Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Neil]

Wouldn't a non-religious conscientous objector simply be a coward?

[Neil]

Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.

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

Because I don't vote NDP.

[Berkut]

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.

I don't know - I imagine it would depend on what you define as a spirit beyond simply something that people imagine.

If you define spirit as something that only exists in people brains, then I don't imagine it would show up at all outside of one. But then, under that definition, one could conclude that they don't exist at all, except in the abstract.

[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?

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.

Yes, belief, prayer and meditation have real effects on the brain. This, however, has no bearing on the truth of religious or spiritual claims. These "spritual" activities have precisely the same effect regardless of the religion of the practitioner and are indistinguishable from self delusion, wishful thinking and the effects of The God Helmet.

[Malthus]

That doesn't make any sense at all. If a god did exist, why couldn't it resemble the Christian god?

You keep arguing against arguments that are not being made. Niko Alm being or not being a dick is completely beside the point, you you keep repeating it as if his niceness matters. You are arguing that not all religions are equal. They have to meet some heretofore unknown standard of true faith. Never before has anybody actually argued that religious rights are contingent on the followers actually believing the dogma.  The fact that you need a new argument to criticize Alm just goes to show how valid his point is. A Religion who's only purpose is to parody religion parodies religion and you say that this religion doesn't count.

The Christian god of one part of his holy scripture is inconsistent with the Christian god of another part of the scripture. Muslims correctly point that out. The Muslim god is also inconsistent. Being all knowing is inconsistent with free will... quoting Hume paraphrasing Epicurus

"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

Even if he exists god does not make sense. It follows that if there is a god he does not have the features ascribed to him by the Christian Books.

I don't think you are quoting the correct bits of my argument ...

However, I'll say this: what people think of this guy's stunt "matters" to the exact extent he intended this stunt to influence anyone. My whole point is that it will convince nobody about anything, other than that he's an attention whore.

This has noting to do with all the stuff you are claiming I'm saying, but that I did not, in point of fact, say.

Where, for example, do you see me arguing any of this:

You are arguing that not all religions are equal. They have to meet some heretofore unknown standard of true faith. Never before has anybody actually argued that religious rights are contingent on the followers actually believing the dogma. 

Nonsense. I'm not arguing that "all religions are equal", I'm arguing that a parody is not the same as (say) Sikhism. There is a bit of an excluded middle in your argument. 

Nor am I arguing that "They have to meet some heretofore unknown standard of true faith" or  that "religious rights are contingent on the followers actually believing the dogma". That would be an odd thing to hold. Many religions - Judaism among them - don't actually require belief in "dogma". They are more a tribal affiliation.

[Valmy]

But then, under that definition, one could conclude that they don't exist at all, except in the abstract.

That is pretty much what I believe.  It is about the internal life of humans and how we deal with the outside world but nothing to do with anything else.

[Viking]

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.

Engineers are perfectly capable of using less than 100% evidence (most notable 100 year storm standards for sea walls etc.). We just refuse to use the 80% anecdotal evidence if there is 100% repeatable evidence which contradicts it.

I think the main difference between us is that if we find the evidence unsatisfactory we will defer the problem or admit that we don't have perfect knowledge. Lawyers, on the other hand, must make a digital true or not true decision with the limited evidence available. I think the existence of god argument fits the engineering paradigm better than the courtroom paradigm for the simple reason that it is not a dichotomy. There are potentially infinite answers to the question.

[Grey Fox]

Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.

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

Because I don't vote NDP.

Neither do Religious people.

[Barrister]

Wouldn't a non-religious conscientous objector simply be a coward?

Well that's sort of the question, isn't it.  A mere coward isn't supposed to be able to claim CO status.  Someone with a deeply held belief in pacifism, and who can demonstrate that belief, can.

[Valmy]

Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.

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

Because I don't vote NDP.

Ah I thought hatred itself made church worthwhile.  I did not think you meant it had to be for people you yourself hate.

Carry on then

[The Brain]

Wouldn't a non-religious conscientous objector simply be a coward?

With the severely retarded how can you tell anyway?

[Barrister]

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.

Engineers are perfectly capable of using less than 100% evidence (most notable 100 year storm standards for sea walls etc.). We just refuse to use the 80% anecdotal evidence if there is 100% repeatable evidence which contradicts it.

I think the main difference between us is that if we find the evidence unsatisfactory we will defer the problem or admit that we don't have perfect knowledge. Lawyers, on the other hand, must make a digital true or not true decision with the limited evidence available. I think the existence of god argument fits the engineering paradigm better than the courtroom paradigm for the simple reason that it is not a dichotomy. There are potentially infinite answers to the question.

We never make conclusions about true / not true.  Everything is decided on standards such as "reasonable suspicion", "some evidence to believe", "reasonable grounds to believe", "proof on a balance of probabilities", and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  If pressed, no judge will ever state that can confirm anything with absolute certainty.

[Viking]

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

So, he doesn't have to show that his religions says be a pacifist, but rather his personal view is that violence is wrong.

So,

- the atheist CO needs to show that he truly holds the philosophical views which he claims cause him to object.
- the theist CO needs to show that he truly holds the religious views which he claims cause him to object.

and to simplify this.. (getting rid of adjectives)

- the CO needs to show that he truly holds the views which he claims cause him to object.

regardless of his theist/atheist status?

[Malthus]

Wouldn't a non-religious conscientous objector simply be a coward?

Well that's sort of the question, isn't it.  A mere coward isn't supposed to be able to claim CO status.  Someone with a deeply held belief in pacifism, and who can demonstrate that belief, can.

I guess we need a "hero" like the guy in the OP to demonstrate why having "special objective rules for purely subjective conditions" is silly, so we can get on with the business of treating all COs as cowards. 

[Viking]

You are arguing that not all religions are equal. They have to meet some heretofore unknown standard of true faith. Never before has anybody actually argued that religious rights are contingent on the followers actually believing the dogma. 

Nonsense. I'm not arguing that "all religions are equal", I'm arguing that a parody is not the same as (say) Sikhism. There is a bit of an excluded middle in your argument. 

Nor am I arguing that "They have to meet some heretofore unknown standard of true faith" or  that "religious rights are contingent on the followers actually believing the dogma". That would be an odd thing to hold. Many religions - Judaism among them - don't actually require belief in "dogma". They are more a tribal affiliation.

So Not all religions are equal? How can there  be freedom of religion in that case?