Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[LaCroix]

And a major component of that was atheism, except during WWII.

a component of it, yes, but not the main reason 

[Neil]

And a major component of that was atheism, except during WWII.

a component of it, yes, but not the main reason 

The main component of communism is stupidity and credulity.

[Razgovory]

Catholic.  While I don't agree with all religions, of course, I believe there should be reasonable accommodation for them.  I would say there are many people in the world who are atheists who don't think much about it and don't critically analyze their own opinions.  In some countries atheism is more common then religious belief.  China, Russia, several European countries are examples.  I seriously doubt the people of say Russia are more enlightened or more introspective then the people of the US.  Are Brazilians less enlightened then say the Chinese?  Probably not.

well, yeah... i don't think anyone in this thread has tried arguing that. but, again, an example of a meme an atheist might believe in?

The idea that memes are real things.  They aren't.  It's bullshit.  I used the example of memes because it's something  irrational that rational people talk about as if it was science (and it's used by Dawkins).  Besides being bullshit I find the idea unpleasant.  If memes were real, then your ideas are not your own you simply are infected with a "mind-virus", ( a term I've seen people use).  This undermines certain freedoms in my opinion.  You have the right to have your own opinion, but you don't necessarily have the right to spread a mind-virus.  If a certain ideas are arbitrarily decided to be harmful memes it's not to far fetched to quarantine people with certain ideas in the same way you might quarantine a person with a communicable disease.  I see Meme theory as a useful tool in the hands of a totalitarian government.

Personally, I think that most people are irrational, often in ways they don't even know about.  Take for example a shaman and a scientist gambling.  Before the shaman throws the dice he does a little dance, he kisses the dice and prays to his gods and spirits for help.  The scientist puts no stock in this nonsense.  He know that this sort of behavior will not affect the roll of the dice.  He is after all, a rational man.  What the scientist doesn't know, is that when he throws the dice he throws them slightly harder when he wants a higher number.  He throws them slightly softer when he wants a lower number.  He knows that throwing it this way has no effect on the outcome.  He has doesn't even realize he's doing it.  It's unconscious.  Deep inside, there is a part of him that is trying to control the outcome.  There was a study that showed this a few years back (and won the IgNoble prize.)  In the end both the Shaman and scientist are doing the same thing.  They are trying to control a random event, despite the fact that logically they can't.  They are both being irrational.  Perhaps the Scientist is a bit more irrational as he's convinced himself he's not actually trying to control the outcome.

[Razgovory]

The Soviets?

communism spurred them, not atheism. oh, wait, everything and anything is religion 

I would say political idolatry, to the extent taken in Russian communism (Though the North Koreans did it best), or German Nazism...is easily equatable to any religion.

Just another thing that demands worship by the masses.

I've heard this, but I think it's widening the definition of religion to "things I think are bad".

[LaCroix]

The idea that memes are real things.  They aren't.  It's bullshit.  I used the example of memes because it's something  irrational that rational people talk about as if it was science (and it's used by Dawkins).  Besides being bullshit I find the idea unpleasant.  If memes were real, then your ideas are not your own you simply are infected with a "mind-virus", ( a term I've seen people use).  This undermines certain freedoms in my opinion.  You have the right to have your own opinion, but you don't necessarily have the right to spread a mind-virus.  If a certain ideas are arbitrarily decided to be harmful memes it's not to far fetched to quarantine people with certain ideas in the same way you might quarantine a person with a communicable disease.  I see Meme theory as a useful tool in the hands of a totalitarian government.

okay.. i think i know what you mean by meme now, i was unfamiliar with the term aside from the typical internet application. you don't mean any meme in particular, just the general principle? gotcha

i don't know whether or not "many people who are athiests believe [memes] exist" is true, and i do not think you would know either. how did you come to this conclusion, aside from google? i am sure there are atheists who believe in memes, just as there are atheists who are diehard proponents of luck or any other concept. do you assume there are many atheists who believe in memes simply because darwin advocated it? i think this is -might- be a mistake in your reasoning. however, i do not have membership in the World Wide Atheist Club, so i cannot know for certain

[Tonitrus]

The Soviets?

communism spurred them, not atheism. oh, wait, everything and anything is religion 

I would say political idolatry, to the extent taken in Russian communism (Though the North Koreans did it best), or German Nazism...is easily equatable to any religion.

Just another thing that demands worship by the masses.

I've heard this, but I think it's widening the definition of religion to "things I think are bad".

That would presume that I think religions are inherently bad things, which I do not.

[Viking]

The idea that memes are real things.  They aren't.  It's bullshit.  I used the example of memes because it's something  irrational that rational people talk about as if it was science (and it's used by Dawkins).  Besides being bullshit I find the idea unpleasant.  If memes were real, then your ideas are not your own you simply are infected with a "mind-virus", ( a term I've seen people use).  This undermines certain freedoms in my opinion.  You have the right to have your own opinion, but you don't necessarily have the right to spread a mind-virus.  If a certain ideas are arbitrarily decided to be harmful memes it's not to far fetched to quarantine people with certain ideas in the same way you might quarantine a person with a communicable disease.  I see Meme theory as a useful tool in the hands of a totalitarian government.

okay.. i think i know what you mean by meme now, i was unfamiliar with the term aside from the typical internet application. you don't mean any meme in particular, just the general principle? gotcha

i don't know whether or not "many people who are athiests believe [memes] exist" is true, and i do not think you would know either. how did you come to this conclusion, aside from google? i am sure there are atheists who believe in memes, just as there are atheists who are diehard proponents of luck or any other concept. do you assume there are many atheists who believe in memes simply because darwin advocated it? i think this is -might- be a mistake in your reasoning. however, i do not have membership in the World Wide Atheist Club, so i cannot know for certain

Another thing that Raz doesn't understand is that Atheists have just as much in common with each other as all A-Christians or A-Muslims or A-Hindus have with each other. Raelians, Randite Libertarians, Communists, Stalinists, Maoists etc.etc. are all Atheists of some stripe but they have little or nothing in common with Skeptics (such as myself, Dawkins and Brad Pitt). Atheists are not united by any common belief, they are merely united by a lack of a common belief. In a world without theist religion there would be no need for the word Atheist at all. Raz keeps thinking that Atheism has any positive beliefs, we do not. Us Skeptics consider Raelianism, Communism, Nazism etc. to be non-theist religions and consider that dogma or uncontestible assumptions to be the defining characteristics of religion rather than the belief in the supernatural.

[Razgovory]

The idea that memes are real things.  They aren't.  It's bullshit.  I used the example of memes because it's something  irrational that rational people talk about as if it was science (and it's used by Dawkins).  Besides being bullshit I find the idea unpleasant.  If memes were real, then your ideas are not your own you simply are infected with a "mind-virus", ( a term I've seen people use).  This undermines certain freedoms in my opinion.  You have the right to have your own opinion, but you don't necessarily have the right to spread a mind-virus.  If a certain ideas are arbitrarily decided to be harmful memes it's not to far fetched to quarantine people with certain ideas in the same way you might quarantine a person with a communicable disease.  I see Meme theory as a useful tool in the hands of a totalitarian government.

okay.. i think i know what you mean by meme now, i was unfamiliar with the term aside from the typical internet application. you don't mean any meme in particular, just the general principle? gotcha

i don't know whether or not "many people who are athiests believe [memes] exist" is true, and i do not think you would know either. how did you come to this conclusion, aside from google? i am sure there are atheists who believe in memes, just as there are atheists who are diehard proponents of luck or any other concept. do you assume there are many atheists who believe in memes simply because darwin advocated it? i think this is -might- be a mistake in your reasoning. however, i do not have membership in the World Wide Atheist Club, so i cannot know for certain

Mostly through Dawkins, who has become something of a hero amongst many atheists.  At least in the English Speaking world.  I've seen many atheist screeds going on about "mind viruses" and the like, and the term has gained a lot of currency in the last few years.  It's a fairly atheistic concept, so I associate it with atheism

[Razgovory]

Another thing that Raz doesn't understand is that Atheists have just as much in common with each other as all A-Christians or A-Muslims or A-Hindus have with each other. Raelians, Randite Libertarians, Communists, Stalinists, Maoists etc.etc. are all Atheists of some stripe but they have little or nothing in common with Skeptics (such as myself, Dawkins and Brad Pitt). Atheists are not united by any common belief, they are merely united by a lack of a common belief. In a world without theist religion there would be no need for the word Atheist at all. Raz keeps thinking that Atheism has any positive beliefs, we do not. Us Skeptics consider Raelianism, Communism, Nazism etc. to be non-theist religions and consider that dogma or uncontestible assumptions to be the defining characteristics of religion rather than the belief in the supernatural.

Dawkins has taken atheism beyond lack of belief.  He's out there proselytizing.  I would say his statements have a positive aspect "that religion is evil" and the like.

[Berkut]

That would presume that I think religions are inherently bad things, which I do not.

If someone came along and said "Hey, lets imagine this concept. And this concept would have the power to motivate people to act in ways they would not act otherwise. Sometimes radically so. And this concept - it is completely false. It has no truth to it - 100% made up." So what we are talking about is a idea/concept/whatever that has significant power, and yet the fundamental basis of it lies on a falsehood.

Would you be inclined to accepting that overall a huge number of people accepting this falsehood as true would not be "an inherently bad thing"?

I think you can sit around forever and argue about whether Commies (as a fill in for atheists) are worse than Crusaders, or who has done more Bad Things in the name of God as opposed to Good Things in the name of god. And you won't ever really get anywhere - there aren't any means to measure in a way that will be convincing to anyone invested in the discussion.

On the other hand, I've never really understood the more fundamental argument that a system of thinking about our lives, responsibilities, culture, and society based on something that is not true can actually be a positive thing. That religion, assuming it is in fact false, can be a net positive. That in the end, humanity can be better off believing in something that is simply wrong.

[Berkut]

Mostly through Dawkins, who has become something of a hero amongst many atheists.  At least in the English Speaking world.  I've seen many atheist screeds going on about "mind viruses" and the like, and the term has gained a lot of currency in the last few years.  It's a fairly atheistic concept, so I associate it with atheism

I think you think about Dawkins about 100 times more than any atheist I actually know.

[Viking]

Another thing that Raz doesn't understand is that Atheists have just as much in common with each other as all A-Christians or A-Muslims or A-Hindus have with each other. Raelians, Randite Libertarians, Communists, Stalinists, Maoists etc.etc. are all Atheists of some stripe but they have little or nothing in common with Skeptics (such as myself, Dawkins and Brad Pitt). Atheists are not united by any common belief, they are merely united by a lack of a common belief. In a world without theist religion there would be no need for the word Atheist at all. Raz keeps thinking that Atheism has any positive beliefs, we do not. Us Skeptics consider Raelianism, Communism, Nazism etc. to be non-theist religions and consider that dogma or uncontestible assumptions to be the defining characteristics of religion rather than the belief in the supernatural.

Dawkins has taken atheism beyond lack of belief.  He's out there proselytizing.  I would say his statements have a positive aspect "that religion is evil" and the like.

I googled "that religion is evil" + Dawkins. No dawkins quote showed up, but multiple links from religious sites claiming that he said it with quote marks and atheist and skeptic sites claiming that he never said any such thing. Unless you can show me a dawkins quote where he asserts that religion is evil I'm gonna have to call you a liar.

Dawkins is doing precisely what your local pastor is doing. Every pastor says that his own religion is true and the others are false, dawkins has no religion of his own and considers the others to be false. All religious joiners consider preselytizing to be a good thing, yet when Dawkins does it he is "strident". You are a hypocritical fool.

[Tonitrus]

That would presume that I think religions are inherently bad things, which I do not.

If someone came along and said "Hey, lets imagine this concept. And this concept would have the power to motivate people to act in ways they would not act otherwise. Sometimes radically so. And this concept - it is completely false. It has no truth to it - 100% made up." So what we are talking about is a idea/concept/whatever that has significant power, and yet the fundamental basis of it lies on a falsehood.

Would you be inclined to accepting that overall a huge number of people accepting this falsehood as true would not be "an inherently bad thing"?

I think you can sit around forever and argue about whether Commies (as a fill in for atheists) are worse than Crusaders, or who has done more Bad Things in the name of God as opposed to Good Things in the name of god. And you won't ever really get anywhere - there aren't any means to measure in a way that will be convincing to anyone invested in the discussion.

On the other hand, I've never really understood the more fundamental argument that a system of thinking about our lives, responsibilities, culture, and society based on something that is not true can actually be a positive thing. That religion, assuming it is in fact false, can be a net positive. That in the end, humanity can be better off believing in something that is simply wrong.

One could argue that for every person that acts irrationally for some false belief, the same false beliefs might keep someone from acting in a way we think of as "bad".  For all the bad things one can peg on religion (or a believe in something that is false), one can also appreciate the good things.  Much of what on this planet we consider great works of art, music and architecture, is inspired by religious belief....or if not even direct faith, inspiration from what one might call more simple "cultural" aspects of religion.

What we tend to think of as the "bad" part of religion, of course, is the use of to control/kill people, and to exploit them for power, riches, or what have you.  I tend to think these are human traits that would have happened anyway, just with different excuses.

Granted, perhaps the art mentioned above would be the same, but as with both aspects of that argument, we have no way of knowing what a world without "false" beliefs would be like.  Either way, it'd probably be a lot more boring, and perhaps less enriching in many ways...but also certainly not less bloody. 

[Slargos]

That would presume that I think religions are inherently bad things, which I do not.

If someone came along and said "Hey, lets imagine this concept. And this concept would have the power to motivate people to act in ways they would not act otherwise. Sometimes radically so. And this concept - it is completely false. It has no truth to it - 100% made up." So what we are talking about is a idea/concept/whatever that has significant power, and yet the fundamental basis of it lies on a falsehood.

Would you be inclined to accepting that overall a huge number of people accepting this falsehood as true would not be "an inherently bad thing"?

I think you can sit around forever and argue about whether Commies (as a fill in for atheists) are worse than Crusaders, or who has done more Bad Things in the name of God as opposed to Good Things in the name of god. And you won't ever really get anywhere - there aren't any means to measure in a way that will be convincing to anyone invested in the discussion.

On the other hand, I've never really understood the more fundamental argument that a system of thinking about our lives, responsibilities, culture, and society based on something that is not true can actually be a positive thing. That religion, assuming it is in fact false, can be a net positive. That in the end, humanity can be better off believing in something that is simply wrong.

One could argue that for every person that acts irrationally for some false belief, the same false beliefs might keep someone from acting in a way we think of as "bad".  For all the bad things one can peg on religion (or a believe in something that is false), one can also appreciate the good things.  Much of what on this planet we consider great works of art, music and architecture, is inspired by religious belief....or if not even direct faith, inspiration from what one might call more simple "cultural" aspects of religion.

What we tend to think of as the "bad" part of religion, of course, is the use of to control/kill people, and to exploit them for power, riches, or what have you.  I tend to think these are human traits that would have happened anyway, just with different excuses.

Granted, perhaps the art mentioned above would be the same, but as with both aspects of that argument, we have no way of knowing what a world without "false" beliefs would be like.  Either way, it'd probably be a lot more boring, and perhaps less enriching in many ways...but also certainly not less bloody.

+1.

Religion doesn't make people do bad things. People make people do bad things.

Is the guy a raging douchebag? Sure. Many atheists (especially the missionary ones, but that tends to go for any religion) are.

Is his gesture meaningless? Probably. It might cause some debate, but I doubt an act like this really effects any meaningful change to policy.

Do I like what he did? You're damn straight. I fall squarely in the no-accommodation camp. Nazis are also fervent believers, but I doubt they would be allowed to have their picture taken wearing a cap with a swastika. And yes, I realize that my wording might've been a bit unfortunate here. 

His action isn't meant to sway the religious, but only to display how silly religious accommodation is.

[LaCroix]

Mostly through Dawkins, who has become something of a hero amongst many atheists.  At least in the English Speaking world.  I've seen many atheist screeds going on about "mind viruses" and the like, and the term has gained a lot of currency in the last few years.  It's a fairly atheistic concept, so I associate it with atheism

ok, i'll take your word on it rather than ask for any studies or otherwise evidence of a general consensus

What we tend to think of as the "bad" part of religion, of course, is the use of to control/kill people, and to exploit them for power, riches, or what have you.  I tend to think these are human traits that would have happened anyway, just with different excuses.

i think religion has had its use expired by now, personally. in the past, it accomplished greatness (and its opposite) in certain areas when the world was less.. civilized. it allowed people a way to understand the world. today, however, i think it serves to hold people back. it's an easy excuse to explain the universe, and it limits thought. if someone believes in ghosts, they are more likely to explain eerie occurrences on some mystical figure rather than consider the true cause of it. a person may also stand by their opinions more strongly if they believe it is backed up by some "truth" inspired by religion, and be less likely to alter their views. imo, religion is utterly obsolete given the knowledge we hold today