get pretty long. It would be easier to point you to the Religion Archives at this site. To wit, one of our best Religion threads, ever: "The Crucifixion was a Fraud". There you see atheists tangling with theology. And those arguments are only better served by the sort of historical examinations those who defend Pastafarianism eschew.
From #6 in this thread:
The historical origins of what we recognize today as atheism were philosophical and rather quite astutely expressed. In recent years, however, atheists have rightly grown weary of religious supremacism to the point of objecting. Unfortunately, the resulting loose coalition of common identity politics has jumped onto the well-established supremacism carousel.
The atheistic monument? Okay, whatever. I understand. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Messrs. Nový and Alm, however, have gone even a step farther. As Mr. Nový's case reminds, the underlying justification for being a Sievehead is contradictory to the religion itself. Whatever commentary Mr. Nový might be trying to make ... what he has managed to accomplish is, once again, a question of wrongs making a right. While Nový would reject religious freedom for others, he demands it himself, and what he has convinced Czech officials to do is put a state endorsement on his open mockery of billions of religious people.
The atheistic monument? Okay, whatever. I understand. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Messrs. Nový and Alm, however, have gone even a step farther. As Mr. Nový's case reminds, the underlying justification for being a Sievehead is contradictory to the religion itself. Whatever commentary Mr. Nový might be trying to make ... what he has managed to accomplish is, once again, a question of wrongs making a right. While Nový would reject religious freedom for others, he demands it himself, and what he has convinced Czech officials to do is put a state endorsement on his open mockery of billions of religious people.
This has been an ongoing process. And it does, in some ways, seem related to the rise in political and juristic influence of organized atheism.
The underlying problem might well be something that is not unique in any way to atheists; it is a disregard for history.
Indeed, you have fallen into that pit, as well:
Now, then:
(1) Mocking religion is not bigotry — Generally I agree, though there are some exceptions; mocking anything for something that isn't true is problematic. We can set that aside for now; earning state approval of that deliberate insult against billions of religious people is the problem here.
(2) mockery of how the state trips over itself to appease ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression — This is where important history is absent from the consideration. Wearing a headscarf, or even abaya, is nothing like, say, human sacrifice. We prohibit religious sacrifice because it requires one to inflict religion on another through murder.
The argument of ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression overlooks not only the long, historical debates within various religions, the cultural differences between peoples within a religion, and essentially treats diverse religions and cultures as a monolithic bloc. This rhetorical sleight is absolutely inappropriate, but is also required for the justification of Nový's "mockery of how the state trips over itself to appease ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression".
(3) and you're so practiced at it by this point you don't even bother explaining your asinine assertion — Well, maybe that wouldn't be laughable if you hadn't opened with, "I couldn't bring myself to slough through all four pages of this nonsense, so you'll have to forgive me if I ask questions to which answers have been given on previous pages." I mean, that's not a question. That's a straight-up assertion.
(2) mockery of how the state trips over itself to appease ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression — This is where important history is absent from the consideration. Wearing a headscarf, or even abaya, is nothing like, say, human sacrifice. We prohibit religious sacrifice because it requires one to inflict religion on another through murder.
The argument of ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression overlooks not only the long, historical debates within various religions, the cultural differences between peoples within a religion, and essentially treats diverse religions and cultures as a monolithic bloc. This rhetorical sleight is absolutely inappropriate, but is also required for the justification of Nový's "mockery of how the state trips over itself to appease ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression".
(3) and you're so practiced at it by this point you don't even bother explaining your asinine assertion — Well, maybe that wouldn't be laughable if you hadn't opened with, "I couldn't bring myself to slough through all four pages of this nonsense, so you'll have to forgive me if I ask questions to which answers have been given on previous pages." I mean, that's not a question. That's a straight-up assertion.
It would probably be helpful, then, for you to acknowledge the proposition of an emerging thesis. Please see the aforementioned difference between the statement and your summary.
I would also note Quinnsong's post at #68. Setting aside the egocentric glow such praise can inspire, one might note the post offers very few solutions; that's just fine, as it's a complex issue. But the post also recognizes history, something absent from many atheistic theological assertions; see point (2) in the prior section of this post.
The problem history presents those who would support Mr. Nový's action is that once history is introduced and properly considered, the difference between the contradictions inherent in a monolithic view of religion and a deliberately-constructed rhetorical sleight intended to empower state-endorsed mockery of billions of people becomes apparent.
Refusing history is exceptionally problematic, both argumentatively and ethically.
I would also ask you the same question I've put to Mr. Nový's defenders: Are you willing to take a one-question pop-quiz?
(Some background on that inquiry, since you haven't read through the thread: This is an effort to get atheists to demonstrate their superior grasp of religion, which has been largely implied in this thread, and in at least one case explicitly proclaimed. As that superior grasp of religion is absent in this thread, I'm trying to find a way to allow those who would hold such a view an explicit opportunity to demonstrate the claim, since the implicit opportunities to show that intellectual power is apparently too subtle in such discussions as these for them to recognize.)
• • •
Quinnsong said:
It is a wonderful application of the concept. In truth, though, I only raised it because one of our neighbors couldn't comprehend the idea of someone being brilliant about committing evil. I don't know, maybe they're taking cinematic supervillains too seriously, but that's why the trope of monologuing exists in movies. No real villain is going to take the time to explain everything to James Bond, or Superman, before trying to kill him. This is why alleged evil geniuses like Lex Luthor always come off as idiots. Indeed, I adore the mockery of the trope in The Incredibles.
• • •
Spidergoat said:
Functionally, it's the same thing: Using the law to protect evil.
However, have you at least figured out how something can be both bad and brilliant, yet? Or are you still confused?
You cannot pull religion out like a sliver.
(A note aside to Balerion: See? Lots of talk, but no substance. I do wonder why he is unwilling to back his claim that "Atheists generally understand religion better than believers do".)
Exactly. Extraordinary scrutiny for the things you hate, and give a pass to the things you like. Kind of like Republicans in that way.
And there you show your ignorance.
Want to show your better understanding? Okay. You in for the one-question pop-quiz?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I have no interest in proving myself to a douchy liberal windbag who doesn't even know what the word bigot means. The courtier's reply means that the details of theology are too often navel gazing irrelevancies, although they can be amusing. I don't accept the basic premise. The more I learn about the major theisms, the less I like them. Matt Dillahunty of the cable program "The Atheist Experience" became an atheist after he studied to be a minister. It was the Bible itself that convinced him it was far from holy and probably untrue. The last time I read the Bible, I read a passage about some poor idiot who blasphemed against god or something then a plague of locusts came down and ate up his crops, therefore don't talk bad about god was the message. What the hell? We know a lot about the life cycle of the grasshopper now, when food is scarce they go through a physical transformation and become social and eat everything in their path. This story is obviously based on ignorance and superstition. Did anyone talk bad about god and not have their crops destroyed? We don't hear about them, do we? And then theists want to say that we can't analyze the god question scientifically, because he's beyond time and space. Well he wasn't beyond time and space when he sent some locusts down was he? It's the same thing baseball players do when they win and were wearing their favorite jockstrap, so from then on they have to wear it or they won't win. Screw that, we are better than that. The Bible disrespects me as a thinking human being. It's trash.
True, you did. I just see the conundrum as being paradoxical that can never get beyond the first step... if the only dogma is to reject dogma, then one is obligated to reject the dogma of rejecting the dogma to reject the dogma or rejecting... etc.
It's like saying "This statement is false".
Hmmm... I'm a bit more of a matrix fan than a single sliding scale, if that is your suggestion.
An apathist would be someone who doesn't care - but they might still be a theist, if not religious. Unless one is no longer an apathist as soon as one has answered the question? Hmmm - not a position I have given much thought to.
But I do hold an agnostic can still be a theist or an atheist (as I consider myself to be).
Was it intended to denigrate billions (i.e. the person wanting to show how ridiculous he thought other religions to be) or was it intended to show up the government for having to allow seemingly anything under the guise of being religious? Perhaps the specific action was the latter, even if using a vehicle (Pastafarianism) that might be mostly used for the former?
Which may be (a part of) the point of the action taken... to highlight the ineptitude of governments, the weakness of their concern over what is or is not genuinely religious, his thinking that laws may allow religions to seek undue advantage etc.
Do we know if the individual posted or made a specific case for his action? (Apologies if stated previously).
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Tiassa said:
Yes.
The first post in this thread links to a newspaper story that says this:
DailyMail said:
That seems to be straight-forward enough.
Assuming that Mr. Zara accurately summed-up the law, it's hard to see how the Czech government could have denied Mr. Novy, without thereby assuming the government's right to recognize some people's stated religions as legitimate while condemning other people's as illegitimate.
In Europe the historical tendency over the last several hundred years has been away from governments possessing the power to establish certain favored faiths above others. We have similar ideas here in the United States, in the establishment and free-exercise clauses in the First Amendment of our Constitution.
That's a good thing in my opinion.