Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Viking]

Falsifiable does not mean true or scientific. But, as you may have noticed, a long blog post about how memtics is not an accepted scientific theory that argues that memtics is falsifiable basically sets the standard that memetics for the author is not an issue of belief but rather the author argues that memetics can meet Poppers test of falsifiability. Skeptics and Atheists might fetishize memetics but, even this post of yours, argues that they set the truth claim for memetics alongside any other truth claim. Support for memetics is contingent on its truth and/or usefulness.

If this is what you mean by belief then you are rendering the term meaningless. But, as I must point out, the author does not use the word belief with regards to the truth claim of memetics.

[Berkut]

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. 

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.

You are incorrect.

[Razgovory]

Oh, so you expect every quote requires the word "meme" and "belief" in one sentence?  Memes have no truth or usefulness.  They are just mental masturbation.  I used memes as example because it hits close to home.  Lots of Atheists believe in irrational things, such as Communism and Anarchy and the like.  I don't think atheists are any more rational then anyone else. Personally I don't care if you are an atheist.  What I don't like is when atheism begins to look more like intolerance, which is what you moving towards.  Dawkins is the same way.  When he claimed that Religious education is a form of abuse he revealed his true colors.  http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118-religion-39-s-real-child-abuse  It reflects a intolerant and authoritarian attitude ( If it is abuse it should be outlawed (unless Dawkins believes that raping children should be legal), and it if outlawed it's clear he has no use for Freedom of Religion.

[Viking]

Oh, so you expect every quote requires the word "meme" and "belief" in one sentence?  Memes have no truth or usefulness.  They are just mental masturbation.  I used memes as example because it hits close to home.  Lots of Atheists believe in irrational things, such as Communism and Anarchy and the like.  I don't think atheists are any more rational then anyone else. Personally I don't care if you are an atheist.  What I don't like is when atheism begins to look more like intolerance, which is what you moving towards.  Dawkins is the same way.  When he claimed that Religious education is a form of abuse he revealed his true colors.  http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118-religion-39-s-real-child-abuse  It reflects a intolerant and authoritarian attitude ( If it is abuse it should be outlawed (unless Dawkins believes that raping children should be legal), and it if outlawed it's clear he has no use for Freedom of Religion.

You don't know shit, you are more and more obvious in your idiocy on this issue. You can't argue for your position when you have one, mostly you just slag off others and hide behind a non-position. You know enough about memetics that you  know it is not science. You then invent the idea that memetics is atheist dogma of some sort. You also try to claim that memetics is my dogma. You even complained about how I was unwilling to make any definite statements about memetics. I don't have any definite statements about memetics precisely because it is not science and because it is a mere hypothesis. You continually misrepresents what I and other atheists think. You consistently claim that I have certain beliefs despite my clarification of my positions.

In a discussion about the relevance of an austrian atheist demonstrating the stupidity religious exemptions you bring up memetics claiming I believe in it. Your contribution to this discussion reduced the knowledge gained.

[jimmy olsen]

Eh. The Lebanese here are usually christians.

I thought the Bible was against Lebanism.

I thought the Bible only banned male homosexuality and was silent on the issue of lesbianism?

[Razgovory]

I never claimed you believed in Memes.  I asked you, but you wouldn't give me a straight answer.  I never said it was some sort of atheist dogma.  I merely point out that many "rational" atheists believe in stupid irrational things.  Memes is excellent example.  It's not a "Hypothesis" as you say, because a hypothesis must be falsifiable.  I complain that you refuse to make a definitive statement because you refuse to make definitive statements.  I also complained that you never answered me on the fish question.  I took issue with your first post where you state: "Religious people are stupid, film at 23."  I point out that there are atheists who believe in irrational things.  This seems to offend you. 

When responding to someone who doesn't know shit you sure are dancing around a lot, avoiding questions, and throwing up straw men. It's a bizarre way of dealing with questions from someone who is "stupid".

What I am accusing you of is intolerance on the religious issue.  I also believe you delude you self into thinking that Atheists are smarter then their non-Atheist brethren.  I believe this because you said as much.

[Zoupa]

Pastafarians and Discordians annoy me far more than any fundamentalist Christian.

Stop giving concessions to real religions & fake religions won't have to make ridiculous points.

The amusing thing is the notion that the sort of trollery represented by the guy in the article is going to convince anyone of anything. Like an Orthodox Jew or a committed Sikh is going to suddenly exclaim 'oh my, this guy looks like a real jerk wearing a strainer on his head and is mocking me for fun. Why, I must be dead wrong about my beliefs!  '

This sort of thinking is almost as much fantasy as religion. 

I thought the point of these kinds of things was to make govt policy change to something less arbitrary and retarded.

[dps]

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.

Of course having the courts decide who is really a believer and who isn't is generally a Bad Idea(tm), which is why they generally don't do it--as referenced in my earlier post, for the courts to accept that a person's claimed beliefs are sincerely held is generally a useful legal fiction, but it doesn't mean that when we're discussing the issue we have to ignore that it's sometimes a fiction.

[Barrister]

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.

Just because it can be difficult to know where to draw the line, doesn't mean that you can't draw a line.

When you talk about things like "reasonable accommodation of religious belief" it's not always going to be clear what is reasonable, and what is religious belief.  But that doesn't invalidate the entire concept.

[LaCroix]

What I am accusing you of is intolerance on the religious issue.  I also believe you delude you self into thinking that Atheists are smarter then their non-Atheist brethren.  I believe this because you said as much.

what are your own thoughts on religion, if i may ask?

generally speaking, when considering the two groups as a whole and not condemning any particular individual, i believe the former would probably qualify as more rational (intelligent?). there are the barristers of the world, but then there are so many more who simply do not -think- about the issue. they believe what they will, and do not critically analyze their own opinions using available resources. both sides do this, of course, but there are far more who are willing to cast aside their religious beliefs for a slice of the truth than the other way 'round. so, i don't think viking deludes himself--unless he believes all atheists are smarter than all religious people, which is ridiculous and something few would actually believe

also, wtf do you mean when you keep saying memes in this thread? could you provide an example of a meme a hypothetical atheist might adopt? groundhogs day, or what?

[Viking]

so, i don't think viking deludes himself--unless he believes all atheists are smarter than all religious people, which is ridiculous and something few would actually believe

Sticking to the serious point here. I don't think religious people are smarter or stupider than atheists. I don't think a person who loses their religion gets smarter by doing so, nor do I think anybody adopting a religion loses any IQ points. Even if there was a working measure of intelligence (IQ tests measure nothing other than your ability to take IQ tests) then I don't think intelligence would even correlate to religiosity. I think that religious faith is not a result of logic, reason or brainpower, but rather an emotional issue.

"Stupid is as stupid does." - F. Gump

Religion makes people do stupid things, that makes them stupid, it doesn't mean they lack intelligence.

[Barrister]

so, i don't think viking deludes himself--unless he believes all atheists are smarter than all religious people, which is ridiculous and something few would actually believe

Sticking to the serious point here. I don't think religious people are smarter or stupider than atheists. I don't think a person who loses their religion gets smarter by doing so, nor do I think anybody adopting a religion loses any IQ points. Even if there was a working measure of intelligence (IQ tests measure nothing other than your ability to take IQ tests) then I don't think intelligence would even correlate to religiosity. I think that religious faith is not a result of logic, reason or brainpower, but rather an emotional issue.

"Stupid is as stupid does." - F. Gump

Religion makes people do stupid things, that makes them stupid, it doesn't mean they lack intelligence.

Now to be fair, atheism does make some people do stupid things.  Like wear a pasta colander on their head for their photo ID.

[Viking]

Now to be fair, atheism does make some people do stupid things.  Like wear a pasta colander on their head for their photo ID.

Morale equivalence BB?

Nobody ever went to war crying "There is no such thing as a Deus to Vult this war!!!" or "There is no Allah to be Ackbar!!!!"

[LaCroix]

Sticking to the serious point here. I don't think religious people are smarter or stupider than atheists. I don't think a person who loses their religion gets smarter by doing so, nor do I think anybody adopting a religion loses any IQ points. Even if there was a working measure of intelligence (IQ tests measure nothing other than your ability to take IQ tests) then I don't think intelligence would even correlate to religiosity. I think that religious faith is not a result of logic, reason or brainpower, but rather an emotional issue.

"Stupid is as stupid does." - F. Gump

Religion makes people do stupid things, that makes them stupid, it doesn't mean they lack intelligence.

agreed. a person is intelligent and rational regardless of whether they believe in religion or disregard it. a certain belief system does not, and should not as far as i can tell, make anyone more or less naturally smarter. i like the way you put it as an emotional issue, though might it be genetic as well (amygdala, or something else)? just speculation

[Barrister]

Now to be fair, atheism does make some people do stupid things.  Like wear a pasta colander on their head for their photo ID.

Morale equivalence BB?

Nobody ever went to war crying "There is no such thing as a Deus to Vult this war!!!" or "There is no Allah to be Ackbar!!!!"

For fucks sake just lighten up.  It was a joke.