Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[grumbler]

Seems to me the only point this guy gets at is that in pluralistic society, confessional status can be established by any form of belief honestly held.  Ok, no surprises there.

But the point is wholly undermined by the fact that this guy doesn't honestly hold the belief he purports to confess.  So at the end of the day, all he proves is that he is an obnoxious schmuck with too much time on his hands, and that the authorities wisely made the call to allow him to make an ass of himself rather than waste further resources litigating.

I am not sure the Austrian officials had your infallible honesty meter by which to actually measure confessional status.

What this guy did was demonstrate the absurdity of making special objective rules for purely subjective conditions.  That's the kind of obnoxious schmuck we need in society.  The kind of obnoxious schmuck who doesn't see the need for pointing out the absurdities in the law is not the kind of obnoxious schmuck we need in society.

[Barrister]

"cognitive dissonance" is a nifty turn of phrase to be sure, but you keep repeating it in this thread.

It is a good term, well defined and it fits the issue. Look it up.

I am merely saying that constantly repeating the same phrase is not a terribly effective rhetorical device.

It works on people who know what it means.

No, it does not.  It bores the listener after a certain point. 

In a courtroom, I believe a judge would say "I have your point counsel.  Please move on."

[Valmy]

Generally the most effective means of avoiding cognitive dissonance is to move away from literalism and treat biblical passages which are explicitly literal (noah had sons and built a boat etc) and decide that they are allegorical. So, no, the religious people I meet are not literalist fundamentalists, or at least they refrain from being literalist fundamentalists for the duration of our conversation.

So if we are discussing a spiritual work with spiritual lessons why would there be cognitive dissonance?

[HVC]

Please don't do that. I'd rather you pray that I get a threesome this weekend.

Done!

hippy god is also a prude (i know, contradictory, but hey he's god, he gets to make up the rules). He shall not be pelased.

[The Brain]

"cognitive dissonance" is a nifty turn of phrase to be sure, but you keep repeating it in this thread.

It is a good term, well defined and it fits the issue. Look it up.

I am merely saying that constantly repeating the same phrase is not a terribly effective rhetorical device.

It works on people who know what it means.

No, it does not.  It bores the listener after a certain point. 

In a courtroom, I believe a judge would say "I have your point counsel.  Please move on."

Judges also use sucking machines in the courtroom. I don't think they make a great example to follow.

[Neil]

Church services in a pussy church is boring. Give me that old time gay bashing religion.

You know, they really are.  I remember going to a Christmas Eve service at my parents church a few years back.  God that was terrible, all about environmentalism and anti-Americanism.

[Viking]

Generally the most effective means of avoiding cognitive dissonance is to move away from literalism and treat biblical passages which are explicitly literal (noah had sons and built a boat etc) and decide that they are allegorical. So, no, the religious people I meet are not literalist fundamentalists, or at least they refrain from being literalist fundamentalists for the duration of our conversation.

So if we are discussing a spiritual work with spiritual lessons why would there be cognitive dissonance?

Because there is no evidence that there any such thing as the spiritual and much evidence that the spiritual does not exist.

[Valmy]

Because there is no evidence that there any such thing as the spiritual and much evidence that the spiritual does not exist.

I have thousands of years of human experience and first hand experience on my side.

Besides isn't that sort of like claiming 'love' or 'happiness' doesn't exist?  I mean it is a human experience.  How can you provide evidence a human experience doesn't exist?  I mean it does not in a physical sense.  But who cares?

[Barrister]

Generally the most effective means of avoiding cognitive dissonance is to move away from literalism and treat biblical passages which are explicitly literal (noah had sons and built a boat etc) and decide that they are allegorical. So, no, the religious people I meet are not literalist fundamentalists, or at least they refrain from being literalist fundamentalists for the duration of our conversation.

So if we are discussing a spiritual work with spiritual lessons why would there be cognitive dissonance?

Because there is no evidence that there any such thing as the spiritual and much evidence that the spiritual does not exist.

But there is plenty of evidence that the spiritual exists.  The Bible and other holy books are evidence.  Millions of people have reported having spiritual experiences.

If you want to say there is no conclusive proof that the spiritual exists I will happily agree with you.  But the faith of billions of people isn't based on nothing.

And how can you have evidence about the absence of something?  As you know it is very difficult to prove a negative.

[Valmy]

You know, they really are.  I remember going to a Christmas Eve service at my parents church a few years back.  God that was terrible, all about environmentalism and anti-Americanism.

Pfft I went to a bunch of fundy services back when I was in social service and fuck they were boring and long and the music was horrible.

And they ranted on about how terrible atheists and Canadians are.

[Viking]

Because there is no evidence that there any such thing as the spiritual and much evidence that the spiritual does not exist.

I have thousands of years of human experience and first hand experience on my side.

Besides isn't that sort of like claiming 'love' or 'happiness' doesn't exist?  I mean it is a human experience.  How can you provide evidence a human experience doesn't exist?  I mean it does not in a physical sense.  But who cares?

It's the not the same. Love and Happiness are emotions which people can have, Spiritness is not an emotion. Furthermore Spirituality presumes Dualism (the assumption that the human is made up of two parts, a body and a soul, suggesting that the soul can survive death). Love and Happiness can be measures using FMRI, Spiritness cannot.

[Neil]

Never before has anybody actually argued that religious rights are contingent on the followers actually believing the dogma.

The perks that society offers to real religions are rarely offered for cults or individual assholes who are looking to make fools of themselves.

[The Brain]

You don't have to believe my smegma to experience it.

[Viking]

I've been using the word evidence sloppily here. When I use the word evidence I mean proven fact, or in theory of science terms falsifiable facts which cannot be falsified and are consistent will all other unfalsified falsifiable facts.

So anecdotes and documents do not count if their validity can be and has been tested.

[Valmy]

Love and Happiness can be measures using FMRI, Spiritness cannot.

Yeah blatantly false.  Meditation and prayer and so forth do show up on FMRI.