Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Viking]

Just answer the question.

Define the question.

The one I asked in a previous post.

"You believe in memes?" 

Just answer it the best you can.  Then I will insult you and denigrate you.

1 - it is not phrased as a question. Grammar fail.
2 - which of the many meanings of believe are you using?
3 - what is your definition of meme?

[Tamas]

No, it's speciest. Cats should be genocided.

Cats are evil and hate people. FYI

FYP

agreed

[Razgovory]

Why so careful?  Do you really believe that people who believe in the pseudoscience of memes are different then people who believe in religion?  At least religion doesn't try to pass itself off as science.  That some how their belief in something that is not falsifiable is different the other peoples beliefs that are not falsifiable?  They are just as irrational as that ninja rabbi.  That's okay, most people are irrational.  Often in ways they don't even know, such as illusion of control.

[Viking]

Why so careful?  Do you really believe that people who believe in the pseudoscience of memes are different then people who believe in religion?  At least religion doesn't try to pass itself off as science.  That some how their belief in something that is not falsifiable is different the other peoples beliefs that are not falsifiable?  They are just as irrational as that ninja rabbi.  That's okay, most people are irrational.  Often in ways they don't even know, such as illusion of control.

Precisely because Meme Theory is not science, nor does it claim to be. Religion, however, claims to be "The Truth(tm)". That is the difference.

When you claim that I believe in memes you can mean many things.

- Do I have a reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as memes. Yes.
- Have I arrived at the conclusion that Meme Theory as delivered by Professor Dawkins by means of adopting a non-rationally and non-emprically explainable assumption? No.

Your question can mean either.

[HVC]

"militant" atheists annoy me. at least religious people just go about their lives not trying to show you up about how wrong you are. Expect for Jehovah witnesses... but they annoy me to


Don't believe in god? i get it. but how does some dude wearing his turban in photo's effect you to the point that you have to become and ass about it.

[Viking]

"militant" theists annoy me. at least religious people just go about their lives not trying to show you up about how wrong you are. Expect for Jehovah witnesses... but they annoy me to


Don't believe in god? i get it. but how does some dude wearing his turban in photo's effect you to the point that you have to become and ass about it.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/pptphotoreq/pptphotoreq_5333.html

The US Passport photo guidelines permit turbans, but

Your full face must be visible, and the head covering must not cast any shadows on your face.

Nobody is banning turbans, they are banning Niqabs



however.

[Barrister]

theists

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Viking]

theists

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

so, what do you think he thinks it means and what do you think it means?

[Capetan Mihali]

TYPO.

[Malthus]

since "making a rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance in true believers holding irrational views" is insulting.

I'm not seeing any "rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance" in a guy wearing a pasta strainer on his head. 

Muslims do make some compelling arguments that I agree with. The Muslim case against polytheism, judaism and christianity are quite compelling. The muslim case will never convince a hindu, jew or christian, but it is compelling to all non-hindus, goy and non-christians.

What about the Muslim "case against Judaism and Christianity" is compelling? As far as I know, the Muslims do not make a "case" against either - rather, they claim both are *right* but incomplete, in that they don't accept the authority of Mohammed as the final prophet of the Jewish and Christian God. Presumably, you find the argument for the existence of Mohammed as final prophet compelling?

[Razgovory]

Why so careful?  Do you really believe that people who believe in the pseudoscience of memes are different then people who believe in religion?  At least religion doesn't try to pass itself off as science.  That some how their belief in something that is not falsifiable is different the other peoples beliefs that are not falsifiable?  They are just as irrational as that ninja rabbi.  That's okay, most people are irrational.  Often in ways they don't even know, such as illusion of control.

Precisely because Meme Theory is not science, nor does it claim to be. Religion, however, claims to be "The Truth(tm)". That is the difference.

When you claim that I believe in memes you can mean many things.

- Do I have a reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as memes. Yes.
- Have I arrived at the conclusion that Meme Theory as delivered by Professor Dawkins by means of adopting a non-rationally and non-emprically explainable assumption? No.

Your question can mean either.

Your first answer means absolutely nothing.  I could say that I have reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as clowns and that would be equally valid.

The whole concept of memes is non-rational and non-empirical.  However, many people who are athiests believe they exist.  In no small part because Prophet Dawkins is proponent of the idea.

[Viking]

since "making a rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance in true believers holding irrational views" is insulting.

I'm not seeing any "rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance" in a guy wearing a pasta strainer on his head. 

Your ability to rationalize yourself around your own cognitive dissonance is stunning. The guy wearing the strainer and the guy wearing the turban are using precisely the same argument for being allowed to wear them. They just appeal to different gods over different religions that have different pedigrees.

Muslims do make some compelling arguments that I agree with. The Muslim case against polytheism, judaism and christianity are quite compelling. The muslim case will never convince a hindu, jew or christian, but it is compelling to all non-hindus, goy and non-christians.

What about the Muslim "case against Judaism and Christianity" is compelling? As far as I know, the Muslims do not make a "case" against either - rather, they claim both are *right* but incomplete, in that they don't accept the authority of Mohammed as the final prophet of the Jewish and Christian God. Presumably, you find the argument for the existence of Mohammed as final prophet compelling?

I've spent some time reading up on muslim theology. If you want to make a case for or against anyting know something about it. The muslim case is that the were complete and perfect but were corrupted by the jews and christians.

If you conclude from my argument that Muslims have good arguments against Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism that I must find some argument for Islam compelling is a false dichotomy. You know very well that I think they are all wrong and you are arguing in bad faith when you have to conjure up a logical fallacy to try to associate me with a position that you very well know I do not hold.

As a Legal profession you must understand that merely proving that the defense is wrong does not prove the prosecution is wright. When you pretend to be this stupid I just lose respect for you. You have earned alot of my respect on previous occasions, so there is much left. If you are going to continue to argue that

Not A => B

without first proving that

IF Not A THEN B

(if somebody can give me the ASCII codes for logical notation I'd be much appreciative)

[Viking]

Why so careful?  Do you really believe that people who believe in the pseudoscience of memes are different then people who believe in religion?  At least religion doesn't try to pass itself off as science.  That some how their belief in something that is not falsifiable is different the other peoples beliefs that are not falsifiable?  They are just as irrational as that ninja rabbi.  That's okay, most people are irrational.  Often in ways they don't even know, such as illusion of control.

Precisely because Meme Theory is not science, nor does it claim to be. Religion, however, claims to be "The Truth(tm)". That is the difference.

When you claim that I believe in memes you can mean many things.

- Do I have a reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as memes. Yes.
- Have I arrived at the conclusion that Meme Theory as delivered by Professor Dawkins by means of adopting a non-rationally and non-emprically explainable assumption? No.

Your question can mean either.

Your first answer means absolutely nothing.  I could say that I have reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as clowns and that would be equally valid.

The whole concept of memes is non-rational and non-empirical.  However, many people who are athiests believe they exist.  In no small part because Prophet Dawkins is proponent of the idea.

Define meme and define believe. And, name one atheist that you can quote using the word believe and meme in one sentence that supports your assertion.

[Malthus]

Your ability to rationalize yourself around your own cognitive dissonance is stunning. The guy wearing the strainer and the guy wearing the turban are using precisely the same argument for being allowed to wear them. They just appeal to different gods over different religions that have different pedigrees.

What "cognitive dissonance"? I'm not a believer.

My point is that the guy wearing a pasta strainer is not going to convince anyone of anything, other than that he's an attention whore.

The notion that this would in some manner cause a Sikh "cognitive dissonance", or in any other manner cause a Sikh to re-evaluate his Sikhdom, is simply wrong. Humans are generally not like that. They react negatively to being parodied. 

I've spent some time reading up on muslim theology. If you want to make a case for or against anyting know something about it. The muslim case is that the were complete and perfect but were corrupted by the jews and christians.

If you conclude from my argument that Muslims have good arguments against Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism that I must find some argument for Islam compelling is a false dichotomy.

Not where the argument against is that the religion was complete and perfect but for the corruption of it by Jews and Christians. In that case, to find the argument "compelling", you'd have to believe that the religion was complete and perfect.

You know very well that I think they are all wrong and you are arguing in bad faith when you have to conjure up a logical fallacy to try to associate me with a position that you very well know I do not hold.

As a Legal profession you must understand that merely proving that the defense is wrong does not prove the prosecution is wright. When you pretend to be this stupid I just lose respect for you. You have earned alot of my respect on previous occasions, so there is much left. If you are going to continue to argue that

Not A => B

without first proving that

IF Not A THEN B

(if somebody can give me the ASCII codes for logical notation I'd be much appreciative)

Your problem is that I asked you what is known as a "rhetorical question", to demonstrate why you are wrong. This is not arguing in "bad faith". I know full well you don't actually believe in Islam. I did not expect you to agree that you did. I expected that you would re-evaluate your argument.

What I'm saying is that it is difficult to logically find the Islamic attack on Judaism and Christianity "compelling" without belief in elements of the Islamic faith. The Islamic attack isn't primarially based on elements of Judaism or Christianity that are "wrong" outside of the context of Islam. 

[Razgovory]

Define meme and define believe. And, name one atheist that you can quote using the word believe and meme in one sentence that supports your assertion.

http://brandonwalsh.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/atheist-meme-of-the-day-atheists-believe-in-things/  Here's one apparently.