Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Berkut]

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

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

Spirit does not show up. Emotions may show up, but that doesn't mean that the things that motivate those emotions actually exist.

I am pretty sure you could measure the brain wave patterns of someone who truly believes that aliens are anal probing them, and find evidence that they really are very upset by their ongoing probing. That is not evidence that there are aliens actually doing any probing - at least, it isn't very good evidence.

[Viking]

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

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

Yes, and? What do the effects meditation and prayer have on the brain to do with the existence of spirits?

[Neil]

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.

Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.

[Barrister]

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.

Yeah - I meant to reply to that line of Vikings.

Religious rights are frequently contingent on the person actually believing.  Conscientous objectors are the first example I can think of.  Generally a person claiming to be a conscientous objector must demonstrate that it is a sincerily held belief, and not sheer self-interest.

[The Brain]

The golden age of religion in Sweden (post aesir) was the 17th century. Grim men with improbable beards preached damnation and hellfire on those who did not 100% submit to state church dogma and smite the papist wherever possible.

[Valmy]

Yes, and? What do the effects meditation and prayer have on the brain to do with the existence of spirits?

They are physical evidence of the reality of having a spiritual experience.

I said 'spirituality is a human experience' and in my opinion a valuable one.  But only for my life as a human not for flying rockets or whatever.

[Valmy]

Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.

Then why didn't the hatred for America do it for you?

[Viking]

Yeah - I meant to reply to that line of Vikings.

Religious rights are frequently contingent on the person actually believing.  Conscientous objectors are the first example I can think of.  Generally a person claiming to be a conscientous objector must demonstrate that it is a sincerily held belief, and not sheer self-interest.

Eh? Not the same thing. Conscientious objectors are not just religious. Conscientious objectors are applying for an exemption from an obligation demanded by the state. Which is a bit like the standard you apply to Niko Alm but not to whatshisname Singh. I'll happily accept having courts rule on the true faith of anybody claiming religious exemptions if I can't get rid of the religious exemptions.

[crazy canuck]

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

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

Yes, and? What do the effects meditation and prayer have on the brain to do with the existence of spirits?

It has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God or spirits as you put it but it has everything to do with proving that their believe in such things has a positive effect.  You are quite right that nobody could prove their religious beliefs are true in the scientific sense.  But people who believe do not require that level of proof.  Just as most normal people believe in a lot of things that cannot be proven to that degree of precision or certainty.

[The Brain]

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.

Yeah - I meant to reply to that line of Vikings.

Religious rights are frequently contingent on the person actually believing.  Conscientous objectors are the first example I can think of.  Generally a person claiming to be a conscientous objector must demonstrate that it is a sincerily held belief, and not sheer self-interest.

Isn't it enough to prove a deeply held conviction, with its religious qualities being incidental? Non-rhetorical. I assume non-religious people can be conscientous objectors in Canada.

[Barrister]

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.

Maybe this is the difference between an engineer and a lawyer.  In your field you deal with things that can be tested and verified.  In my field we can not.  We deal with people reporting all manner of events that have happened to them.  They may or may not have some degree of corroboration, or other people reoprting the same incident, but we can never confirm with 100% certainty the accuracy of anything reported to us.

So I'm much more comfortable dealing with evidence that is not 100% conclusive.

[Valmy]

Spirit does not show up. Emotions may show up, but that doesn't mean that the things that motivate those emotions actually exist.

What would it look like for spirit to show up?  Since it is only a human experience and exists in our own brains I am not sure how it could be demonstrated beyond brain scans and study of the brain.

[Barrister]

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.

Yeah - I meant to reply to that line of Vikings.

Religious rights are frequently contingent on the person actually believing.  Conscientous objectors are the first example I can think of.  Generally a person claiming to be a conscientous objector must demonstrate that it is a sincerily held belief, and not sheer self-interest.

Isn't it enough to prove a deeply held conviction, with its religious qualities being incidental? Non-rhetorical. I assume non-religious people can be conscientous objectors in Canada.

Non-religious can be COs, yes.  The religious element isn't incidental though if the basis for the CO claim is a religious one.

[Viking]

Yes, and? What do the effects meditation and prayer have on the brain to do with the existence of spirits?

They are physical evidence of the reality of having a spiritual experience.

I said 'spirituality is a human experience' and in my opinion a valuable one.  But only for my life as a human not for flying rockets or whatever.

I'm happy to accept Sam Harris' view of this, but before he goes on about how spirituality is a real human experience he clearly identifies that it is a brain artifact, not the actual interaction with non-material spirits, ghosts, gods or anything supernatural. If you define spirituality to be a completely material phenomenon I'll agree that it is real and measurable.

[The Brain]

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.

Yeah - I meant to reply to that line of Vikings.

Religious rights are frequently contingent on the person actually believing.  Conscientous objectors are the first example I can think of.  Generally a person claiming to be a conscientous objector must demonstrate that it is a sincerily held belief, and not sheer self-interest.

Isn't it enough to prove a deeply held conviction, with its religious qualities being incidental? Non-rhetorical. I assume non-religious people can be conscientous objectors in Canada.

Non-religious can be COs, yes.  The religious element isn't incidental though if the basis for the CO claim is a religious one.

Bizarre.