Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Viking]

Hats can be used somewhat to obscure identity, so we don't allow you to wear a hat based on your whim or fancy.  But religious faith is treated somewhat higher than mere whim or fancy, so we do make exceptions for religious headwear.

Right, and Collander Head is saying I can get around this arbitrary rule by declaring my whim a religious belief.  So either you have to accomodate all whims the same as religious beliefs or stop accomodating religious beliefs.

If we had a "Like" button for our posts my post replying to the quoted post would be obsolete. I agree with Yi here.

[Razgovory]

None of this supports your assertion, if anything it just shows that the word believe is badly defined.

You asked me to find something and I did.  It's not my fault that some atheists don't understand how science works.  Memes are passed off as science (or as some of it's proponents say "proto-science".  I call it pseudoscience.  It's particularly popular amongst atheists because it denigrates religion.  If you don't like the word talk to Dawkins, he popularized it.  Go inform your fellow atheists, what's wrong with memes.

[Viking]

He's making the exact same arguments. Yet you insist on dragging out your usual default accusation of "strawman!" like it was a winner.

You still don't get it, do you?  If you were arguing against his arguments, you would be quoting his arguments, not yours.  Who brings up "an Orthodox Jew or a committed Sikh" first, and puts silly words in their mouth?  That wasn't Viking.  That was you.


Please keep up this amusing contest.  Add in these kinds of side insults if you think it will help your cause, by all means. 

Dunno what you are going on about. No-one but you appears to think that Viking and I aren't arguing about the exact same thing. You are just wasting electrons blathering about imaginary "strawman arguments".

I swear, if there were really as many "strawmen" about as you appear to see, we could start a revolution with 'em. 

We are not discussing the same topic. Malthus thinks it is wrong to criticize religion because it is rude. I think that making special dispensations to religions is wrong and the Pastafarian example is a good way of demonstrating how silly the special dispensation is and convincing the general public that no religion should have a special dispensation. Malthus isn't responding to my arguments, he just spews and re-spews his assertion that being rude doesn't convince anybody. Me agreeing with him that being rude doesn't convince anybody and that I/"the Pastafarian" are not trying to convince "Sikhs" (or whichever group is insulted by demonstrating that their beliefs are silly), we are trying to convince all the regular people who normally don't care about the issue that they should care and that special dispensation is in and of itself wrong.

So, yes, Malthus is barking up a strawman. Malthus, Minsky, dps and Raz are not dealing with my arguments on their own terms they are attacking strawmen and hurling insults at me. That might be reasonable procedure in a common law courtroom where the dichotomy is intentionally made real and jurors can be swayed by pathos, but it doesn't work on me and I don't accept it.

This is a repeating process here with any discussion regarding religion. The usual suspects refuse to make any positive assertions (claiming not to be religious) and refuse to deal with the issues argued by the anti-religion side. This just pisses me off. Being a dick doesn't mean you lose in any arena apart from swaying the mob so stop trying to pretend that "don't be a dick" is a counter argument to anything the dick might argue.

Edit: God, I hate agreeing with grumbler....

[Viking]

None of this supports your assertion, if anything it just shows that the word believe is badly defined.

You asked me to find something and I did.  It's not my fault that some atheists don't understand how science works.  Memes are passed off as science (or as some of it's proponents say "proto-science".  I call it pseudoscience.  It's particularly popular amongst atheists because it denigrates religion.  If you don't like the word talk to Dawkins, he popularized it.  Go inform your fellow atheists, what's wrong with memes.

You did not find anything that supports your assertion that atheists belive in memes. You found a blog post discussing a meme. The meme being discussed was "Atheists believe in things".

Atheists believe in things: kindness, fairness, honesty, truth, love, etc.

None of those things are the concept of memes.

Now, go and find someone claiming that atheists believe in memes. You have not done so. Furthermore define "believe" and define "meme".

You are misrepresenting views of self-identified atheists as well as atheists in good standing in the atheist community. You are asserting that I have certain beliefs which you refuse to identify or define and you refuse to source the claim. You are the picture perfect postcard of Hitchens eloquent argument against all religion. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

You fail. Go away.

[DontSayBanana]

Pastafarians wear strainers as headgear- now that's what I call a philosophy that's full of holes.

[Neil]

What a douche.  These insecure little faggots give atheism a bad name.  We're supposed to be wise, intelligent, clever and moral, not a bunch of cunts.

[dps]

The point you continue to avoid dealing with is that the argument for being allowed to wear the pasta strainer is precisely the one that is used for being allowed to use the turban. The point of the exercise is to show that the sikh turban is only separated from the pasta strainer by your individual perception that Sikhism is a real religion while Pastafarianism is not. Your congnitive dissonance lies in your inability to realize that both religions are untrue and you know it and both use silly argument to be allowed to wear silly headgear but only one is attention whoring while the other is the will of yet another non-existent god.

Since, AFAIK, none of the posters here are Sikhs or Pastafarianists, why would we not consider Sikhism and Pastafarianism both wrong?  I certainly don't consider either of them right.  The difference is that while most Sikhs probably sincerely hold their belief in Sikhism, this guy pretty obviously doesn't hold his belief in Pastafarianism sincerely--after all, by his own admission, he's an atheist.  You know he doesn't hold his alleged beliefs seriously, I know it, everybody else who's posted in this thread knows it, and the Austrian courts probably know it.  The courts have a good reason to allow the fiction that his belief is sincerly held, since getting the government involved in testing the sincerity of anyone's beliefs obviously opens a can of worms, but we don't have to pretend that we don't know it's a legal fiction.

[Viking]

The point you continue to avoid dealing with is that the argument for being allowed to wear the pasta strainer is precisely the one that is used for being allowed to use the turban. The point of the exercise is to show that the sikh turban is only separated from the pasta strainer by your individual perception that Sikhism is a real religion while Pastafarianism is not. Your congnitive dissonance lies in your inability to realize that both religions are untrue and you know it and both use silly argument to be allowed to wear silly headgear but only one is attention whoring while the other is the will of yet another non-existent god.

Since, AFAIK, none of the posters here are Sikhs or Pastafarianists, why would we not consider Sikhism and Pastafarianism both wrong?  I certainly don't consider either of them right.  The difference is that while most Sikhs probably sincerely hold their belief in Sikhism, this guy pretty obviously doesn't hold his belief in Pastafarianism sincerely--after all, by his own admission, he's an atheist.  You know he doesn't hold his alleged beliefs seriously, I know it, everybody else who's posted in this thread knows it, and the Austrian courts probably know it.  The courts have a good reason to allow the fiction that his belief is sincerly held, since getting the government involved in testing the sincerity of anyone's beliefs obviously opens a can of worms, but we don't have to pretend that we don't know it's a legal fiction.

Pastafarianism is an expression of sincerely held Atheism. Surely you know that. Having the courts decide who actually is a believer and who is just faking it will do wonders for freedom of religion.

[Neil]

Pastafarianism is an expression of sincerely held Atheism. Surely you know that.

No it isn't.  Pastafarianism is an expression of deep-seated cuntishness.

Having the courts decide who actually is a believer and who is just faking it will do wonders for freedom of religion.

The courts already decide what is a religion and what isn't.  Freedom of religion seems unabated.

[Viking]

Pastafarianism is an expression of sincerely held Atheism. Surely you know that.

No it isn't.  Pastafarianism is an expression of deep-seated cuntishness.

Having the courts decide who actually is a believer and who is just faking it will do wonders for freedom of religion.

The courts already decide what is a religion and what isn't.  Freedom of religion seems unabated.

Read My Fucking Post. The courts don't get to tell you if you are a true believer or not. If they do, freedom of religion is dead.

[Neil]

Pastafarianism is an expression of sincerely held Atheism. Surely you know that.

No it isn't.  Pastafarianism is an expression of deep-seated cuntishness.

Having the courts decide who actually is a believer and who is just faking it will do wonders for freedom of religion.

The courts already decide what is a religion and what isn't.  Freedom of religion seems unabated.

Read My Fucking Post. The courts don't get to tell you if you are a true believer or not. If they do, freedom of religion is dead.

Oh yes they do.  Canada denied a refugee from China, as they decided that his religious claims were attempts to bolster his refugee claim.  And yet religious freedom in Canada continues unabated.  And if Canada's doing it, you can bet that other countries are doing it.

[Caliga]

I think something like that happened here with that Amadou Diallo guy that got swiss cheesed by the NYPD.  Like he was falsely claiming to be a Christian from Mauretania, whereas he really from Ghana or someplace where Christians don't get their asses kicked on a regular basis.

[Razgovory]

None of this supports your assertion, if anything it just shows that the word believe is badly defined.

You asked me to find something and I did.  It's not my fault that some atheists don't understand how science works.  Memes are passed off as science (or as some of it's proponents say "proto-science".  I call it pseudoscience.  It's particularly popular amongst atheists because it denigrates religion.  If you don't like the word talk to Dawkins, he popularized it.  Go inform your fellow atheists, what's wrong with memes.

You did not find anything that supports your assertion that atheists belive in memes. You found a blog post discussing a meme. The meme being discussed was "Atheists believe in things".

Atheists believe in things: kindness, fairness, honesty, truth, love, etc.

None of those things are the concept of memes.

Now, go and find someone claiming that atheists believe in memes. You have not done so. Furthermore define "believe" and define "meme".

You are misrepresenting views of self-identified atheists as well as atheists in good standing in the atheist community. You are asserting that I have certain beliefs which you refuse to identify or define and you refuse to source the claim. You are the picture perfect postcard of Hitchens eloquent argument against all religion. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."


You fail. Go away.

You said find an atheist who uses the word meme in the same sentence as belief.  I did that.  There is no universally accepted meaning for "Meme" (in no large part because they don't actually exist).  So I'll just use a dictionary one.  That's good enough.

Webster's defines it as ": an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture ".

Here's the definition of "Believe" which ": to accept something as true, genuine, or real"

I would venture to say that "love" is "an idea, behavior or style".  Presumably the atheist in that blog believes in Memes since he used the word.

Here's some forum posts by some atheists talking about memes and belief.  http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Atheism-and-belief?page=4

Another atheist going on about memes http://drahcir.tripod.com/memes/meme_spread.html#ath  This is simple.  I could find examples all across the internet.

There are plenty examples of Atheists who have bought in to the pseudoscience of memes.

[Viking]

You said find an atheist who uses the word meme in the same sentence as belief.  I did that.  There is no universally accepted meaning for "Meme" (in no large part because they don't actually exist).  So I'll just use a dictionary one.  That's good enough.

Webster's defines it as ": an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture ".

Here's the definition of "Believe" which ": to accept something as true, genuine, or real"

I would venture to say that "love" is "an idea, behavior or style".  Presumably the atheist in that blog believes in Memes since he used the word.

Here's some forum posts by some atheists talking about memes and belief.  http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Atheism-and-belief?page=4

Another atheist going on about memes http://drahcir.tripod.com/memes/meme_spread.html#ath  This is simple.  I could find examples all across the internet.

There are plenty examples of Atheists who have bought in to the pseudoscience of memes.

An anonymous website and a forum post which try to use memetics to understand the nature of atheism. Neither claims meme theory is true, they just try to use memetics to explain a phenomenon (atheism). Again, not a claim by an atheist about the truth of meme theory. I didn't ask you to link to a quote which merely included the words meme and believe. I asked you to produce a quote which supported your assertion and included the words belief and meme. You did not do that.

So, your question is

Do I to accept the concept that an idea, behavior, style, or usage can spread from person to person within a culture  as true, genuine, or real?

No. I don't agree with your definition of meme.

[Razgovory]

You said

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

I found an atheist who used the word believe and meme in the same sentence.  It was the first one that came up.  The whole internet is full of them.  I'm sorry you don't like that.  Lots of atheists believe in memes.  The belief in memes is irrational.  It's  not falsifiable and should not be taken seriously if we hold true to science and logic and the such.  If they don't believe that memes exist then they shouldn't use the word.  If they used the word "Noosphere" to describe things I assume they believed that "Noosphere" was a real thing.

It's not my fault you don't agree with the dictionary.  I'd say the deficiency lies in you.  Since you have your own personal definition of words, I'm unclear how to progress.  Perhaps you should define every word in your post so I know what you actually mean.

For fun, here's a blog entry with an atheist who claims that Memes are falsifiable. http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/19/skeptics-atheists-and-meme-theory/