QuoteAustrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity
An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".
Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons.
Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism.
The Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.
The idea came into Mr Alm's noodle three years ago as a way of making a serious, if ironic, point.
A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted faith whose members call themselves pastafarians.
The group's website states that "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma".
In response to pressure for American schools to teach the Christian theory known as intelligent design, as an alternative to natural selection, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote to the Kansas School Board asking for the pastafarian version of intelligent design to be taught to schoolchildren, as an alternative to the Christian theory.
Mental fitness check
In the same spirit, Mr Alm's pastafarian-style application for a driving licence was a response to the Austrian recognition of confessional headgear in official photographs.
The licence took three years to come through and, according to Mr Alm, he was asked to submit to a medical interview to check on his mental fitness to drive but - straining credulity - his efforts have finally paid off.
It is the police who issue driving licences in Austria, and they have duly issued a laminated card showing Mr Alm in his unorthodox item of religious headgear.
The next step, Mr Alm told the Austrian news agency APA, is to apply to the Austrian authorities for pastafarianism to become an officially recognised faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523)
I bet he's feeling drained after that.
Religious people are stupid, film at 23.
Next, idiots are going to insist that they get to wear facemasks for id photos. Oh, wait, they already do...
http://muslimvillage.com/2011/07/06/australian-islamic-leaders-give-qualified-support-to-niqab-id-law/
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 09:26:29 AM
Religious people are stupid, film at 23.
Next, idiots are going to insist that they get to wear facemasks for id photos. Oh, wait, they already do...
http://muslimvillage.com/2011/07/06/australian-islamic-leaders-give-qualified-support-to-niqab-id-law/ (http://muslimvillage.com/2011/07/06/australian-islamic-leaders-give-qualified-support-to-niqab-id-law/)
Doesn't really matter. They all look alike anyway.
Muslim Australians.........what wonderful people they must be :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 13, 2011, 09:38:02 AM
Muslim Australians.........what wonderful people they must be :P
Indonesians, I guess?
Indonesians don't bother with that sort of thing :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 13, 2011, 09:48:01 AM
Indonesians don't bother with that sort of thing :huh:
Who are the Muslims in Australia then? Arabs can't swim.
Muslim Australians mostly are Lebanese.
Eh. The Lebanese here are usually christians.
Here's some stuff from the Aussie government :
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/muslims_in_australia.html
Quite a mix.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:06:46 AM
Eh. The Lebanese here are usually christians.
Sophistry!!
Most cats may be black, but most black things are not necessarily cats.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:12:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:06:46 AM
Eh. The Lebanese here are usually christians.
Sophistry!!
Most cats may be black, but most black things are not necessarily cats.
A black cat is a black cat.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:12:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:06:46 AM
Eh. The Lebanese here are usually christians.
Sophistry!!
Most cats may be black, but most black things are not necessarily cats.
A black cat is a black cat.
RACISS!!!
Quote from: Tamas on July 13, 2011, 10:31:49 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:12:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:06:46 AM
Eh. The Lebanese here are usually christians.
Sophistry!!
Most cats may be black, but most black things are not necessarily cats.
A black cat is a black cat.
RACISS!!!
No, it's speciest. Cats should be genocided.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:32:48 AM
No, it's speciest. Cats should be genocided.
Cats only hate evil people. FYI <_< :P
Pastafarians and Discordians annoy me far more than any fundamentalist Christian.
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2011, 10:35:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:32:48 AM
No, it's speciest. Cats should be genocided.
Cats only hate evil people. FYI <_< :P
Are you sure? They hate me & I'm evil but they don't seem to appreciate non-evil people too.
Quote from: Brazen on July 13, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity
An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".
Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons.
Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism.
The government should get the last laugh, and *require* him to wear his "religiously mandated headgear" at all times in public. :contract:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
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.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
Pastafarians and Discordians annoy me far more than any fundamentalist Christian.
That is only because they are right and you hate people being nasty by challenging the cognitive dissonance of others.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:55:14 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
Pastafarians and Discordians annoy me far more than any fundamentalist Christian.
That is only because they are right and you hate people being nasty by challenging the cognitive dissonance of others.
What like people who talk about being scientific and believe in memes?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:55:14 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
Pastafarians and Discordians annoy me far more than any fundamentalist Christian.
That is only because they are right and you hate people being nasty by challenging the cognitive dissonance of others.
What like people who talk about being scientific and believe in memes?
No, like people who assume that regardless of what I actually say your strawman of me is more accurate in describing my views than I can myself.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:44:56 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
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! :hmm: '
This sort of thinking is almost as much fantasy as religion. ;)
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:03:05 AM
No, like people who assume that regardless of what I actually say your strawman of me is more accurate in describing my views than I can myself.
You believe in memes?
They should have simply beaten this guy with a large stick.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:38:53 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2011, 10:35:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:32:48 AM
No, it's speciest. Cats should be genocided.
Cats only hate evil people. FYI <_< :P
Are you sure? They hate me & I'm evil but they don't seem to appreciate non-evil people too.
your friends are evil by association. cats can sense that.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:03:43 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:44:56 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
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! :hmm: '
This sort of thinking is almost as much fantasy as religion. ;)
It's not about convincing the true believers. True believers will find ways to believe regardless of what conspiracy theories they have to invent. It is about convincing the believers in belief. The people who accept animal torture by ninja rabbis because some fairytale book they know is untrue says so, the people think that it is ok to cover your face on photographic ID just because some 7th century merchant had an epileptic fit in an arabian cave etc.etc.
No rational argument every work on believers. You cannot use reason to get someone to abandon an opinion they did not reason themselves into.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:04:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:03:05 AM
No, like people who assume that regardless of what I actually say your strawman of me is more accurate in describing my views than I can myself.
You believe in memes?
What does that have to do with anything?
Do you even know what a meme is?
When you use the word belief are you referring to justified true belief or the considered acceptance of a proposition (or something else)?
Just answer the question.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:12:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:03:43 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:44:56 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
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! :hmm: '
This sort of thinking is almost as much fantasy as religion. ;)
It's not about convincing the true believers. True believers will find ways to believe regardless of what conspiracy theories they have to invent. It is about convincing the believers in belief. The people who accept animal torture by ninja rabbis because some fairytale book they know is untrue says so, the people think that it is ok to cover your face on photographic ID just because some 7th century merchant had an epileptic fit in an arabian cave etc.etc.
No rational argument every work on believers. You cannot use reason to get someone to abandon an opinion they did not reason themselves into.
That reminds me, you never did tell me if catch and release, hand cleaning a fish, and modern fish processing is torture.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:03:43 AM
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! :hmm: '
This sort of thinking is almost as much fantasy as religion. ;)
Thank hod no one but you is making that argument, then!
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:12:55 AM
It's not about convincing the true believers. True believers will find ways to believe regardless of what conspiracy theories they have to invent. It is about convincing the believers in belief. The people who accept animal torture by ninja rabbis because some fairytale book they know is untrue says so, the people think that it is ok to cover your face on photographic ID just because some 7th century merchant had an epileptic fit in an arabian cave etc.etc.
No rational argument every work on believers. You cannot use reason to get someone to abandon an opinion they did not reason themselves into.
It is pure fantasy. Though no doubt haw-haw amusing, acting the jerk will only convince the not-so-committed believers that you are a jerk. Do Muslims insulting Westerners convince *you* that *they* are right?
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2011, 11:17:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:03:43 AM
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! :hmm: '
This sort of thinking is almost as much fantasy as religion. ;)
Thank hod no one but you is making that argument, then!
I guess Viking can now rename himself "No One". Thank hod.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:12:55 AM
It's not about convincing the true believers. True believers will find ways to believe regardless of what conspiracy theories they have to invent. It is about convincing the believers in belief. The people who accept animal torture by ninja rabbis because some fairytale book they know is untrue says so, the people think that it is ok to cover your face on photographic ID just because some 7th century merchant had an epileptic fit in an arabian cave etc.etc.
Multiple strawmen in a single post! How efficient of you.
QuoteNo rational argument every work on believers.
Good to see that you have a reason for using irrational arguments, but that fact that rational arguments don't work does not at all imply that these kinds of irrational arguments
will work.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:20:24 AM
I guess Viking can now rename himself "No One". Thank hod.
Viking is beating you in this little "top my strawman argument" contest you guys are having, but you are putting up a good fight, and still have a chance. Please keep it up.
*pops some more popcorn*
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:16:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:15:01 AM
Just answer the question.
Define the question.
The one I asked in a previous post.
"You believe in memes?"
Just answer it the best you can. Then I will insult you and denigrate you.
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2011, 11:23:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:20:24 AM
I guess Viking can now rename himself "No One". Thank hod.
Viking is beating you in this little "top my strawman argument" contest you guys are having, but you are putting up a good fight, and still have a chance. Please keep it up.
*pops some more popcorn*
How can it be a "strawman" if it is
the argument he's actually, you know, making?
Please *do* try to keep up.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:12:55 AM
It's not about convincing the true believers. True believers will find ways to believe regardless of what conspiracy theories they have to invent. It is about convincing the believers in belief. The people who accept animal torture by ninja rabbis because some fairytale book they know is untrue says so, the people think that it is ok to cover your face on photographic ID just because some 7th century merchant had an epileptic fit in an arabian cave etc.etc.
No rational argument every work on believers. You cannot use reason to get someone to abandon an opinion they did not reason themselves into.
It is pure fantasy. Though no doubt haw-haw amusing, acting the jerk will only convince the not-so-committed believers that you are a jerk. Do Muslims insulting Westerners convince *you* that *they* are right?
since "making a rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance in true believers holding irrational views" is insulting. Muslims do make some compelling arguments that I agree with. The Muslim case against polytheism, judaism and christianity are quite compelling. The muslim case will never convince a hindu, jew or christian, but it is compelling to all non-hindus, goy and non-christians.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:15:01 AM
Just answer the question.
yes, no, maybe, depends, sometimes.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:23:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:16:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:15:01 AM
Just answer the question.
Define the question.
The one I asked in a previous post.
"You believe in memes?"
Just answer it the best you can. Then I will insult you and denigrate you.
1 - it is not phrased as a question. Grammar fail.
2 - which of the many meanings of believe are you using?
3 - what is your definition of meme?
Why so careful? Do you really believe that people who believe in the pseudoscience of memes are different then people who believe in religion? At least religion doesn't try to pass itself off as science. That some how their belief in something that is not falsifiable is different the other peoples beliefs that are not falsifiable? They are just as irrational as that ninja rabbi. That's okay, most people are irrational. Often in ways they don't even know, such as illusion of control.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:42:37 AM
Why so careful? Do you really believe that people who believe in the pseudoscience of memes are different then people who believe in religion? At least religion doesn't try to pass itself off as science. That some how their belief in something that is not falsifiable is different the other peoples beliefs that are not falsifiable? They are just as irrational as that ninja rabbi. That's okay, most people are irrational. Often in ways they don't even know, such as illusion of control.
Precisely because Meme Theory is not science, nor does it claim to be. Religion, however, claims to be "The Truth(tm)". That is the difference.
When you claim that I believe in memes you can mean many things.
- Do I have a reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as memes. Yes.
- Have I arrived at the conclusion that Meme Theory as delivered by Professor Dawkins by means of adopting a non-rationally and non-emprically explainable assumption? No.
Your question can mean either.
"militant" atheists annoy me. at least religious people just go about their lives not trying to show you up about how wrong you are. Expect for Jehovah witnesses... but they annoy me to :D
Don't believe in god? i get it. but how does some dude wearing his turban in photo's effect you to the point that you have to become and ass about it.
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2011, 11:55:11 AM
"militant" theists annoy me. at least religious people just go about their lives not trying to show you up about how wrong you are. Expect for Jehovah witnesses... but they annoy me to :D
Don't believe in god? i get it. but how does some dude wearing his turban in photo's effect you to the point that you have to become and ass about it.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/pptphotoreq/pptphotoreq_5333.html
The US Passport photo guidelines permit turbans, but
QuoteYour full face must be visible, and the head covering must not cast any shadows on your face.
Nobody is banning turbans, they are banning Niqabs
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fashion-hijab.com%2Fimages%2Fniqab-the-viel-003618.jpg&hash=1059bf0b24f782c6f8506076b7600f7d6433b665)
however.
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2011, 11:55:11 AM
theists
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2011, 11:55:11 AM
theists
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
so, what do you think he thinks it means and what do you think it means?
:bleeding: TYPO.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:31:33 AM
since "making a rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance in true believers holding irrational views" is insulting.
I'm not seeing any "rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance" in a guy wearing a pasta strainer on his head.
QuoteMuslims do make some compelling arguments that I agree with. The Muslim case against polytheism, judaism and christianity are quite compelling. The muslim case will never convince a hindu, jew or christian, but it is compelling to all non-hindus, goy and non-christians.
What about the Muslim "case against Judaism and Christianity" is compelling? As far as I know, the Muslims do not make a "case" against either - rather, they claim both are *right* but incomplete, in that they don't accept the authority of Mohammed as the final prophet of the Jewish and Christian God. Presumably, you find the argument for the existence of Mohammed as final prophet compelling?
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:42:37 AM
Why so careful? Do you really believe that people who believe in the pseudoscience of memes are different then people who believe in religion? At least religion doesn't try to pass itself off as science. That some how their belief in something that is not falsifiable is different the other peoples beliefs that are not falsifiable? They are just as irrational as that ninja rabbi. That's okay, most people are irrational. Often in ways they don't even know, such as illusion of control.
Precisely because Meme Theory is not science, nor does it claim to be. Religion, however, claims to be "The Truth(tm)". That is the difference.
When you claim that I believe in memes you can mean many things.
- Do I have a reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as memes. Yes.
- Have I arrived at the conclusion that Meme Theory as delivered by Professor Dawkins by means of adopting a non-rationally and non-emprically explainable assumption? No.
Your question can mean either.
Your first answer means absolutely nothing. I could say that I have reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as clowns and that would be equally valid.
The whole concept of memes is non-rational and non-empirical. However, many people who are athiests believe they exist. In no small part because Prophet Dawkins is proponent of the idea.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 12:31:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:31:33 AM
since "making a rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance in true believers holding irrational views" is insulting.
I'm not seeing any "rational argument that causes cognitive dissonance" in a guy wearing a pasta strainer on his head.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 12:31:53 PM
QuoteMuslims do make some compelling arguments that I agree with. The Muslim case against polytheism, judaism and christianity are quite compelling. The muslim case will never convince a hindu, jew or christian, but it is compelling to all non-hindus, goy and non-christians.
What about the Muslim "case against Judaism and Christianity" is compelling? As far as I know, the Muslims do not make a "case" against either - rather, they claim both are *right* but incomplete, in that they don't accept the authority of Mohammed as the final prophet of the Jewish and Christian God. Presumably, you find the argument for the existence of Mohammed as final prophet compelling?
I've spent some time reading up on muslim theology. If you want to make a case for or against anyting know something about it. The muslim case is that the were complete and perfect but were corrupted by the jews and christians.
If you conclude from my argument that Muslims have good arguments against Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism that I must find some argument for Islam compelling is a false dichotomy. You know very well that I think they are all wrong and you are arguing in bad faith when you have to conjure up a logical fallacy to try to associate me with a position that you very well know I do not hold.
As a Legal profession you must understand that merely proving that the defense is wrong does not prove the prosecution is wright. When you pretend to be this stupid I just lose respect for you. You have earned alot of my respect on previous occasions, so there is much left. If you are going to continue to argue that
Not A => B
without first proving that
IF Not A THEN B
(if somebody can give me the ASCII codes for logical notation I'd be much appreciative)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 12:44:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:42:37 AM
Why so careful? Do you really believe that people who believe in the pseudoscience of memes are different then people who believe in religion? At least religion doesn't try to pass itself off as science. That some how their belief in something that is not falsifiable is different the other peoples beliefs that are not falsifiable? They are just as irrational as that ninja rabbi. That's okay, most people are irrational. Often in ways they don't even know, such as illusion of control.
Precisely because Meme Theory is not science, nor does it claim to be. Religion, however, claims to be "The Truth(tm)". That is the difference.
When you claim that I believe in memes you can mean many things.
- Do I have a reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as memes. Yes.
- Have I arrived at the conclusion that Meme Theory as delivered by Professor Dawkins by means of adopting a non-rationally and non-emprically explainable assumption? No.
Your question can mean either.
Your first answer means absolutely nothing. I could say that I have reasonable confidence that there are ideas which have been identified as clowns and that would be equally valid.
The whole concept of memes is non-rational and non-empirical. However, many people who are athiests believe they exist. In no small part because Prophet Dawkins is proponent of the idea.
Define meme and define believe. And, name one atheist that you can quote using the word believe and meme in one sentence that supports your assertion.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 12:51:47 PM
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.
Quote
I've spent some time reading up on muslim theology. If you want to make a case for or against anyting know something about it. The muslim case is that the were complete and perfect but were corrupted by the jews and christians.
If you conclude from my argument that Muslims have good arguments against Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism that I must find some argument for Islam compelling is a false dichotomy.
Not where the argument against is that the religion was complete and perfect but for the corruption of it by Jews and Christians. In that case, to find the argument "compelling", you'd have to believe that the religion was complete and perfect.
QuoteYou know very well that I think they are all wrong and you are arguing in bad faith when you have to conjure up a logical fallacy to try to associate me with a position that you very well know I do not hold.
As a Legal profession you must understand that merely proving that the defense is wrong does not prove the prosecution is wright. When you pretend to be this stupid I just lose respect for you. You have earned alot of my respect on previous occasions, so there is much left. If you are going to continue to argue that
Not A => B
without first proving that
IF Not A THEN B
(if somebody can give me the ASCII codes for logical notation I'd be much appreciative)
Your problem is that I asked you what is known as a "rhetorical question", to demonstrate why you are wrong. This is not arguing in "bad faith". I know full well you don't actually believe in Islam. I did not expect you to agree that you did. I expected that you would re-evaluate your argument.
What I'm saying is that it is difficult to logically find the Islamic attack on Judaism and Christianity "compelling" without belief in elements of the Islamic faith. The Islamic attack isn't primarially based on elements of Judaism or Christianity that are "wrong" outside of the context of Islam.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 12:54:49 PM
Define meme and define believe. And, name one atheist that you can quote using the word believe and meme in one sentence that supports your assertion.
http://brandonwalsh.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/atheist-meme-of-the-day-atheists-believe-in-things/ Here's one apparently.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 01:20:52 PM
Your problem is that I asked you what is known as a "rhetorical question", to demonstrate why you are wrong. This is not arguing in "bad faith". I know full well you don't actually believe in Islam. I did not expect you to agree that you did. I expected that you would re-evaluate your argument
What an unrealistic expectation! I can count the regular posters here who would re-evaluate their arguments in the face of logic on 1 hand, and Viking ain't one of 'em. ;)
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:06:46 AM
Eh. The Lebanese here are usually christians.
I thought the Bible was against Lebanism.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 10:41:49 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 13, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity
An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".
Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons.
Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism.
The government should get the last laugh, and *require* him to wear his "religiously mandated headgear" at all times in public. :contract:
Last time they tried to get all Jews wear a mark at all times in public and all the world jumped on them. So they are probably wary this time.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:03:43 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:44:56 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
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! :hmm: '
This sort of thinking is almost as much fantasy as religion. ;)
It's not the purpose of stuff like this. Rather, it is about convincing the general (largely secular in the EU) public that allowing cretins like an Orthodox Jew or a committed Sikh to have their way and flaunt the general rules is equally silly as allowing the Pastafarian to do so.
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2011, 11:55:11 AM
"militant" atheists annoy me. at least religious people just go about their lives not trying to show you up about how wrong you are.
Are you seriously trying to say that the religious people are not trying to affect the lives of non-believers? Seriously??? From anti-abortion laws to opposition to gay marriage to teaching creationism at schools, the religious are constantly trying to shove their idiocy down everyone else's throats. Seriously, what world do you live in???
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2011, 02:26:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 10:41:49 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 13, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity
An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".
Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons.
Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism.
The government should get the last laugh, and *require* him to wear his "religiously mandated headgear" at all times in public. :contract:
Last time they tried to get all Jews wear a mark at all times in public and all the world jumped on them. So they are probably wary this time.
If they persecuted the
pastafarians, and no-one else, it would be funny. :D
There are probably more pastafarians in Austria now than Jews. So persecuting silly people wearing extra long locks and silly hats would be equally funny. And Poland already has facilities.
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2011, 02:28:35 PM
It's not the purpose of stuff like this. Rather, it is about convincing the general (largely secular in the EU) public that allowing cretins like an Orthodox Jew or a committed Sikh to have their way and flaunt the general rules is equally silly as allowing the Pastafarian to do so.
Equally fantasy thinking. Except for the very dumbest, most people can figure out the difference between a sincerely held belief and the parody of one.
What most will get out of a stunt like this is that this guy is an attention whore.
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2011, 02:34:41 PM
There are probably more pastafarians in Austria now than Jews. So persecuting silly people wearing extra long locks and silly hats would be equally funny. And Poland already has facilities.
Naw, persecuting self-declared "pastafarians" has humour possibilities that the same-old, same-old persecution of Jews lacks. :D
To show sincere religious beliefs you have to organize a global pedophile ring. Don't ask me why, I don't get it either.
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2011, 02:31:53 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2011, 11:55:11 AM
"militant" atheists annoy me. at least religious people just go about their lives not trying to show you up about how wrong you are.
Are you seriously trying to say that the religious people are not trying to affect the lives of non-believers? Seriously??? From anti-abortion laws to opposition to gay marriage to teaching creationism at schools, the religious are constantly trying to shove their idiocy down everyone else's throats. Seriously, what world do you live in???
But if you pass a law that means they can't wear their special hats, they'll obviously stop trying to influence abortion laws, gay marriage laws and the teaching of creationism in school?
Not that the religious people who push the strongest for such things are wearing special religious hats.
Quote from: Jacob on July 13, 2011, 03:50:20 PM
Not that the religious people who push the strongest for such things are wearing special religious hats.
True, dat. The only "special religious hats" people that come to mind are sikhs and observant jews. Neither group seems terribly interested in pushing their beliefs on others, and only want to be able to do their own thing in peace.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:25:25 AM
How can it be a "strawman" if it is the argument he's actually, you know, making?
Please *do* try to keep up.
I'm having no problem keeping up with the fact that the quotes you are arguing against are made up by you, not by him.
It is most entertaining. The fact that you insist, even
using underlining for some weird reason, that he is making them when it is obvious they are yours makes it even funnier.
*pops even more popcrn*
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2011, 11:55:11 AM
Don't believe in god? i get it. but how does some dude wearing his turban in photo's effect you to the point that you have to become and ass about it.
It isn't clear to me to whom you are directing this question. Pretty much everyone disbelieves in at least one god. People who disbelieve in some gods but believe in others tend to be the people who are asses about it, what with killing people over which ones should be believed in and which shouldn't.
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2011, 04:10:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:25:25 AM
How can it be a "strawman" if it is the argument he's actually, you know, making?
Please *do* try to keep up.
I'm having no problem keeping up with the fact that the quotes you are arguing against are made up by you, not by him.
It is most entertaining. The fact that you insist, even using underlining for some weird reason, that he is making them when it is obvious they are yours makes it even funnier.
*pops even more popcrn*
He's making the exact same arguments. Yet you insist on dragging out your usual default accusation of "strawman!" like it was a winner.
The fact that you don't recognize this is funny, but
sorta sad as well.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
What most will get out of a stunt like this is that this guy is an attention whore.
Agreed. Most people cannot accept that someone with a differing opinion could just have a differing opinion. They insist that the person with a different opinion is "making a fool of themselves" or "an attention whore." By delegitimizing opposing opinions they avoid having to think about their own opinions. It is sad that most people are so anxious to avoid thinking about their own opinions, but I suppose that is just human nature.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 04:22:05 PM
He's making the exact same arguments. Yet you insist on dragging out your usual default accusation of "strawman!" like it was a winner.
You still don't get it, do you? If you were arguing against his arguments, you would be quoting his arguments, not yours. Who brings up "an Orthodox Jew or a committed Sikh" first, and puts silly words in their mouth? That wasn't Viking. That was you.
QuoteThe fact that you don't recognize this is funny, but sorta sad as well.
Please keep up this amusing contest. Add in these kinds of side insults if you think it will help your cause, by all means. :bowler:
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2011, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
What most will get out of a stunt like this is that this guy is an attention whore.
Agreed. Most people cannot accept that someone with a differing opinion could just have a differing opinion. They insist that the person with a different opinion is "making a fool of themselves" or "an attention whore." By delegitimizing opposing opinions they avoid having to think about their own opinions. It is sad that most people are so anxious to avoid thinking about their own opinions, but I suppose that is just human nature.
There is a slight difference between "having a differing opinion" and "insisting on his right to wear a pasta strainer on his head while being photographed for ID". :lol:
The latter guy is "delegitimizing" himself by deliberately playing the fool.
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2011, 04:35:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 04:22:05 PM
He's making the exact same arguments. Yet you insist on dragging out your usual default accusation of "strawman!" like it was a winner.
You still don't get it, do you? If you were arguing against his arguments, you would be quoting his arguments, not yours. Who brings up "an Orthodox Jew or a committed Sikh" first, and puts silly words in their mouth? That wasn't Viking. That was you.
Please keep up this amusing contest. Add in these kinds of side insults if you think it will help your cause, by all means. :bowler:
Dunno what you are going on about. No-one but you appears to think that Viking and I aren't arguing about the exact same thing. You are just wasting electrons blathering about imaginary "strawman arguments".
I swear, if there were really as many "strawmen" about as you appear to see, we could start a revolution with 'em. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2011, 02:28:35 PM
It's not the purpose of stuff like this. Rather, it is about convincing the general (largely secular in the EU) public that allowing cretins like an Orthodox Jew or a committed Sikh to have their way and flaunt the general rules is equally silly as allowing the Pastafarian to do so.
We certainly can't have people flaunting their strange fashion preferences in public. That would be against the general rules of the general public.
Hmm, I though the point the guy was making, wasn't against the people wearing special hats, but aimed at society's willingness to give such people special treatment.
Though I'm not against Sikh wearing their turban's, in this instance it doesn't seem a problem, but when someone's special hat or headgear gets in the way of them functioning well socially or endangering others then it should be challenged ie no headgear that gets in the way of them being identified and certainly none that interferes with their ability to drive and see other road uses.
Religious concerns should not supercede secular concerns. This guys "religion" is no less silly than anyone elses. The only attentionwhoring jackasses and idiots here are the people that are demanding to wear religious garb in ids, and this guy is a hero for pointing out how stupid it is.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:12:55 AM
It's not about convincing the true believers . . .. It is about convincing the believers in belief.
:unsure:
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 05:04:41 PM
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.
Sounds like a Slargossian "hero" all right. :D
:lol: its hilarious how bent out of shape you folks get about religious concerns all the while protestinghow secular you are :lmfao: :lmfao:
I suppose there are many different kinds of heroes.
However, a guy that dedicates his life to arguing with the Austrian DMV over his right to be photographed with a kitchen implement on his head is unlikely to break my top 100.
Noo. I suppose yor kind would not rate the pursuit of justice and freedom very highly. :hmm: :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on July 13, 2011, 05:12:00 PM
:lol: its hilarious how bent out of shape you folks get about religious concerns all the while protestinghow secular you are :lmfao: :lmfao:
Yeah, we are probably lying about that. :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 05:04:41 PM
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.
The government typically doesn't test the sincerity of anyone's belief.
I would chalk it up to knee jerk defense but whatever makes you sleep better. :hug: :hug:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 05:13:06 PM
I suppose there are many different kinds of heroes.
However, a guy that dedicates his life to arguing with the Austrian DMV over his right to be photographed with a kitchen implement on his head is unlikely to break my top 100.
Would he gain your list if he yelled "FREEEEEDOOOOMMM!!!!!" a la the movie
Braveheart - while wearing his chosen kitchen implement? :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2011, 05:17:03 PM
The government typically doesn't test the sincerity of anyone's belief.
No they don't and that is why this Austrian fellow "won".
Yeah, he really showed, uh, those guys, uh, something.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 05:19:48 PM
No they don't and that is why this Austrian fellow "won".
Yeah, he really showed, uh, those guys, uh, something.
What Mongers said on the last page. If people get arbritrary rights for religious reasons everyone should have the same arbitrary right.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 05:18:48 PM
Would he gain your list if he yelled "FREEEEEDOOOOMMM!!!!!" a la the movie Braveheart - while wearing his chosen kitchen implement? :)
No that was Mel Gibson so once again we are back on the Slargos hero list.
To make my hero list, he'd have to whip up a decent pasta and pair it with a gruner veltliner.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2011, 05:21:16 PM
What Mongers said on the last page. If people get arbritrary rights for religious reasons everyone should have the same arbitrary right.
Mongers raises the question of whether society as a matter of basic values make reasonable accomodation to confessional belief. We already had this argument.
What is lost on me is how this guy's antics make a contribution to that debate. Is there someone out there who is so clueless that they don't realize their nation has a policy of religious accomodation and needs a see a pasta strainer head on a driver's license to figure it out?
Quote from: Slargos on July 13, 2011, 05:18:37 PM
I would chalk it up to knee jerk defense but whatever makes you sleep better. :hug: :hug:
What would make me sleep better is a mattress made out of hundred-dollar bills and a bed filled with beautiful starlets.
Sadly, my wife does not approve. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 05:28:13 PM
Mongers raises the question of whether society as a matter of basic values make reasonable accomodation to confessional belief. We already had this argument.
What is lost on me is how this guy's antics make a contribution to that debate. Is there someone out there who is so clueless that they don't realize their nation has a policy of religious accomodation and needs a see a pasta strainer head on a driver's license to figure it out?
Your characterization of Monger's question sounds more like the rebuttal.
Using your language, why should accomodations be made on the basis of faith but not on the basis of whim or fancy or taste?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2011, 05:36:53 PM
Using your language, why should accomodations be made on the basis of faith but not on the basis of whim or fancy or taste?
I think it's fair enough to accomodate fancy or taste.
The difference, to me at least, is the presumption that people hold to their faith with greater strength than they hold to their taste, so it is more of a burden on them to give it up. Obviously this is not true in individual cases, and in any event is not tested for - hence "pastafarianism". It works well enough as a presumption, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2011, 05:36:53 PM
Using your language, why should accomodations be made on the basis of faith but not on the basis of whim or fancy or taste?
That's a question every political community must resolve.
But colander head doesn't really engage with the question.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 01:24:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 12:54:49 PM
Define meme and define believe. And, name one atheist that you can quote using the word believe and meme in one sentence that supports your assertion.
http://brandonwalsh.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/atheist-meme-of-the-day-atheists-believe-in-things/ Here's one apparently.
QuoteAtheists believe in things: kindness, fairness, honesty, truth, love, etc.
None of this supports your assertion, if anything it just shows that the word believe is badly defined.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2011, 05:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 05:28:13 PM
Mongers raises the question of whether society as a matter of basic values make reasonable accomodation to confessional belief. We already had this argument.
What is lost on me is how this guy's antics make a contribution to that debate. Is there someone out there who is so clueless that they don't realize their nation has a policy of religious accomodation and needs a see a pasta strainer head on a driver's license to figure it out?
Your characterization of Monger's question sounds more like the rebuttal.
Using your language, why should accomodations be made on the basis of faith but not on the basis of whim or fancy or taste?
Accomodations are made on the basis of whim or fancy, but the accomodation must be balanced out against the societal goal being pursued.
Here we're talking about the importance of photo ID which can be used to correctly identify the person being portrayed. You generlly may wear whatever clothing your whim or fancy wants in your photo ID, because your clothing really doesn't impact the quality of the identification.
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.
But religious accomodation is not absolute. We do require photo ID, even for the oddball religious types who find any photograph to be some kind of religious observation. We also require the face to be uncovered, despite those who may wish to wear such covering for religious reasons.
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 05:55:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 01:20:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 12:51:47 PM
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.
I'm not trying to deal with Sikh "cognitive dissonance" but rather non-Sikh cognitive dissonance when approaching the issue of religious exceptions to various reasonable regulations and laws.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 01:20:52 PM
Quote
I've spent some time reading up on muslim theology. If you want to make a case for or against anyting know something about it. The muslim case is that the were complete and perfect but were corrupted by the jews and christians.
If you conclude from my argument that Muslims have good arguments against Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism that I must find some argument for Islam compelling is a false dichotomy.
Not where the argument against is that the religion was complete and perfect but for the corruption of it by Jews and Christians. In that case, to find the argument "compelling", you'd have to believe that the religion was complete and perfect.
QuoteYou know very well that I think they are all wrong and you are arguing in bad faith when you have to conjure up a logical fallacy to try to associate me with a position that you very well know I do not hold.
As a Legal profession you must understand that merely proving that the defense is wrong does not prove the prosecution is wright. When you pretend to be this stupid I just lose respect for you. You have earned alot of my respect on previous occasions, so there is much left. If you are going to continue to argue that
Not A => B
without first proving that
IF Not A THEN B
(if somebody can give me the ASCII codes for logical notation I'd be much appreciative)
Your problem is that I asked you what is known as a "rhetorical question", to demonstrate why you are wrong. This is not arguing in "bad faith". I know full well you don't actually believe in Islam. I did not expect you to agree that you did. I expected that you would re-evaluate your argument.
What I'm saying is that it is difficult to logically find the Islamic attack on Judaism and Christianity "compelling" without belief in elements of the Islamic faith. The Islamic attack isn't primarially based on elements of Judaism or Christianity that are "wrong" outside of the context of Islam.
You somehow concluded that I agreed with Muslim arguments FOR Islam because I agreed with some Muslim arguments AGAINST other religions. It does not follow from the statement "Yes, the Muslims are right, Judaism and Christianity are false religions." that "Yes Islam is true." That is the leap you accused me of taking when you very well know that I find Islam to be just as untrue as the rest and in fact I hate Islam a bit more than the other because of its highly immoral teachings. It may have been a rhetorical argument, but it was an exceedingly false one which did nothing but try to obfuscate the issue.
This is not a debating society or a court of law. The is no judge, jury or committing which will grant one of us a diploma or document to demonstrate that one of us won the debate. We are participating in dialectic, not debate.
Your rhetorical question did not even deal with my issue. It just suggest to me that you do not understand what I am saying. This might be because I don't express myself clearly enough or it might be because you aren't interested in understanding me, merely refuting me or it might be in denial because if you had to deal with my actual arguments you would have to deal with your own congnitive dissonance.
What you seem to miss completely is that the point of the act is to show how silly special dispensation to religious people is silly. You, however, ignore this argument, preferring to continue arguing that being rude to religious people makes you a dick, regardless how true your criticism might be. What I cannot understand is why you can't deal with the argument I am making.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:12:55 AM
It's not about convincing the true believers . . .. It is about convincing the believers in belief.
:unsure:
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.
Malthus already made the point that this guy is an obnoxious schmuck. Now, go away and find me a court ruling where it explicitly states that obnoxious schmucks don't get the same protection of the law that everybody else does. (though that might not be too relevant since Austrian law doesn't fetishize precedent like common law jurisdictions do).
This was a political protest for freedom from religion and against the special dispensations granted to religions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2011, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 05:55:20 PM
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.
If we had a "Like" button for our posts my post replying to the quoted post would be obsolete. I agree with Yi here.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 05:46:06 PM
None of this supports your assertion, if anything it just shows that the word believe is badly defined.
You asked me to find something and I did. It's not my fault that some atheists don't understand how science works. Memes are passed off as science (or as some of it's proponents say "proto-science". I call it pseudoscience. It's particularly popular amongst atheists because it denigrates religion. If you don't like the word talk to Dawkins, he popularized it. Go inform your fellow atheists, what's wrong with memes.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2011, 04:35:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 04:22:05 PM
He's making the exact same arguments. Yet you insist on dragging out your usual default accusation of "strawman!" like it was a winner.
You still don't get it, do you? If you were arguing against his arguments, you would be quoting his arguments, not yours. Who brings up "an Orthodox Jew or a committed Sikh" first, and puts silly words in their mouth? That wasn't Viking. That was you.
Please keep up this amusing contest. Add in these kinds of side insults if you think it will help your cause, by all means. :bowler:
Dunno what you are going on about. No-one but you appears to think that Viking and I aren't arguing about the exact same thing. You are just wasting electrons blathering about imaginary "strawman arguments".
I swear, if there were really as many "strawmen" about as you appear to see, we could start a revolution with 'em. :lol:
We are not discussing the same topic. Malthus thinks it is wrong to criticize religion because it is rude. I think that making special dispensations to religions is wrong and the Pastafarian example is a good way of demonstrating how silly the special dispensation is and convincing the general public that no religion should have a special dispensation. Malthus isn't responding to my arguments, he just spews and re-spews his assertion that being rude doesn't convince anybody. Me agreeing with him that being rude doesn't convince anybody and that I/"the Pastafarian" are not trying to convince "Sikhs" (or whichever group is insulted by demonstrating that their beliefs are silly), we are trying to convince all the regular people who normally don't care about the issue that they should care and that special dispensation is in and of itself wrong.
So, yes, Malthus is barking up a strawman. Malthus, Minsky, dps and Raz are not dealing with my arguments on their own terms they are attacking strawmen and hurling insults at me. That might be reasonable procedure in a common law courtroom where the dichotomy is intentionally made real and jurors can be swayed by pathos, but it doesn't work on me and I don't accept it.
This is a repeating process here with any discussion regarding religion. The usual suspects refuse to make any positive assertions (claiming not to be religious) and refuse to deal with the issues argued by the anti-religion side. This just pisses me off. Being a dick doesn't mean you lose in any arena apart from swaying the mob so stop trying to pretend that "don't be a dick" is a counter argument to anything the dick might argue.
Edit: God, I hate agreeing with grumbler....
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 05:46:06 PM
None of this supports your assertion, if anything it just shows that the word believe is badly defined.
You asked me to find something and I did. It's not my fault that some atheists don't understand how science works. Memes are passed off as science (or as some of it's proponents say "proto-science". I call it pseudoscience. It's particularly popular amongst atheists because it denigrates religion. If you don't like the word talk to Dawkins, he popularized it. Go inform your fellow atheists, what's wrong with memes.
You did not find anything that supports your assertion that atheists belive in memes. You found a blog post discussing a meme. The meme being discussed was "Atheists believe in things".
QuoteAtheists believe in things: kindness, fairness, honesty, truth, love, etc.
None of those things are the concept of memes.
Now, go and find someone claiming that atheists believe in memes. You have not done so. Furthermore define "believe" and define "meme".
You are misrepresenting views of self-identified atheists as well as atheists in good standing in the atheist community. You are asserting that I have certain beliefs which you refuse to identify or define and you refuse to source the claim. You are the picture perfect postcard of Hitchens eloquent argument against all religion. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
You fail. Go away.
Pastafarians wear strainers as headgear- now that's what I call a philosophy that's full of holes.
What a douche. These insecure little faggots give atheism a bad name. We're supposed to be wise, intelligent, clever and moral, not a bunch of cunts.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 06:13:27 PM
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.
Since, AFAIK, none of the posters here are Sikhs or Pastafarianists, why would we not consider Sikhism and Pastafarianism both wrong? I certainly don't consider either of them right. The difference is that while most Sikhs probably sincerely hold their belief in Sikhism, this guy pretty obviously doesn't hold his belief in Pastafarianism sincerely--after all, by his own admission, he's an atheist. You know he doesn't hold his alleged beliefs seriously, I know it, everybody else who's posted in this thread knows it, and the Austrian courts probably know it. The courts have a good reason to allow the fiction that his belief is sincerly held, since getting the government involved in testing the sincerity of anyone's beliefs obviously opens a can of worms, but we don't have to pretend that we don't know it's a legal fiction.
Quote from: dps on July 13, 2011, 07:15:37 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 06:13:27 PM
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.
Since, AFAIK, none of the posters here are Sikhs or Pastafarianists, why would we not consider Sikhism and Pastafarianism both wrong? I certainly don't consider either of them right. The difference is that while most Sikhs probably sincerely hold their belief in Sikhism, this guy pretty obviously doesn't hold his belief in Pastafarianism sincerely--after all, by his own admission, he's an atheist. You know he doesn't hold his alleged beliefs seriously, I know it, everybody else who's posted in this thread knows it, and the Austrian courts probably know it. The courts have a good reason to allow the fiction that his belief is sincerly held, since getting the government involved in testing the sincerity of anyone's beliefs obviously opens a can of worms, but we don't have to pretend that we don't know it's a legal fiction.
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 07:21:17 PM
Pastafarianism is an expression of sincerely held Atheism. Surely you know that.
No it isn't. Pastafarianism is an expression of deep-seated cuntishness.
QuoteHaving the courts decide who actually is a believer and who is just faking it will do wonders for freedom of religion.
The courts already decide what is a religion and what isn't. Freedom of religion seems unabated.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 07:28:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 07:21:17 PM
Pastafarianism is an expression of sincerely held Atheism. Surely you know that.
No it isn't. Pastafarianism is an expression of deep-seated cuntishness.
QuoteHaving the courts decide who actually is a believer and who is just faking it will do wonders for freedom of religion.
The courts already decide what is a religion and what isn't. Freedom of religion seems unabated.
Read My Fucking Post. The courts don't get to tell you if you are a true believer or not. If they do, freedom of religion is dead.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 07:30:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 07:28:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 07:21:17 PM
Pastafarianism is an expression of sincerely held Atheism. Surely you know that.
No it isn't. Pastafarianism is an expression of deep-seated cuntishness.
QuoteHaving the courts decide who actually is a believer and who is just faking it will do wonders for freedom of religion.
The courts already decide what is a religion and what isn't. Freedom of religion seems unabated.
Read My Fucking Post. The courts don't get to tell you if you are a true believer or not. If they do, freedom of religion is dead.
Oh yes they do. Canada denied a refugee from China, as they decided that his religious claims were attempts to bolster his refugee claim. And yet religious freedom in Canada continues unabated. And if Canada's doing it, you can bet that other countries are doing it.
I think something like that happened here with that Amadou Diallo guy that got swiss cheesed by the NYPD. Like he was falsely claiming to be a Christian from Mauretania, whereas he really from Ghana or someplace where Christians don't get their asses kicked on a regular basis.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 05:46:06 PM
None of this supports your assertion, if anything it just shows that the word believe is badly defined.
You asked me to find something and I did. It's not my fault that some atheists don't understand how science works. Memes are passed off as science (or as some of it's proponents say "proto-science". I call it pseudoscience. It's particularly popular amongst atheists because it denigrates religion. If you don't like the word talk to Dawkins, he popularized it. Go inform your fellow atheists, what's wrong with memes.
You did not find anything that supports your assertion that atheists belive in memes. You found a blog post discussing a meme. The meme being discussed was "Atheists believe in things".
QuoteAtheists believe in things: kindness, fairness, honesty, truth, love, etc.
None of those things are the concept of memes.
Now, go and find someone claiming that atheists believe in memes. You have not done so. Furthermore define "believe" and define "meme".
You are misrepresenting views of self-identified atheists as well as atheists in good standing in the atheist community. You are asserting that I have certain beliefs which you refuse to identify or define and you refuse to source the claim. You are the picture perfect postcard of Hitchens eloquent argument against all religion. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
You fail. Go away.
You said find an atheist who uses the word meme in the same sentence as belief. I did that. There is no universally accepted meaning for "Meme" (in no large part because they don't actually exist). So I'll just use a dictionary one. That's good enough.
Webster's defines it as ": an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture ".
Here's the definition of "Believe" which ": to accept something as true, genuine, or real"
I would venture to say that "love" is "an idea, behavior or style". Presumably the atheist in that blog believes in Memes since he used the word.
Here's some forum posts by some atheists talking about memes and belief. http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Atheism-and-belief?page=4
Another atheist going on about memes http://drahcir.tripod.com/memes/meme_spread.html#ath This is simple. I could find examples all across the internet.
There are plenty examples of Atheists who have bought in to the pseudoscience of memes.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 08:04:40 PM
You said find an atheist who uses the word meme in the same sentence as belief. I did that. There is no universally accepted meaning for "Meme" (in no large part because they don't actually exist). So I'll just use a dictionary one. That's good enough.
Webster's defines it as ": an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture ".
Here's the definition of "Believe" which ": to accept something as true, genuine, or real"
I would venture to say that "love" is "an idea, behavior or style". Presumably the atheist in that blog believes in Memes since he used the word.
Here's some forum posts by some atheists talking about memes and belief. http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Atheism-and-belief?page=4
Another atheist going on about memes http://drahcir.tripod.com/memes/meme_spread.html#ath This is simple. I could find examples all across the internet.
There are plenty examples of Atheists who have bought in to the pseudoscience of memes.
An anonymous website and a forum post which try to use memetics to understand the nature of atheism. Neither claims meme theory is true, they just try to use memetics to explain a phenomenon (atheism). Again, not a claim by an atheist about the truth of meme theory. I didn't ask you to link to a quote which merely included the words meme and believe. I asked you to produce a quote which supported your assertion and included the words belief and meme. You did not do that.
So, your question is
Do I to accept the concept that an idea, behavior, style, or usage can spread from person to person within a culture as true, genuine, or real?
No. I don't agree with your definition of meme.
You said
QuoteAnd, name one atheist that you can quote using the word believe and meme in one sentence that supports your assertion.
I found an atheist who used the word believe and meme in the same sentence. It was the first one that came up. The whole internet is full of them. I'm sorry you don't like that. Lots of atheists believe in memes. The belief in memes is irrational. It's not falsifiable and should not be taken seriously if we hold true to science and logic and the such. If they don't believe that memes exist then they shouldn't use the word. If they used the word "Noosphere" to describe things I assume they believed that "Noosphere" was a real thing.
It's not my fault you don't agree with the dictionary. I'd say the deficiency lies in you. Since you have your own personal definition of words, I'm unclear how to progress. Perhaps you should define every word in your post so I know what you actually mean.
For fun, here's a blog entry with an atheist who claims that Memes are falsifiable. http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/19/skeptics-atheists-and-meme-theory/
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 06:13:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 01:20:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 12:51:47 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 09:16:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2011, 02:25:22 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:06:46 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 11:03:43 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2011, 10:44:56 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2011, 10:38:01 AM
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! :hmm: '
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 07:30:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2011, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 05:55:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 10:14:22 PMWhat 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?
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 10:35:42 PMso, 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.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 10:35:42 PMso, 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. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
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!!!!"
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:50:32 PMSticking 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
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
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!!!!"
The Soviets?
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 11:09:05 PM
For fucks sake just lighten up. It was a joke.
I'll concede I have a really really short fuse right now in this thread. Sorry.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
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!!!!"
The Soviets?
The Soviets had a religion, and Lenin was their prophet.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PMThe Soviets?
communism spurred them, not atheism. oh, wait, everything and anything is religion :(
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 10:35:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 10:14:22 PMWhat 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?
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.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
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!!!!"
The Soviets?
They were more likely to use "Za Satlina - Za Rodian!!111oneoneoen"
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2011, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
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!!!!"
The Soviets?
The Soviets had a religion, and Lenin was their prophet.
Communism is a religion in the same way bald is a hair color.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
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!!!!"
The Soviets?
I think the example of Mexico in the 1930's is probably the best.
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 11:09:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
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.
Viking doesn't have any sense of humour about his war on religion. He makes Berkut look like a jokester. He's not as bad as Martinus, but he just can't leave it alone.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:17:21 PMCatholic. 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?
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:18:57 PM
Viking doesn't have any sense of humour about his war on religion. He makes Berkut look like a jokester. He's not as bad as Martinus, but he just can't leave it alone.
Viking is smarter then Marty. Thing is, I actually respect Viking (despite being an Icelander), he has a strong knowledge of science something I'm very, very weak with (my mathematics abilities are abysmal).
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PMThe Soviets?
communism spurred them, not atheism. oh, wait, everything and anything is religion :(
And a major component of that was atheism, except during WWII.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:21:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:18:57 PM
Viking doesn't have any sense of humour about his war on religion. He makes Berkut look like a jokester. He's not as bad as Martinus, but he just can't leave it alone.
Viking is smarter then Marty. Thing is, I actually respect Viking (despite being an Icelander), he has a strong knowledge of science something I'm very, very weak with (my mathematics abilities are abysmal).
Oh absolutely. I respect Viking, but I think that his war on religion is over the top.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 11:14:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2011, 11:09:05 PM
For fucks sake just lighten up. It was a joke.
I'll concede I have a really really short fuse right now in this thread. Sorry.
:hug: I appreciate that you can acknowledge that.
Just a friendly suggestion here - feel free to ignore it.
I don't see anyone launching personal attacks on you here. You may wish to consider 'lightening up' a bit on the topic of religion. Not that you should change your opinion one iota - but merely give people arguing against you the benefit of the doubt every once in a while. I've had some really fun religion debates - in particular remember a wine-fuelled debate in Cortina, Italy with Tamas, RH, AnchorClanker and myself. But personally, debating religion with you is not fun and I've been staying far away from this thread.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:22:27 PMAnd a major component of that was atheism, except during WWII.
a component of it, yes, but not the main reason ;)
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 11:28:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:22:27 PMAnd 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.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 11:20:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:17:21 PMCatholic. 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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2011, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PMThe 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".
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:43:37 PM
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
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2011, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 11:11:47 PMThe 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.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:43:37 PM
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 11:43:37 PM
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
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:10:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2011, 11:58:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 12:12:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 12:14:48 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:10:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2011, 11:58:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 14, 2011, 12:34:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2011, 11:58:20 PM
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. :sleep:
His action isn't meant to sway the religious, but only to display how silly religious accommodation is.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 12:12:08 AMMostly 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
:unsure:
ok, i'll take your word on it rather than ask for any studies or otherwise evidence of a general consensus
Quote from: TonitrusWhat 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
When it comes to "explaining the Universe", I agree.
Not so much when it comes to "keeping my neighbor from killing me for my stuff without caring".
But I don't want to drop the religion/morality nuke into this thread (and no, I don't think in the simple terms that one requires the other).
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 14, 2011, 01:46:08 AMBut I don't want to drop the religion/morality nuke into this thread
but you just did :D
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 04:37:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2011, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
What most will get out of a stunt like this is that this guy is an attention whore.
Agreed. Most people cannot accept that someone with a differing opinion could just have a differing opinion. They insist that the person with a different opinion is "making a fool of themselves" or "an attention whore." By delegitimizing opposing opinions they avoid having to think about their own opinions. It is sad that most people are so anxious to avoid thinking about their own opinions, but I suppose that is just human nature.
There is a slight difference between "having a differing opinion" and "insisting on his right to wear a pasta strainer on his head while being photographed for ID". :lol:
The latter guy is "delegitimizing" himself by deliberately playing the fool.
Putting forward ridiculous ideas
and actually believing them makes you look
less like a fool? Hardly.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 10:35:42 PMso, 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.
FWIW I have yet to meet a religious person that I consider highly intelligent.
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
You don't? :huh:
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 03:33:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
You don't? :huh:
No.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 03:33:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
You don't? :huh:
No.
Do you think it's because you lack an imagination? :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:11:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 03:33:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
You don't? :huh:
No.
Do you think it's because you lack an imagination? :hmm:
You actually think that Viking is a Jew?
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 04:17:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:11:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 03:33:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
You don't? :huh:
No.
Do you think it's because you lack an imagination? :hmm:
You actually think that Viking is a Jew?
What gave you that idea?
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:29:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 04:17:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:11:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 03:33:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
You don't? :huh:
No.
Do you think it's because you lack an imagination? :hmm:
You actually think that Viking is a Jew?
What gave you that idea?
You're Slarg. It's all you ever talk about.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 04:45:35 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:29:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 04:17:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:11:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 03:33:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
You don't? :huh:
No.
Do you think it's because you lack an imagination? :hmm:
You actually think that Viking is a Jew?
What gave you that idea?
You're Slarg. It's all you ever talk about.
That's a fair bit prejudiced of you. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:47:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 04:45:35 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:29:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 04:17:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 04:11:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 03:33:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
You don't? :huh:
No.
Do you think it's because you lack an imagination? :hmm:
You actually think that Viking is a Jew?
What gave you that idea?
You're Slarg. It's all you ever talk about.
That's a fair bit prejudiced of you. :rolleyes:
Thanks.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:26:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 12:14:48 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:10:15 AM
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.
QuoteIt is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Volume 57, Number 1
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
I've never heard the local priest say that Jews were evil (as a Catholic I don't see pastors). But it's nice that Viking doesn't have to call me a liar now.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 06:13:27 PM
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.
No, it's a *parody*. The guy doesn't really believe that he has to wear a pasta strainer. What he's testing is the court's willingness to test the sincerity of his belief.
QuoteThe 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.
Meh? I'm not a Sikh. Of course I don't think Sikhism is "true". How on earth would I have an "... inability to realize that both religions are untrue"? I simply don't understand what you are attepting to say. Are you alleging I think Sikhism is "true"? Strange.
What I have, is the ability to respect the ways of other people, even if I don't happen to believe in them myself.
QuoteI'm not trying to deal with Sikh "cognitive dissonance" but rather non-Sikh cognitive dissonance when approaching the issue of religious exceptions to various reasonable regulations and laws.
And I'm saying it is a fantasy to think this stunt will do anything of the sort. Most reasonable people - including atheists - will just think this guy's an attention whore. And rightly.
QuoteYou somehow concluded that I agreed with Muslim arguments FOR Islam because I agreed with some Muslim arguments AGAINST other religions. It does not follow from the statement "Yes, the Muslims are right, Judaism and Christianity are false religions." that "Yes Islam is true." That is the leap you accused me of taking when you very well know that I find Islam to be just as untrue as the rest and in fact I hate Islam a bit more than the other because of its highly immoral teachings. It may have been a rhetorical argument, but it was an exceedingly false one which did nothing but try to obfuscate the issue.
This is not a debating society or a court of law. The is no judge, jury or committing which will grant one of us a diploma or document to demonstrate that one of us won the debate. We are participating in dialectic, not debate.
Your rhetorical question did not even deal with my issue. It just suggest to me that you do not understand what I am saying. This might be because I don't express myself clearly enough or it might be because you aren't interested in understanding me, merely refuting me or it might be in denial because if you had to deal with my actual arguments you would have to deal with your own congnitive dissonance.
What you seem to miss completely is that the point of the act is to show how silly special dispensation to religious people is silly. You, however, ignore this argument, preferring to continue arguing that being rude to religious people makes you a dick, regardless how true your criticism might be. What I cannot understand is why you can't deal with the argument I am making.
Dude. Lighten up.
To address your argument: there are various types of attacks one could make on (say) Christianity. Some attacks are consistent with atheism (Christianity cannot be true without proof of the existence of a "god", and that proof lacks); others are simply not (Christianity is a falling away from a "perfect religion" that would otherwise exist; Christianity is false because it does not acknowledge the existence of Mohammed as the seal of the prophets).
I'm not saying you are actually a believer in Islam; what I'm saying is that finding the particular
Islamic attack on Christianity "compelling" is inconsistent with what I know you are - an atheist.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 06:25:53 PM
Malthus already made the point that this guy is an obnoxious schmuck. Now, go away and find me a court ruling where it explicitly states that obnoxious schmucks don't get the same protection of the law that everybody else does. (though that might not be too relevant since Austrian law doesn't fetishize precedent like common law jurisdictions do).
What you call fetishing precedent, others call the rule the law. Obviously I can't speak to Austrian law, but in the US there is the First Amendment free exercise clause and a long line of decisions.
QuoteThis was a political protest for freedom from religion and against the special dispensations granted to religions.
If so, it is was a stupid one that weakens the cause by associating it with juvenile behavior. It is beyond my comprehension why any committed atheist would applaud such foolishness.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:59:40 AM
I don't understand why Viking got into a long discussion of memes (something that isn't relevant) with Raz (an insane person).
I don't either... :weep:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 06:44:21 AM
QuoteIt is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Volume 57, Number 1
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
I've never heard the local priest say that Jews were evil (as a Catholic I don't see pastors). But it's nice that Viking doesn't have to call me a liar now.
Dickwad, you used quotation marks quoting the man as saying religion is evil. You fail at grammar again. Religion is evil =/= Faith is an evil. This is willful misrepresentation.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 06:13:27 PM
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.
No, it's a *parody*. The guy doesn't really believe that he has to wear a pasta strainer. What he's testing is the court's willingness to test the sincerity of his belief.
Well his sincere atheism, sincere humanism and his sincere skepticism mean that he feels that it is his moral duty to wear the pasta strainer. How hard is that to understand? Niko Alm (the guy's name) is a long term atheist, humanist and skeptic activist. He has a facebook fan page where he is self described as an athlete. This is the concluding part of a three year campaign to be allowed to wear the strainer.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 08:20:07 AM
QuoteThe 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.
Meh? I'm not a Sikh. Of course I don't think Sikhism is "true". How on earth would I have an "... inability to realize that both religions are untrue"? I simply don't understand what you are attepting to say. Are you alleging I think Sikhism is "true"? Strange.
What I have, is the ability to respect the ways of other people, even if I don't happen to believe in them myself.
You know that the metaphysical claims of Sikhism are non-true. If you thought they were true you would be a Sikh.
What I am trying to say is that both Sikhism and Pastafarianism use untrue claims about the nature of the universe to justify wearing silly head-dress on drivers license photos. I'm baffled why you don't seem to realize that. It seems that just because the Sikh believes that god told him to wear a turban his irrational belief has to be validated by society.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 08:20:07 AM
QuoteI'm not trying to deal with Sikh "cognitive dissonance" but rather non-Sikh cognitive dissonance when approaching the issue of religious exceptions to various reasonable regulations and laws.
And I'm saying it is a fantasy to think this stunt will do anything of the sort. Most reasonable people - including atheists - will just think this guy's an attention whore. And rightly.
QuoteYou somehow concluded that I agreed with Muslim arguments FOR Islam because I agreed with some Muslim arguments AGAINST other religions. It does not follow from the statement "Yes, the Muslims are right, Judaism and Christianity are false religions." that "Yes Islam is true." That is the leap you accused me of taking when you very well know that I find Islam to be just as untrue as the rest and in fact I hate Islam a bit more than the other because of its highly immoral teachings. It may have been a rhetorical argument, but it was an exceedingly false one which did nothing but try to obfuscate the issue.
This is not a debating society or a court of law. The is no judge, jury or committing which will grant one of us a diploma or document to demonstrate that one of us won the debate. We are participating in dialectic, not debate.
Your rhetorical question did not even deal with my issue. It just suggest to me that you do not understand what I am saying. This might be because I don't express myself clearly enough or it might be because you aren't interested in understanding me, merely refuting me or it might be in denial because if you had to deal with my actual arguments you would have to deal with your own congnitive dissonance.
What you seem to miss completely is that the point of the act is to show how silly special dispensation to religious people is silly. You, however, ignore this argument, preferring to continue arguing that being rude to religious people makes you a dick, regardless how true your criticism might be. What I cannot understand is why you can't deal with the argument I am making.
Dude. Lighten up.
To address your argument: there are various types of attacks one could make on (say) Christianity. Some attacks are consistent with atheism (Christianity cannot be true without proof of the existence of a "god", and that proof lacks); others are simply not (Christianity is a falling away from a "perfect religion" that would otherwise exist; Christianity is false because it does not acknowledge the existence of Mohammed as the seal of the prophets).
I'm not saying you are actually a believer in Islam; what I'm saying is that finding the particular Islamic attack on Christianity "compelling" is inconsistent with what I know you are - an atheist.
Why is that? Thinking that if there was such a thing as the creator of the earth that knows everything he would not take a wife, father a son, try and fail with new revelations each for Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus. I don't have to believe in a god to agree that if a god did exist he certainly would not be as incompetent as the god of christianity and judaism would be. Muslims has many non-theist arguments against Christianity and Judaism.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 06:44:21 AM
QuoteIt is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Volume 57, Number 1
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
I've never heard the local priest say that Jews were evil (as a Catholic I don't see pastors). But it's nice that Viking doesn't have to call me a liar now.
Dickwad, you used quotation marks quoting the man as saying religion is evil. You fail at grammar again. Religion is evil =/= Faith is an evil. This is willful misrepresentation.
I dunno Viking - seems to me that when Dawkins says religion is evil, that's pretty much the same thing as saying faith is evil. You can try and argue otherwise, but I'm doubtful. And that's a far ways from being "willful misrepresentation".
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 09:35:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 06:44:21 AM
QuoteIt is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Volume 57, Number 1
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
I've never heard the local priest say that Jews were evil (as a Catholic I don't see pastors). But it's nice that Viking doesn't have to call me a liar now.
Dickwad, you used quotation marks quoting the man as saying religion is evil. You fail at grammar again. Religion is evil =/= Faith is an evil. This is willful misrepresentation.
I dunno Viking - seems to me that when Dawkins says religion is evil, that's pretty much the same thing as saying faith is evil. You can try and argue otherwise, but I'm doubtful. And that's a far ways from being "willful misrepresentation".
evil =/= an evil
Raz is claiming that Dawkins thinks that Religion is metaphysical evil. Dawkins doesn't accept that metaphysical evil exists. Lets not get stuck in the issue that faith is not religion (another theist cop-out). Dawkins uses evil meaning a natural phenomena with bad consequences, he even compares it to Smallpox.
I also self-describe as an athlete on the internet. Proves nothing.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 14, 2011, 12:34:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2011, 11:58:20 PM
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".
No question, one can make such an argument. And like I said, I don't think that argument can ever have a satisfactory conclusion. I don't buy it, but I realize that I cannot convince anyone invested in the answer otherwise.
What I am saying is that fundamentally I reject the idea that humans can, overall, be better off believing in something that is not true as opposed to accepting reality. This is not a religious position, although it applies to the question of religion.
I realize that this is something of a philosophical position, and probably pretty much impossible to "prove" per se. But I operate under the premise in my personal life that the truth is always better than not truth, and I think it applies on the macro scale as well as the micro.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:56:05 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 10:35:42 PMso, 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.
FWIW I have yet to meet a religious person that I consider highly intelligent.
Wow, you haven't met very many religious people.
I know many extremely smart people who are religious. I find it rather odd, I must admit, since I don't really understand how that works, but there is no question that it does.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 10:06:04 AM
But I operate under the premise in my personal life that the truth is always better than not truth, and I think it applies on the macro scale as well as the micro.
I dunno about that - I once tried "truth" in answer to "honey, do these pants make my butt look ugly?" and I didn't like the results. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 10:07:50 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 02:56:05 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2011, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 13, 2011, 10:35:42 PMso, 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.
FWIW I have yet to meet a religious person that I consider highly intelligent.
Wow, you haven't met very many religious people.
I know many extremely smart people who are religious. I find it rather odd, I must admit, since I don't really understand how that works, but there is no question that it does.
I live in Sweden. But my guess would be that we also have slightly different standards you and I.
lolz, religion threads.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 10:07:50 AM
Wow, you haven't met very many religious people.
I know many extremely smart people who are religious. I find it rather odd, I must admit, since I don't really understand how that works, but there is no question that it does.
In my experience the smarter the religious person the more elaborate the cartwheels he/she has to perform to get around the problem of lack of evidence for and massive amounts of evidence against the existence of god. Basically smart believers have to work harder and smarter to get around their own cognitive dissonance, which is not too much of a problem, because they are smart ones capable of working harder and smarter.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:24:26 AM
Why is that? Thinking that if there was such a thing as the creator of the earth that knows everything he would not take a wife, father a son, try and fail with new revelations each for Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus. I don't have to believe in a god to agree that if a god did exist he certainly would not be as incompetent as the god of christianity and judaism would be. Muslims has many non-theist arguments against Christianity and Judaism.
One of the central tennets of Christianity was that Jesus was a man as well as the son of God. That while on earth he was not a perfect, omnipotent being, but flawed as we all are.
And who ever said that the revelations failed?
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:47:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 09:35:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 06:44:21 AM
QuoteIt is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Volume 57, Number 1
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
I've never heard the local priest say that Jews were evil (as a Catholic I don't see pastors). But it's nice that Viking doesn't have to call me a liar now.
Dickwad, you used quotation marks quoting the man as saying religion is evil. You fail at grammar again. Religion is evil =/= Faith is an evil. This is willful misrepresentation.
I dunno Viking - seems to me that when Dawkins says religion is evil, that's pretty much the same thing as saying faith is evil. You can try and argue otherwise, but I'm doubtful. And that's a far ways from being "willful misrepresentation".
evil =/= an evil
Raz is claiming that Dawkins thinks that Religion is metaphysical evil. Dawkins doesn't accept that metaphysical evil exists. Lets not get stuck in the issue that faith is not religion (another theist cop-out). Dawkins uses evil meaning a natural phenomena with bad consequences, he even compares it to Smallpox.
You are parsing these words awfully closely.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:16:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 10:07:50 AM
Wow, you haven't met very many religious people.
I know many extremely smart people who are religious. I find it rather odd, I must admit, since I don't really understand how that works, but there is no question that it does.
In my experience the smarter the religious person the more elaborate the cartwheels he/she has to perform to get around the problem of lack of evidence for and massive amounts of evidence against the existence of god. Basically smart believers have to work harder and smarter to get around their own cognitive dissonance, which is not too much of a problem, because they are smart ones capable of working harder and smarter.
"cognitive dissonance" is a nifty turn of phrase to be sure, but you keep repeating it in this thread.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:24:26 AM
Well his sincere atheism, sincere humanism and his sincere skepticism mean that he feels that it is his moral duty to wear the pasta strainer. How hard is that to understand? Niko Alm (the guy's name) is a long term atheist, humanist and skeptic activist. He has a facebook fan page where he is self described as an athlete. This is the concluding part of a three year campaign to be allowed to wear the strainer.
His beliefs inspired the stunt, but they don't specifically require him to wear a strainer. It's a parody.
QuoteYou know that the metaphysical claims of Sikhism are non-true. If you thought they were true you would be a Sikh.
What I am trying to say is that both Sikhism and Pastafarianism use untrue claims about the nature of the universe to justify wearing silly head-dress on drivers license photos. I'm baffled why you don't seem to realize that. It seems that just because the Sikh believes that god told him to wear a turban his irrational belief has to be validated by society.
Well, first, your facts are not correct. God did not tell Sikhs to wear a turban. Sikhs wear a turban because one of their historical leaders commanded them to identify themselves as Sikhs by doing so. They do not use any particular metaphysical claims to support the requirement.
I can, at one and the same time, reject every metaphysical notion of Sikhism *and* support allowing Sikhs to self-identify as Sikhs. What's so difficult about understanding that?
QuoteWhy is that? Thinking that if there was such a thing as the creator of the earth that knows everything he would not take a wife, father a son, try and fail with new revelations each for Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus. I don't have to believe in a god to agree that if a god did exist he certainly would not be as incompetent as the god of christianity and judaism would be. Muslims has many non-theist arguments against Christianity and Judaism.
No, you specifically mentioned the primordial perfection of the religion. That isn't something that ought to be at all convincing to a non-religious person.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:16:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 10:07:50 AM
Wow, you haven't met very many religious people.
I know many extremely smart people who are religious. I find it rather odd, I must admit, since I don't really understand how that works, but there is no question that it does.
In my experience the smarter the religious person the more elaborate the cartwheels he/she has to perform to get around the problem of lack of evidence for and massive amounts of evidence against the existence of god. Basically smart believers have to work harder and smarter to get around their own cognitive dissonance, which is not too much of a problem, because they are smart ones capable of working harder and smarter.
I think they break down into two groups.
One group has really smart people who are still actively trying to reconcile. They tend to be younger. They jump through a lot of mental gyrations to make it work. This can actually be kind of funny to watch. Many will end up atheists eventually, unless the graduate to group 2.
Group 2 are typically older, more mature. They don't jump through any hoops or have any real active cognitive dissonance, because they simply dismiss the entire rational/reasoned basis for their religious beliefs, and don't really care about evaluating their beliefs in that manner. They accept that perhaps their belief in god is not rational, but have decided it does not need to be rational, because it isn't about that anyway. Whether or not the earth was created in 6 days or not, or whether the earth is 6000 years old is simply not interesting - it is even a bit silly to worry about, as the message of their religion is not about those things.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:17:03 AM
One of the central tennets of Christianity was that Jesus was a man as well as the son of God.
No, that is not true. Not all Christians believe that or hold that to be dogma. The schism on this issue is the one that created the catholic and the oriental churches.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:17:03 AM
That while on earth he was not a perfect, omnipotent being, but flawed as we all are.
And who ever said that the revelations failed?
Earth 1.0 - Created Eden - Reason for Failing: Eve liked fruit
Earth 2.0 - World full of wicket men - Resolution: kill everybody, except well ehh.. that guy Noah
Earth 3.0 - People unaware of Gods Law - Resolution: Make deal with Abraham; Greatest Moral Rule: Cuz I said so!
Earth 4.0 - Israelites in wrong country. - Resolution: Nature walk through desert followed by genocide. Special fun practical joke played on moses, hey you can see the promised land, but now you die.
Earth 5.0 - Wrong country in Israel. - Resolution: Change rules of the game, all sins forgiven for just asking nicely. Those sinned against and those roasting in hell for picking up a twig on a saturday feel unfairly treated.
Rules get changed each time. The strength and consistency of the muslim argument is that they claim that god didn't get it wrong (one wouldn't think that a all knowing omnipotent and omnipresent god would get things wrong) the humans got it wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:19:50 AM
You are parsing these words awfully closely.
I'm parsing them as closely as Dawkins would.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:21:12 AM
"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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 10:21:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:24:26 AM
Well his sincere atheism, sincere humanism and his sincere skepticism mean that he feels that it is his moral duty to wear the pasta strainer. How hard is that to understand? Niko Alm (the guy's name) is a long term atheist, humanist and skeptic activist. He has a facebook fan page where he is self described as an athlete. This is the concluding part of a three year campaign to be allowed to wear the strainer.
His beliefs inspired the stunt, but they don't specifically require him to wear a strainer. It's a parody.
Oh, are you calling him a liar? Cause that is what he says.
I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that
QuoteI can, at one and the same time, reject every metaphysical notion of Pastafarianism *and* support allowing Pastafarians to self-identify as Pastafarians. What's so difficult about understanding that?
I also am going to allow Pastafarians to define their own religion, like you insist that Jews and Christians get to do. You did that when I quoted bible and verse against this or the other christian dogma in many of our previous religion fight threads.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 10:21:38 AM
QuoteYou know that the metaphysical claims of Sikhism are non-true. If you thought they were true you would be a Sikh.
What I am trying to say is that both Sikhism and Pastafarianism use untrue claims about the nature of the universe to justify wearing silly head-dress on drivers license photos. I'm baffled why you don't seem to realize that. It seems that just because the Sikh believes that god told him to wear a turban his irrational belief has to be validated by society.
Well, first, your facts are not correct. God did not tell Sikhs to wear a turban. Sikhs wear a turban because one of their historical leaders commanded them to identify themselves as Sikhs by doing so. They do not use any particular metaphysical claims to support the requirement.
I can, at one and the same time, reject every metaphysical notion of Sikhism *and* support allowing Sikhs to self-identify as Sikhs. What's so difficult about understanding that?
Well, the FSM didn't tell him to wear a pasta strainer. Guru Niko Alm told himself to wear a pasta strainer. He did not use any particular metaphysical claim to support the requirement. He actually sited a 2009 peer reviewed paper which demonstrated that pasta strainers are just as effective as tin-foil hats at keeping out alien mind control signals.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 10:21:38 AM
QuoteWhy is that? Thinking that if there was such a thing as the creator of the earth that knows everything he would not take a wife, father a son, try and fail with new revelations each for Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus. I don't have to believe in a god to agree that if a god did exist he certainly would not be as incompetent as the god of christianity and judaism would be. Muslims has many non-theist arguments against Christianity and Judaism.
No, you specifically mentioned the primordial perfection of the religion. That isn't something that ought to be at all convincing to a non-religious person.
If you say you got 21 when rolling 2d6. I can counter that argument either by saying you can't get 21 with a 2d6 when I really hold the view that there are no such things as dice at all. That is what I am doing here, I'm granting both the muslim and the christian the point that god exists and merely pointing out that if god did exist he certainly would not resemble the christian god in any way whatsoever.
Earth 2.0 and 3.0 is my favourite god. vengful and cruel. not this earth 5.0 hippy god.
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
Earth 2.0 and 3.0 is my favourite god. vengful and cruel. not this earth 5.0 hippy god.
Watching martinus get stoned might be fun....
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:50:25 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
Earth 2.0 and 3.0 is my favourite god. vengful and cruel. not this earth 5.0 hippy god.
Watching martinus get stoned might be fun....
that's manmade punish through the laws of god. pillar of salt and barage of brimestone. Now that's a godly smiting worthy of a book.
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2011, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:50:25 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
Earth 2.0 and 3.0 is my favourite god. vengful and cruel. not this earth 5.0 hippy god.
Watching martinus get stoned might be fun....
that's manmade punish through the laws of god. pillar of salt and barage of brimestone. Now that's a godly smiting worthy of a book.
Dunno about that, but if I visit I expect Martinus to buy the weed if we are going to get stoned. I'll buy the munchies.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:46:15 AM
Oh, are you calling him a liar? Cause that is what he says.
I have no idea what he says. I can see a parody for what it is, though.
QuoteI'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that
QuoteI can, at one and the same time, reject every metaphysical notion of Pastafarianism *and* support allowing Pastafarians to self-identify as Pastafarians. What's so difficult about understanding that?
I also am going to allow Pastafarians to define their own religion, like you insist that Jews and Christians get to do. You did that when I quoted bible and verse against this or the other christian dogma in many of our previous religion fight threads.
The guy is welcome to it. I'm simply saying what is obvious to everyone: he's doing it as a deliberate parody.
For all I care he can wear a giant diaper down the street and say he's doing it for world peace or whatever.
I reserve the right to laugh at
him (and not as Sikhs). Freedom of expression isn't freedom to not be taken as a fool or attention whore.
Quote
Well, the FSM didn't tell him to wear a pasta strainer. Guru Niko Alm told himself to wear a pasta strainer. He did not use any particular metaphysical claim to support the requirement. He actually sited a 2009 peer reviewed paper which demonstrated that pasta strainers are just as effective as tin-foil hats at keeping out alien mind control signals.
And, once again, I reserve the right to find this dumb and unfunny. Sikhs, in contrast, do not appear dumb, and they aren't trying to be funny.
QuoteIf you say you got 21 when rolling 2d6. I can counter that argument either by saying you can't get 21 with a 2d6 when I really hold the view that there are no such things as dice at all. That is what I am doing here, I'm granting both the muslim and the christian the point that god exists and merely pointing out that if god did exist he certainly would not resemble the christian god in any way whatsoever.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If a god did exist, why couldn't it resemble the Christian god?
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
Earth 2.0 and 3.0 is my favourite god. vengful and cruel. not this earth 5.0 hippy god.
:weep:
Open your heart to love HVC :hug:
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:47:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 09:35:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 06:44:21 AM
QuoteIt is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Volume 57, Number 1
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
I've never heard the local priest say that Jews were evil (as a Catholic I don't see pastors). But it's nice that Viking doesn't have to call me a liar now.
Dickwad, you used quotation marks quoting the man as saying religion is evil. You fail at grammar again. Religion is evil =/= Faith is an evil. This is willful misrepresentation.
I dunno Viking - seems to me that when Dawkins says religion is evil, that's pretty much the same thing as saying faith is evil. You can try and argue otherwise, but I'm doubtful. And that's a far ways from being "willful misrepresentation".
evil =/= an evil
Raz is claiming that Dawkins thinks that Religion is metaphysical evil. Dawkins doesn't accept that metaphysical evil exists. Lets not get stuck in the issue that faith is not religion (another theist cop-out). Dawkins uses evil meaning a natural phenomena with bad consequences, he even compares it to Smallpox.
Uh, this is really bizarre viking. I never said anything abut metaphysics. I was using term "evil" as something that is bad. Faith is a synonym of religion.http://thesaurus.com/browse/faith Your reaction, is really really strange.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:33:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:19:50 AM
You are parsing these words awfully closely.
I'm parsing them as closely as Dawkins would.
Well, Dawkins is a well known dick.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:50:25 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
Earth 2.0 and 3.0 is my favourite god. vengful and cruel. not this earth 5.0 hippy god.
Watching martinus get stoned might be fun....
He's bad enough as it is.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:32:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:17:03 AM
One of the central tennets of Christianity was that Jesus was a man as well as the son of God.
No, that is not true. Not all Christians believe that or hold that to be dogma. The schism on this issue is the one that created the catholic and the oriental churches.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:17:03 AM
That while on earth he was not a perfect, omnipotent being, but flawed as we all are.
And who ever said that the revelations failed?
Earth 1.0 - Created Eden - Reason for Failing: Eve liked fruit
Earth 2.0 - World full of wicket men - Resolution: kill everybody, except well ehh.. that guy Noah
Earth 3.0 - People unaware of Gods Law - Resolution: Make deal with Abraham; Greatest Moral Rule: Cuz I said so!
Earth 4.0 - Israelites in wrong country. - Resolution: Nature walk through desert followed by genocide. Special fun practical joke played on moses, hey you can see the promised land, but now you die.
Earth 5.0 - Wrong country in Israel. - Resolution: Change rules of the game, all sins forgiven for just asking nicely. Those sinned against and those roasting in hell for picking up a twig on a saturday feel unfairly treated.
Rules get changed each time. The strength and consistency of the muslim argument is that they claim that god didn't get it wrong (one wouldn't think that a all knowing omnipotent and omnipresent god would get things wrong) the humans got it wrong.
First - fair point.
Changing rules? Funny, as a liberal protestant *I* have always argued that it wasn't that God has changed, but that how we as flawed humans have understood God that has changed. It certainly isn't an exclusively Muslim point of view.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:35:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:21:12 AM
"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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
Earth 2.0 and 3.0 is my favourite god. vengful and cruel. not this earth 5.0 hippy god.
:weep:
Open your heart to love HVC :hug:
Love is fickle. Hate is forever :contract: :D
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:16:44 AM
In my experience the smarter the religious person the more elaborate the cartwheels he/she has to perform to get around the problem of lack of evidence for and massive amounts of evidence against the existence of god. Basically smart believers have to work harder and smarter to get around their own cognitive dissonance, which is not too much of a problem, because they are smart ones capable of working harder and smarter.
Are the only religious people you meet literalist fundamentalists?
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
Earth 2.0 and 3.0 is my favourite god. vengful and cruel. not this earth 5.0 hippy god.
:weep:
Open your heart to love HVC :hug:
Church services in a pussy church is boring. Give me that old time gay bashing religion.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 14, 2011, 11:27:59 AM
Church services in a pussy church is boring. Give me that old time gay bashing religion.
I will hold you in my heart this Sunday Mr. Anger. :goodboy:
Awesome avatar btw :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 10:58:28 AM
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
Quote
"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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 11:30:25 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 14, 2011, 11:27:59 AM
Church services in a pussy church is boring. Give me that old time gay bashing religion.
I will hold you in my heart this Sunday Mr. Anger. :goodboy:
Please don't do that. I'd rather you pray that I get a threesome this weekend.
QuoteAwesome avatar btw :lol:
:)
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 14, 2011, 11:32:00 AM
Please don't do that. I'd rather you pray that I get a threesome this weekend.
Done!
More likely: triplets.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:16:44 AM
In my experience the smarter the religious person the more elaborate the cartwheels he/she has to perform to get around the problem of lack of evidence for and massive amounts of evidence against the existence of god. Basically smart believers have to work harder and smarter to get around their own cognitive dissonance, which is not too much of a problem, because they are smart ones capable of working harder and smarter.
Are the only religious people you meet literalist fundamentalists?
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:35:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:21:12 AM
"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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 05:04:41 PM
:unsure:
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:35:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:21:12 AM
"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."
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:36:54 AM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 11:32:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 14, 2011, 11:32:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 10:35:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 10:21:12 AM
"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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 14, 2011, 11:27:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 11:46:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:36:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
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?
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 11:46:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:36:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 11:52:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 11:54:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
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.
You don't have to believe my smegma to experience it.
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:01:56 PM
Love and Happiness can be measures using FMRI, Spiritness cannot.
Yeah blatantly false. Meditation and prayer and so forth do show up on FMRI.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:01:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:01:56 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:01:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 11:52:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:02:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
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 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.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:08:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:09:45 PM
Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.
Then why didn't the hatred for America do it for you? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:10:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:01:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:10:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:02:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:05:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 12:08:28 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:10:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:02:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:13:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:08:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:19:54 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:10:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:02:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
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.
Wouldn't a non-religious conscientous objector simply be a coward?
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:14:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:09:45 PM
Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.
Then why didn't the hatred for America do it for you? :hmm:
Because I don't vote NDP.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:18:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 12:08:28 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 12:17:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:01:56 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet).
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 11:31:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 10:58:28 AM
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
Quote
"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:
QuoteYou 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. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2011, 12:23:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:18:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:23:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:14:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:09:45 PM
Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.
Then why didn't the hatred for America do it for you? :hmm:
Because I don't vote NDP.
Neither do Religious people.
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:23:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:23:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:14:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:09:45 PM
Hatred is what makes a church worthwhile.
Then why didn't the hatred for America do it for you? :hmm:
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 :P
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:23:25 PM
Wouldn't a non-religious conscientous objector simply be a coward?
With the severely retarded how can you tell anyway?
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:18:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:19:54 PM
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?
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:30:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:23:25 PM
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. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 12:25:22 PM
QuoteYou 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. :hmm:
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?
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:35:44 PM
So Not all religions are equal? How can there be freedom of religion in that case?
The same way you can have "freedom of expression" even though all expressions aren't equal.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:33:25 PM
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.
I was under the impression that the whole point of your profession was to make the conclusion about guilty / not guilty or liable / not liable etc. It's just that the art of lawyery is that sometimes 51% proof is sufficient to decide in some cases (idealized civil cases) and sometimes 99,999999999...% proof is sufficients in others (idealized criminal cases).
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:30:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:23:25 PM
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. ;)
Snarky obfuscation, you are better than this malthus.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:35:44 PM
So Not all religions are equal? How can there be freedom of religion in that case?
The same way you can have "freedom of expression" even though all expressions aren't equal.
No, all expressions are equal, they are just not all equally true or useful or offensive.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:24:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 12:17:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:01:56 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet).
How is what you said any different from my post? The only difference between you and BB is that you demand a higher degree of proof before you believe in something.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:40:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:30:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 12:23:25 PM
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. ;)
Snarky obfuscation, you are better than this malthus.
What am I "obfusticating"?
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:35:44 PM
So Not all religions are equal? How can there be freedom of religion in that case?
The same way you can have "freedom of expression" even though all expressions aren't equal.
No, all expressions are equal, they are just not all equally true or useful or offensive.
Huh? In what way are they "equal"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:24:12 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet).
How is what you said any different from my post? The only difference between you and BB is that you demand a higher degree of proof before you believe in something.
It is different in the sense that all spiritual experiences can better be explained by materialistic causes. Every effect claimed by spirits, ghosts, gods and angels can be explained by materialistic explanations.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:39:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 12:33:25 PM
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.
I was under the impression that the whole point of your profession was to make the conclusion about guilty / not guilty or liable / not liable etc. It's just that the art of lawyery is that sometimes 51% proof is sufficient to decide in some cases (idealized civil cases) and sometimes 99,999999999...% proof is sufficients in others (idealized criminal cases).
If you want to get technical, a judge will say that 'on a balance of probabilities / proof beyond a reasonable doubt test i believe that X happened' We make conclusions and make findings of fact - but any honest judge or lawyer that we are not doing so with absolute certainty.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:47:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:24:12 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet).
How is what you said any different from my post? The only difference between you and BB is that you demand a higher degree of proof before you believe in something.
It is different in the sense that all spiritual experiences can better be explained by materialistic causes. Every effect claimed by spirits, ghosts, gods and angels can be explained by materialistic explanations.
You sniped my post so in context your post doesn make much sense. You can assert that view but really it just boils down to the fact that you require a level of proof that is impossible for a person of faith to produce.
So has Vikings lost his mind here? :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 01:08:01 PM
So has Vikings lost his mind here? :unsure:
Aren't you the expert on that topic? :unsure:
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 12:35:44 PM
So Not all religions are equal? How can there be freedom of religion in that case?
Freedom =/= equality.
Ta-da!
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 12:58:02 PM
You sniped my post so in context your post doesn make much sense. You can assert that view but really it just boils down to the fact that you require a level of proof that is impossible for a person of faith to produce.
On the contrary. I will always accept the most parsimonious theory which explains all the facts, is contradicted by none, makes predictions and can be disproven.
The reason you claim I have an impossible level of proof is because I require some and you have none.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 01:08:01 PM
So has Vikings lost his mind here? :unsure:
Well, to be fair, he's getting dogpiled pretty hard.
His frothing amuses me. :)
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 01:23:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 01:08:01 PM
So has Vikings lost his mind here? :unsure:
Well, to be fair, he's getting dogpiled pretty hard.
It's annoying trying to keep track of 6 or 7 different arguments in my head at the same time.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 01:30:52 PMIt's annoying trying to keep track of 6 or 7 different arguments in my head at the same time.
... and it probably gets even more confusing when you have to keep track of the ones you're having on languish too.
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2011, 01:37:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 01:30:52 PMIt's annoying trying to keep track of 6 or 7 different arguments in my head at the same time.
... and it probably gets even more confusing when you have to keep track of the ones you're having on languish too.
good point, that too...
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:24:26 AM
Well his sincere atheism, sincere humanism and his sincere skepticism mean that he feels that it is his moral duty to wear the pasta strainer.
Take a breather for a moment, then say this sentence aloud.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2011, 01:56:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:24:26 AM
Well his sincere atheism, sincere humanism and his sincere skepticism mean that he feels that it is his moral duty to wear the pasta strainer.
Take a breather for a moment, then say this sentence aloud.
:lol:
That really is pretty funny, isn't it?
And really, on the basics, I agree with viking...
And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?
Because in religioland it's less ridiculous if you actually believe the BS. No I don't get it either.
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?
Flagellation and speaking in tongues are generally some pretty oddball beliefs though.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 01:17:17 PM
The reason you claim I have an impossible level of proof is because I require some and you have none.
Boy have you misread my posts.
You have a different level of proof for things you will believe. That is fine. A person who believes in God necessarily does not require that level of proof because it would be impossible to obtain that proof. But that is also fine for them.
To say that I have no proof entirely misses the point since am an not advocating the theist position.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2011, 01:56:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 09:24:26 AM
Well his sincere atheism, sincere humanism and his sincere skepticism mean that he feels that it is his moral duty to wear the pasta strainer.
Take a breather for a moment, then say this sentence aloud.
Take this sentence out of context, then say this sentence aloud.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?
Flagellation and speaking in tongues are generally some pretty oddball beliefs though.
If they were dressed in SS uniforms at the time, Slargy would be okay with it. :D
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 02:23:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?
Flagellation and speaking in tongues are generally some pretty oddball beliefs though.
If they were dressed in SS uniforms at the time, Slargy would be okay with it. :D
If they had big breasts Cal would be ok with it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 02:23:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?
Flagellation and speaking in tongues are generally some pretty oddball beliefs though.
If they were dressed in SS uniforms at the time, Slargy would be okay with it. :D
If they had big breasts Cal would be ok with it.
If they were oriental and tied up in a basement, CdM would be okay with it.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 02:27:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 02:23:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?
Flagellation and speaking in tongues are generally some pretty oddball beliefs though.
If they were dressed in SS uniforms at the time, Slargy would be okay with it. :D
If they had big breasts Cal would be ok with it.
If they were oriental and tied up in a basement, CdM would be okay with it.
And if they posted about it on languish and were entertaining about it, the rest of us would be okay with it.
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2011, 03:08:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 02:27:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 02:23:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 14, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?
Flagellation and speaking in tongues are generally some pretty oddball beliefs though.
If they were dressed in SS uniforms at the time, Slargy would be okay with it. :D
If they had big breasts Cal would be ok with it.
If they were oriental and tied up in a basement, CdM would be okay with it.
And if they posted about it on languish and were entertaining about it, the rest of us would be okay with it.
What big breasted orient chicks in SS uniforms with collinders on their head locked up in seedy's basement whipping themselves and speaking in toungs?
I googled looking for a relevant picture, but, obviously I didn't find anything.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 03:15:00 PM
What big breasted orient chicks in SS uniforms with collinders on their head locked up in seedy's basement whipping themselves and speaking in tongues?
I am ok with it.
Quote from: Viking on July 14, 2011, 03:15:00 PM
I googled looking for a relevant picture, but, obviously I didn't find anything.
An untapped market. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2011, 11:39:03 AM
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.
That is a matter of opinion and my opinion is quite different. Law as it applies to any human society by its nature involves applying objective rules to subjective conditions. Thus, law is always vulnerable to attack that it is not being applied properly to a particular case (i.e. subjective condition). Ideally, common sense provides the connection to bridge the gap between the inflexible command of formal legal rules and the infinite variety of experience. But where common sense breaks down (or where the rare truly "hard case" arises), the courts or legislators or administrators must step in, and the result is yet more rules and more law. And that unfortunately explains why the US now drowns in an ocean of law and rules. Because even if 99.9% of people act with basic common sense, that still leaves hundreds of thousands of jackasses to screw things up.
This is a good example (Austrian geography aside). In an ideal world, there would no need to have rules about driver's license pictures. People would use their common sense about what to wear, and the DMV employees would use their common sense about what to permit. But that breaks down because sooner or later some ass insists that they must take their license photo with a hockey mask on, or knight's helmet, or in full Klingon makeup. So then the law steps in with an objective rule - no headgear. But as is often the case with simple rule, the impact of the rule does not fit precisely with its purpose, and as applied to social reality, in some way exceeds it. The purpose is to prevent having to squabble with people who want to do things that have the effect of concealing appearance. But as written it also sweeps in conduct beyond that intention. In particular, for those people with religious beliefs that require them to wear certain headgear, it forces those people to make a choice between violating a core belief that is fudamental to their identity (and harms no one) and getting access to a basic civic right like a license to drive a vehicle. That involves forcing a very painful choice on thousands, perhaps millions of fellow citizens. So in a society that places value and respect on human freedom and autonomy, it is not surprising the the next move would be to create a simple exemption to the basic rule, that exempts those who wear headgear for religious reasons (provided the headgear does not obscure the face, etc).
But now again the nature of legal rules presents a problem - how to define "religion". If it is defined with respect to specific faiths, it is likely to unfairly exclude certain obscure faiths that fail to be enumerated or new ones that may arise later. So again the matter is effectively left to common sense - "we know it when we see it." But as before, that reliance on common sense application is a potential weakness given the presence of the 0.1% jackass minority. Exhibit A - pasta strainer head man.
So for my 2c, obnoxious schmuck does not perform any useful function at all. He doesn't "point[] out absurdities in the law", both because the law at issue is not absurd and because the flaw that he exploits is one inherent in the very nature of law itself. Rather, he is a prime example of the kind of obnoxious schmuck that forces society to expend resources or add more layers of regulation in response to his juvenile ploy for attention, a ploy motivated at its core not by any reasoned argument of principle, but by disrespect and mockery of fellow citizens.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 10:04:07 AMa ploy motivated at its core not by any reasoned argument of principle, but by disrespect and mockery of fellow citizens.
While one could easily agree to a large part of what you wrote previously (I'll disregard a what I disagree with for argument's sake), the political process is not simply about "reasoned argument of principle", because those have only limited forums, and limited reach. It is about tying together often simplistic issues, material goods, singular cases to larger ideals - however much you feel those are misguided - because, at heart, politics takes place outside of courts, or of polite salons circles, or even out of houses of representatives. Sometimes it works - and then an issue takes political momentum; sometimes it doesn't - and then one is branded an obnoxious schmuck. But I feel it is rather unfair to persistently lament the fact that politics - like law - doesn't involve nice people disagreeing politely about the finer points of principles while sipping tea.
Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.
Quote from: Viking on July 15, 2011, 11:18:17 AM
Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.
Imho he is worse than being a dick. Human Rights issues were once considered important and valuable. But they have been taken to an extreme by cases like this so now the importance of human rights cases are viewed as allowing some jackass to make up a religion and wear a pasta strainer on his head. There is no contention that this is a real religious belief. The whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.
I see no value in this stunt but I do see harm.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 15, 2011, 11:17:45 AM
. But I feel it is rather unfair to persistently lament the fact that politics - like law - doesn't involve nice people disagreeing politely about the finer points of principles while sipping tea.
Protest and angry words have their place. This is neither.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 15, 2011, 11:17:45 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 10:04:07 AMa ploy motivated at its core not by any reasoned argument of principle, but by disrespect and mockery of fellow citizens.
While one could easily agree to a large part of what you wrote previously (I'll disregard a what I disagree with for argument's sake), the political process is not simply about "reasoned argument of principle", because those have only limited forums, and limited reach. It is about tying together often simplistic issues, material goods, singular cases to larger ideals - however much you feel those are misguided - because, at heart, politics takes place outside of courts, or of polite salons circles, or even out of houses of representatives. Sometimes it works - and then an issue takes political momentum; sometimes it doesn't - and then one is branded an obnoxious schmuck. But I feel it is rather unfair to persistently lament the fact that politics - like law - doesn't involve nice people disagreeing politely about the finer points of principles while sipping tea.
I agree. And to the extent the point being made by this protestor is in any way coherent it ought to be rejected.
Quote from: Viking on July 15, 2011, 11:18:17 AM
Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.
Are women being allowed to use face veils on photos? The only case I am aware of in the States denied this. Perhaps Austria differs. But if preventing that outcome really was his objective, he actually moved the ball backwards.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 10:04:07 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2011, 11:39:03 AM
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.
That is a matter of opinion and my opinion is quite different. Law as it applies to any human society by its nature involves applying objective rules to subjective conditions. Thus, law is always vulnerable to attack that it is not being applied properly to a particular case (i.e. subjective condition). Ideally, common sense provides the connection to bridge the gap between the inflexible command of formal legal rules and the infinite variety of experience. But where common sense breaks down (or where the rare truly "hard case" arises), the courts or legislators or administrators must step in, and the result is yet more rules and more law. And that unfortunately explains why the US now drowns in an ocean of law and rules. Because even if 99.9% of people act with basic common sense, that still leaves hundreds of thousands of jackasses to screw things up.
This is a good example (Austrian geography aside). In an ideal world, there would no need to have rules about driver's license pictures. People would use their common sense about what to wear, and the DMV employees would use their common sense about what to permit. But that breaks down because sooner or later some ass insists that they must take their license photo with a hockey mask on, or knight's helmet, or in full Klingon makeup. So then the law steps in with an objective rule - no headgear. But as is often the case with simple rule, the impact of the rule does not fit precisely with its purpose, and as applied to social reality, in some way exceeds it. The purpose is to prevent having to squabble with people who want to do things that have the effect of concealing appearance. But as written it also sweeps in conduct beyond that intention. In particular, for those people with religious beliefs that require them to wear certain headgear, it forces those people to make a choice between violating a core belief that is fudamental to their identity (and harms no one) and getting access to a basic civic right like a license to drive a vehicle. That involves forcing a very painful choice on thousands, perhaps millions of fellow citizens. So in a society that places value and respect on human freedom and autonomy, it is not surprising the the next move would be to create a simple exemption to the basic rule, that exempts those who wear headgear for religious reasons (provided the headgear does not obscure the face, etc).
But now again the nature of legal rules presents a problem - how to define "religion". If it is defined with respect to specific faiths, it is likely to unfairly exclude certain obscure faiths that fail to be enumerated or new ones that may arise later. So again the matter is effectively left to common sense - "we know it when we see it." But as before, that reliance on common sense application is a potential weakness given the presence of the 0.1% jackass minority. Exhibit A - pasta strainer head man.
So for my 2c, obnoxious schmuck does not perform any useful function at all. He doesn't "point[] out absurdities in the law", both because the law at issue is not absurd and because the flaw that he exploits is one inherent in the very nature of law itself. Rather, he is a prime example of the kind of obnoxious schmuck that forces society to expend resources or add more layers of regulation in response to his juvenile ploy for attention, a ploy motivated at its core not by any reasoned argument of principle, but by disrespect and mockery of fellow citizens.
We need persons that extremely thin-skinned people will call jackasses to point out that the emperor has no clothes. The state made a law/rule that was unnecessary ("no headgear"). This in itself is pretty retarded. But not being content with this it also said that there will be special rules for people of certain religions.
Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:40:23 AM
Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.
Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law. If so I find that very surprising.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:40:23 AM
Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.
Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law. If so I find that very surprising.
I haven't mentioned Swedish law AFAIK.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:40:23 AM
that extremely thin-skinned people will call jackasses to point out that the emperor has no clothes. The state made a law/rule that was unnecessary ("no headgear"). This in itself is pretty retarded. But not being content with this it also said that there will be special rules for people of certain religions.
If you had read my post, you would understand that very result you call "retarded" is the consequnces of what "extremely thin-skinned people will call jackasses"
Though as far as i can tell, the only people with extreme thin skins around here are the ones mortally offended by the notion that some other person they don't know has a "silly" belief system and that get driven to hysterics at the thought that one group of people get to where a hat in photo while they don't
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:40:23 AM
Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.
Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law. If so I find that very surprising.
I haven't mentioned Swedish law AFAIK.
You seemed to suggest that the only society that had "special" laws dealing with religious beliefs was nazi Germany. I find that observation very surprising given the fact that every jurisdiction I know of has laws requiring the reasonable accomodation of religious beliefs but I am not entirely familiar with the Swedish system and so I wondered whether your observation was based on the fact that Sweden lacks this concept.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:40:23 AM
Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.
IIRC correctly, the problem in Nazi Germany did not relate to that regime's punctilious respect for the rights of religious minorities to practice their faiths with minimal governmental interference. But please educate me if I am mistaken.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:40:23 AM
Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.
Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law. If so I find that very surprising.
I haven't mentioned Swedish law AFAIK.
You seemed to suggest that the only society that had "special" laws dealing with religious beliefs was nazi Germany. I find that observation very surprising given the fact that every jurisdiction I know of has laws requiring the reasonable accomodation of religious beliefs but I am not entirely familiar with the Swedish system and so I wondered whether your observation was based on the fact that Sweden lacks this concept.
It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:48:50 AM
It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.
I was simply pointing out that your jab made no sense in the context of this thread.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:48:50 AM
It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.
I hadn't seen Siege in this thread. :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:51:39 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:48:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:40:23 AM
Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.
Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law. If so I find that very surprising.
I haven't mentioned Swedish law AFAIK.
You seemed to suggest that the only society that had "special" laws dealing with religious beliefs was nazi Germany. I find that observation very surprising given the fact that every jurisdiction I know of has laws requiring the reasonable accomodation of religious beliefs but I am not entirely familiar with the Swedish system and so I wondered whether your observation was based on the fact that Sweden lacks this concept.
It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.
Yes, and I was simply pointing out that your jab made no sense in the context of this thread.
*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 11:53:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:48:50 AM
It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.
I hadn't seen Siege in this thread. :unsure:
More's the pity. Siege rules. :(
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:54:19 AM
*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.
Feel free to suggest the wording of a law of general application that prevents the mischief this law was designed to prevent. Remember to ensure the wording of your law does not impinge in any way on religious practices so that there is no need for, as you put it, special rules to accomodate those beliefs. It is after all apparently an easy thing to do. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 12:00:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:54:19 AM
*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.
Feel free to suggest the wording of a law of general application that prevents the mischief this law was designed to prevent. Remember to ensure the wording of your law does not impinge in any way on religious practices so that there is no need for, as you put it, special rules to accomodate those beliefs. It is after all apparently an easy thing to do. :P
Why would it have to avoid impinging in any way on religious practices?
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 12:02:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 12:00:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:54:19 AM
*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.
Feel free to suggest the wording of a law of general application that prevents the mischief this law was designed to prevent. Remember to ensure the wording of your law does not impinge in any way on religious practices so that there is no need for, as you put it, special rules to accomodate those beliefs. It is after all apparently an easy thing to do. :P
Why would it have to avoid impinging in any way on religious practices?
Because of the legal obligation to reasonably accomodate them. I guess I have to ask you again - do you not have this concept in Sweden? More to the point, if all you are saying is that your solution is to ignore that obligation then it isnt really a solution is it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 11:39:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 15, 2011, 11:18:17 AM
Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.
Are women being allowed to use face veils on photos? The only case I am aware of in the States denied this. Perhaps Austria differs. But if preventing that outcome really was his objective, he actually moved the ball backwards.
This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...
The thin-skinned schmucks are not the ones pointing out how fucked up it is that you have two different standards depending on whether you still believe in Santa or not. They are the ones asking for them in the first place.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 12:02:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 12:00:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 11:54:19 AM
*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.
Feel free to suggest the wording of a law of general application that prevents the mischief this law was designed to prevent. Remember to ensure the wording of your law does not impinge in any way on religious practices so that there is no need for, as you put it, special rules to accomodate those beliefs. It is after all apparently an easy thing to do. :P
Why would it have to avoid impinging in any way on religious practices?
Because of the legal obligation to reasonably accomodate them. I guess I have to ask you again - do you not have this concept in Sweden? More to the point, if all you are saying is that your solution is to ignore that obligation then it isnt really a solution is it.
I'll try to walk you through it.
If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".
if, for example, a non-jew can appeal to wear a yarmulke for the simple reason that he wants to wear a yarmulke (dirty lawyer??) in his id picture, and be allowed it, then i don't see how it is an issue that this guy cannot wear a pasta strainer through equally disingenuous means. it may raise the question, "where does it stop," but wasn't that box opened when yarmulkes were allowed to be worn for the photos in the first place?
Isn't a Yarmulke like a tiny thing on the back on your head? Isn't that like caring what kind of shoes one is wearing in an ID photo? I mean you cannot see the Yarmulke right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loonwatch.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F12%2Fclinton_yarmulke.jpg&hash=f02c23aaf4f18f374a5127a56c29d7a7a6886984)
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2011, 12:49:43 PM
Isn't a Yarmulke like a tiny thing on the back on your head? Isn't that like caring what kind of shoes one is wearing in an ID photo? I mean you cannot see the Yarmulke right?
As I have said the headgear ban is unnecessary. Which of course is why there are religious exceptions at all.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2011, 12:49:43 PM
Isn't a Yarmulke like a tiny thing on the back on your head? Isn't that like caring what kind of shoes one is wearing in an ID photo? I mean you cannot see the Yarmulke right?
yarmulke = only an example. insert any religious gear that might interfere with identifying a person. what if someone used a really small pasta strainer?
Quote from: LaCroix on July 15, 2011, 12:53:55 PM
yarmulke = only an example. insert any religious gear that might interfere with identifying a person. what if someone used a really small pasta strainer?
So you used something that does not cover up the face or can be seen from the front at all as an example of something that might interfere with identifying a person? If a muslim woman wants to wear a head scarf that cannot be seen in an ID photo then...well how would it be relevent at all?
i threw in an example of religious apparel allowed in photo ids to get at the general idea. if you cannot understand my point and instead stick to the semantics of attacking the throw-away example, then that is not my fault
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 12:16:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 11:39:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 15, 2011, 11:18:17 AM
Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.
Are women being allowed to use face veils on photos? The only case I am aware of in the States denied this. Perhaps Austria differs. But if preventing that outcome really was his objective, he actually moved the ball backwards.
This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...
The thin-skinned schmucks are not the ones pointing out how fucked up it is that you have two different standards depending on whether you still believe in Santa or not. They are the ones asking for them in the first place.
Ok, so you are saying that only one belief system is acceptable in society and anyone who deviates from that one acceptable system of belief should always have to conform to the majority belief system whenever their beliefs conflict with that of the majority even if there could be a reasonable accomodation of those beliefs. Is that really what you are saying? If not please explain further.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 12:16:36 PM
I'll try to walk you through it.
If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".
Ok, excellent start. Now draft such a rule. You said it would be easy. Go for it.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 15, 2011, 01:02:00 PM
i threw in an example of religious apparel allowed in photo ids to get at the general idea. if you cannot understand my point and instead stick to the semantics of attacking the throw-away example, then that is not my fault
I did not understand why you chose that example I was not attacking you for semantics or read your mind as a throw-away example. This is because a Yarmulke strikes me as an example of something that CAN be worn in a photo ID. Why would that be a slippery slope?
I also do not recall saying anything was 'your fault' or blamed you for anything. I just did not understand because of the example you used. But feel free to take that as an attack.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:09:12 PMOk, so you are saying that only one belief system is acceptable in society and anyone who deviates from that one acceptable system of belief should always have to conform to the majority belief system whenever their beliefs conflict with that of the majority even if there could be a reasonable accomodation of those beliefs. Is that really what you are saying? If not please explain further.
Quote from: crazy canuckThe whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.
:hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2011, 01:13:54 PMI did not understand why you chose that example I was not attacking you for semantics or read your mind as a throw-away example. This is because a Yarmulke strikes me as an example of something that CAN be worn in a photo ID. Why would that be a slippery slope?
I also do not recall saying anything was 'your fault' or blamed you for anything. I just did not understand because of the example you used. But feel free to take that as an attack.
ah, but then wouldn't my response- "what if someone used a really small pasta strainer" clarify the confusion? neither the yarmulke or this really small pasta strainer would then obstruct identifying the person in the picture
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 12:16:36 PM
I'll try to walk you through it.
If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".
Ok, excellent start. Now draft such a rule. You said it would be easy. Go for it.
You are not allowed to wear anything during a photo id which in any way obstructs the full view of the face and head.
or
You are not allowed to wear anything on the head during the photo which would make identification more difficult.
if you want something less restrictive.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 12:16:06 PM
This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...
So judgment calls have to made that balance the individual interest in practicing their faith vs. the societal interest at stake.
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2011, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 12:16:36 PM
I'll try to walk you through it.
If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".
Ok, excellent start. Now draft such a rule. You said it would be easy. Go for it.
You are not allowed to wear anything during a photo id which in any way obstructs the full view of the face and head.
or
You are not allowed to wear anything on the head during the photo which would make identification more difficult.
if you want something less restrictive.
All you have really done there is add subjectivity into an objective test. You have simply changed the fight from one of accomodation alone to one of accomodation and a fight over whether a particular garment/hat falls within the law.
From a business development point of vew I wish more drafters were like you. Lots of room for litigation with those sorts of legal tests.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 15, 2011, 01:14:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:09:12 PMOk, so you are saying that only one belief system is acceptable in society and anyone who deviates from that one acceptable system of belief should always have to conform to the majority belief system whenever their beliefs conflict with that of the majority even if there could be a reasonable accomodation of those beliefs. Is that really what you are saying? If not please explain further.
Quote from: crazy canuckThe whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.
:hmm:
:hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:09:12 PM
Ok, so you are saying that only one belief system is acceptable in society and anyone who deviates from that one acceptable system of belief should always have to conform to the majority belief system whenever their beliefs conflict with that of the majority even if there could be a reasonable accomodation of those beliefs. Is that really what you are saying? If not please explain further.
Lack of a belief is NOT a belief in itself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 01:39:04 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 12:16:06 PM
This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...
So judgment calls have to made that balance the individual interest in practicing their faith vs. the societal interest at stake.
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:43:54 PM:hmm:
:D
aren't you denying a
belief system (stretching this a bit) in this case by attacking this "pastafarian" protest through the argument that accommodations should be made for one group but not another?
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 12:16:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 11:39:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 15, 2011, 11:18:17 AM
Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.
Are women being allowed to use face veils on photos? The only case I am aware of in the States denied this. Perhaps Austria differs. But if preventing that outcome really was his objective, he actually moved the ball backwards.
This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...
The thin-skinned schmucks are not the ones pointing out how fucked up it is that you have two different standards depending on whether you still believe in Santa or not. They are the ones asking for them in the first place.
Calls for something aren't the same as something being granted.
I could care less if someone is asking for all swimming pools to be segregated. I'm only interested in what we are actually doing to accomodate.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
That is shocking because equality is only one of the modern political virtues. The other is freedom. Of which freedom to exercise one's relgious beliefs is a core value for most democracries.
The law that says all children must say the pledge of allegiance is formally objective and neutral; formally, it treats everyone equally. But in real life, people are not all identical and equally situated to start. There are those for whom saying the pledge violates their religious beliefs; others their consciences. The law formally treats them equally to others who do not have any such qualms but its impact is not equal: those who approve can comply without concern; others are forced to choose between compliance and violating their consciences. A society that values freedom as well as equality at a minimum requires that if such a law is to be permitted, it must exempt those who conscientiously object. Even if that opens a whole can of worms about what is required to prove conscientiousness.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?
:D
Quote from: LaCroix on July 15, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:43:54 PM:hmm:
:D
aren't you denying a belief system (stretching this a bit) in this case by attacking this "pastafarian" protest through the argument that accommodations should be made for one group but not another?
It is clear that this group was created to mock organized religion. Or do you really think they believe a pasta strainer is a sacred object of considerable religious signficance?
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?
Yes.
Equality is a noble goal, but there are thousands, if not millions, of examples where for very good and legitimate reasons people are treated differently by government.
The disabled are not required to get out of their wheelchair to walk through security screening.
Only the elderly are entitled to pensions.
Only children are required to go to school.
Various social programs are only given to the poor.
Only women are given maternity leave.
Only smart people can get into university.
I don't see anyone seriously arguing that we shouldn't design government policy to take age, income, gender, and ability/disabilities into account.
So let's be clear: what people like Iorm, and Viking, and others are saying is that government shouldn't take religion into account in designing policy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
That is shocking because equality is only one of the modern political virtues. The other is freedom. Of which freedom to exercise one's relgious beliefs is a core value for most democracries.
The law that says all children must say the pledge of allegiance is formally objective and neutral; formally, it treats everyone equally. But in real life, people are not all identical and equally situated to start. There are those for whom saying the pledge violates their religious beliefs; others their consciences. The law formally treats them equally to others who do not have any such qualms but its impact is not equal: those who approve can comply without concern; others are forced to choose between compliance and violating their consciences. A society that values freedom as well as equality at a minimum requires that if such a law is to be permitted, it must exempt those who conscientiously object. Even if that opens a whole can of worms about what is required to prove conscientiousness.
If a law infringes on essential freedoms then it should be ruled unconstitutional, not made to apply differently to different groups.
That being said, there are some examples of reasonable exemptions for a group. A very good example was brought up in the Murdoch thread. Society benefits greatly from having the press as a check on government, so it has deemed special protection on the exercise of that trade.
Now please point to the comparable benefits to society when religious followers or institutions are granted privileged status under the law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2011, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 12:16:36 PM
I'll try to walk you through it.
If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".
Ok, excellent start. Now draft such a rule. You said it would be easy. Go for it.
You are not allowed to wear anything during a photo id which in any way obstructs the full view of the face and head.
or
You are not allowed to wear anything on the head during the photo which would make identification more difficult.
if you want something less restrictive.
All you have really done there is add subjectivity into an objective test. You have simply changed the fight from one of accomodation alone to one of accomodation and a fight over whether a particular garment/hat falls within the law.
From a business development point of vew I wish more drafters were like you. Lots of room for litigation with those sorts of legal tests.
No, I don't think so. Nothing subjective at all there. The first one is perfectly clear - of course, it eliminates people wearing turbans and such. And the second is subjective, but pretty simply so, I don't think anyone is going to be able to legislate since it clearly places the onus of determination at the lowest possible level.
But you asked for a simple law, and you have one. I am pretty sure that a lawyer can make a case out of anything they like, including the current law. It is what your kind do. Certainly the current law is hardly objective.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:15:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
That is shocking because equality is only one of the modern political virtues. The other is freedom. Of which freedom to exercise one's relgious beliefs is a core value for most democracries.
The law that says all children must say the pledge of allegiance is formally objective and neutral; formally, it treats everyone equally. But in real life, people are not all identical and equally situated to start. There are those for whom saying the pledge violates their religious beliefs; others their consciences. The law formally treats them equally to others who do not have any such qualms but its impact is not equal: those who approve can comply without concern; others are forced to choose between compliance and violating their consciences. A society that values freedom as well as equality at a minimum requires that if such a law is to be permitted, it must exempt those who conscientiously object. Even if that opens a whole can of worms about what is required to prove conscientiousness.
If a law infringes on essential freedoms then it should be ruled unconstitutional, not made to apply differently to different groups.
That being said, there are some examples of reasonable exemptions for a group. A very good example was brought up in the Murdoch thread. Society benefits greatly from having the press as a check on government, so it has deemed special protection on the exercise of that trade.
Now please point to the comparable benefits to society when religious followers or institutions are granted privileged status under the law.
It ensures that the power of the state cannot be used to restrict people from practicing their religion freely and without state interference.
This is beneficial to society because it helps to avoid religious strife, and the inevitable battles (both rehtorical and real) over deciding what religious flavor should be favored by the State.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 02:03:23 PMIt is clear that this group was created to mock organized religion.
then wouldn't atheism be their belief system and their mocking of religion and the accommodations made to it by law be their own particular way of demonstration? it may be for a different reason than most accepted religious gear, but who are we to judge provided it does not interfere with the purpose of the id picture?
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:15:42 PM
So let's be clear: what people like Iorm, and Viking, and others are saying is that government shouldn't take religion into account in designing policy.
Not just religion. I wouldn't want the members of the Party to be above the law either.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 15, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:43:54 PM:hmm:
:D
aren't you denying a belief system (stretching this a bit) in this case by attacking this "pastafarian" protest through the argument that accommodations should be made for one group but not another?
It is clear that this group was created to mock organized religion. Or do you really think they believe a pasta strainer is a sacred object of considerable religious signficance?
What does the motivation (especially a motivation provided by someone other than the group itself, not matter how clear you think your motives for their actions might be) of the group have to do with anything?
Are private groups not allowed to mock religion in your country?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 12:16:36 PM
I'll try to walk you through it.
If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".
Ok, excellent start. Now draft such a rule. You said it would be easy. Go for it.
I'm not sure why but here goes.
Earlier today I looked at the Swedish rules (inspired by CC, couldn't find them in English weirdly enough, much else on government sites is available in English):
http://www.korkortsportalen.se/jag-har-korkort/fornyelse/fotoanvisningar/
•
QuoteFotot lämnas i ett exemplar och ska vara välliknande.
•Ansiktet ska vara avbildat rakt framifrån med hela ansiktet synligt.
•Båda ögonen ska vara helt synliga och pupillerna ska synas tydligt. Blicken ska vara riktad mot kameran.
•Fotografiet ska ha god skärpa. Skärpan ska ligga i pupillen. Reflexer får inte synas i glasögon.
•Du får inte ha mörka eller färgade glasögon.*
•Du får inte ha någon huvudbonad eller liknande.*
•Ansiktet ska vara jämnt belyst och bakgrunden ska vara ljus och utan skuggor.
•Hela huvudet ska vara synligt, inte bara ansiktet.
•Avståndet mellan pupill och hakspets ska vara 14-17 mm.
•Fotografiet ska vara renskuret 35 mm brett, 45 mm högt och ha runda eller skarpa hörn.
•Både svartvita foton och färgfoton är godkända. På det färdiga körkortet kommer dock fotografiet att återges i svartvitt även om färgfoto lämnats.
For those who don't understand Swedish, don't worry. The points of special interest are the ones marked with an "*" (they are in the original). One is a ban on dark or tinted glasses and the other is a ban on headgear or similar. The asterisks indicate that these points can be waived for special reasons (such as religions etc even though no reasons are mentioned explicitly). The other points are basic "the whole face, even light, in focus, look at the birdie blah blah" stuff. The * points are in fact unnecessary since wearing dark or tinted glasses would obscure the face and/or pupil (which would violate other points) and headgear that doesn't obscure any part of the head doesn't violate any other points and should as far as I can make out be OK for ID purposes (I am not in law enforcement or ID technology), and headgear that does obscure any part of the head is already covered by a separate point that you have to see the whole head. If you just remove the * points you're off to a good start.
You see that the rules as written do not allow headgear that obscures any part of the head (the whole head has to be visible according to point 4 from the bottom, no "*" indicating exceptions) but I am not 100% sure that this is the case in practice, my guess is that for instance turbans are OK in practice but I don't know this. It seems not unlikely to me that a small part of the head could be obscured and the photo could still be OK from a technical identification perspective, but I am not a specialist. It is possible that the point was written to avoid photos where the actual edge of the photo cuts off parts of the head, and not about parts of the head being obscured by physical objects like hats.
In short, writing rules that focus on what is necessary for ID purposes seems to me to be trivial compared to the main discussion, and not extremely interesting. Obviously for exact final details you need to involve experts.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:15:42 PM
Only women are given maternity leave.
Only smart people can get into university.
Those 2 aren't true in the states.
Well, technically, only women are given
maternity leave, but new fathers are legally allowed to take up to 12 weeks of paternity leave as well if they choose to do so. But since, in most places of employment, both maternity and paternity leave is unpaid, few fathers take any paternity leave (and unless there is a good medical reason to take that much time, most mothers don't take the 12 weeks of maternity leave they are legally entitled to, either--most take about 6 weeks).
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2011, 02:22:06 PM
It ensures that the power of the state cannot be used to restrict people from practicing their religion freely and without state interference.
This is beneficial to society because it helps to avoid religious strife, and the inevitable battles (both rehtorical and real) over deciding what religious flavor should be favored by the State.
Quite the contrary. Arbitrarily accommodating this or that doctrine, often after a long trial and public debate only inflames religious strife.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2011, 02:28:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:15:42 PM
Only women are given maternity leave.
Only smart people can get into university.
Those 2 aren't true in the states.
Well, technically, only women are given maternity leave, but new fathers are legally allowed to take up to 12 weeks of paternity leave as well if they choose to do so. But since, in most places of employment, both maternity and paternity leave is unpaid, few fathers take any paternity leave (and unless there is a good medical reason to take that much time, most mothers don't take the 12 weeks of maternity leave they are legally entitled to, either--most take about 6 weeks).
I'm aware of paternity leave. I even took some.
But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:31:06 PM
But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.
I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.
Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2011, 02:22:06 PM
It ensures that the power of the state cannot be used to restrict people from practicing their religion freely and without state interference.
This is beneficial to society because it helps to avoid religious strife, and the inevitable battles (both rehtorical and real) over deciding what religious flavor should be favored by the State.
Quite the contrary. Arbitrarily accommodating this or that doctrine, often after a long trial and public debate only inflames religious strife.
Not at all. You only think so because you're too young to have experienced the alternative.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:15:50 PM
If a law infringes on essential freedoms then it should be ruled unconstitutional, not made to apply differently to different groups.
But that just begs the question of whether the ability to exercise one's faith freely is an essential freedom. You claim not, but hundreds of years of political theory and practice say otherwise.
Formally speaking, a right to practice religious belief free from uncessary government interference is a general right that applies to all equally. No particular belief system is treated differently; all are entitled to same principle of accomodation. Your objection is that in practice, not everyone can take equal
advantage of that right - specifically persons with no religious belief. But so what? that doesn't alter the general nature of the principle. Every law, and every exemption to law, applies to different categories of people differently. People without owner-occupied housing can't deduct home interest from their taxes, people without oil & gas leases can't get depletion allowances, people without dependent children can't get a child tax credit.
QuoteSociety benefits greatly from having the press as a check on government, so it has deemed special protection on the exercise of that trade..
And ther are social benefits in a pluralistic society when religious minorities are not compelled to abide by the standards of the majority. It permits the members of those groups to fully participate in the society without surrendering their autonomy and core beliefs.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:33:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:31:06 PM
But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.
I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.
Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.
The fact that millions of people
believe that they must pray five times per day is however trivially easy to prove.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:06:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?
Yes.
And the benefits of throwing (say) the Amish and Quakers en mass in jail as cowards are ... to preserve equality above all?
Reminds me of an Emerson Quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
free from uncessary government interference
There is a school of thought that this should apply to whatever the hell a person wants to do. This school has gained ground the latest centuries, and this is one of the reasons that having special rights for religions is seen by some as being fairly archaic.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:44:14 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:06:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?
Yes.
And the benefits of throwing (say) the Amish and Quakers en mass in jail as cowards are ... to preserve equality above all?
:huh:
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:43:35 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:33:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:31:06 PM
But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.
I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.
Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.
The fact that millions of people believe that they must pray five times per day is however trivially easy to prove.
If someone tells you in court that he believes he had to rape and kill a 2 year old would you drop charges?
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:43:35 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:33:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:31:06 PM
But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.
I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.
Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.
The fact that millions of people believe that they must pray five times per day is however trivially easy to prove.
If someone tells you in court that he believes he had to rape and kill a 2 year old would you drop charges?
:huh:
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:44:14 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:06:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?
Yes.
And the benefits of throwing (say) the Amish and Quakers en mass in jail as cowards are ... to preserve equality above all?
Reminds me of an Emerson Quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". ;)
You do know that a fairly low percentage of draftees end up at the front lines, don't you? If a draft is necessary at all there would surely be somewhere they can serve.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. The Anglosphere, even Britain, does have a stronger attachment to freedom as a concept than the Euros do.
Quote from: Neil on July 15, 2011, 02:49:17 PM
Maybe it's a cultural thing. The Anglosphere, even Britain, does have a stronger attachment to freedom as a concept than the Euros do.
Then how do you explain me? Hmm??
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:43:35 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:33:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:31:06 PM
But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.
I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.
Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.
The fact that millions of people believe that they must pray five times per day is however trivially easy to prove.
If someone tells you in court that he believes he had to rape and kill a 2 year old would you drop charges?
What the fuck are you talking about? How is that possibly a response to what I said?
It is a cultural thing, though I don't think it is down to a Continental-Anglo divide.
Catholicism had a fairly tight grasp on Spain for quite a while. The Church still benefits from a lot of exemptions and privileges.
Might I suggest we take a look at the Sikh community in Britain to see how some of the issues in this thread play out.
I should point out that I don't bear any grudges against Sikhs or their religion, on paper it seems to have many socially and egalitarian positive values.
In the 1970s the Sikh community fought a long successful legal battle to exempt them from the compulsory motorcycle helmet requirement and if iirc smaller actions, including some industrial desputes, to allow them to wear a turban in jobs that require a uniform. I'm of the opinion this was a socially acceptable trade-off, the probable increase serious injury, hospital costs and deaths resulting from unprotected Sikh motorcyclists, is most likely outweighed by social conservative characteristics of the community that will likely mean less drunk driving, criminality and reckless behaviour.
Sikh Kirpan knives are exempt from the tightened up UK knife laws, were any blade of 3 inches is banned and those under, eg a pocket knife, can be the subject of questioning depending on the situation.
However some Sikh wish to be able to carry their knives in most places and not be the subject of challenge:
Quote
Sikhs protest against knife rules
Sikhs say they are not being allowed to wear a kirpan - or ceremonial knife - in public places even though the law says they can.
Some have been refused entry to amusement parks and even government buildings because of fears the blade poses a security or safety threat.
The confusion has prompted the Department of Communities and Local Government to draw up guidelines for officials and employers on the rights of Sikhs to wear the kirpan. They are expected to be published later this year.
Sukhbir Kaur, 23, a Phd student, was one of a group of six Sikhs who were refused entry to a theme park in Staffordshire because they were wearing kirpans.
"We were waiting to pay and buy our tickets and then a security guard just came over and said we weren't allowed to go in," she said.
"When we said 'why?' He goes: 'because you're carrying knives.' I just felt like that's kind of wrong."
In 1983 Gurinder Singh Mandla made history after the Law Lords backed his right to wear a turban at school.
That ruling gave Sikhs considerable protection under British law. Twenty five years on though he says he is still facing problems practising his religion. This time it is over the kirpan.
"When you go into court you are asked what it is and you tell them it's a kirpan. On occasions I can remember at Wolverhampton Crown Court, I was then flanked by two police officers until they were able to sort out from the Lord Chancellor's Office what they should be doing about this issue," he said.
The Courts Service said Sikhs are allowed to wear the kirpan in court even though knives are banned. A spokesman said Sikhs were given special dispensation because of their religion.
The kirpan is a small ceremonial knife which usually has a 3in (7.6cm) blade. It symbolises the spiritual struggle over evil and is one of five articles of faith which baptised Sikhs are expected to wear at all times.
.....
rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm)
And yet we've also seen an instance where a substantial number of local Sikhs have sought through protest and illegal activity to restrict others freedom of expression, successfully so:
Quote
Theatre stormed in Sikh protest
Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple.
Five police officers were hurt during struggles at Birmingham's Repertory Theatre on Saturday night.
Two men were arrested and the theatre said some demonstrators stormed the building before the performance of Behzti (Dishonour) was cancelled.
The theatre and the Sikh community will meet police on Monday.
The theatre has been the scene of several protests by members of the Sikh community, angered by author Gurpreet Bhatti's depiction of murder and sex abuse.
The protesters claim the play, which centres around two characters and is set in a gurdwara, a Sikh temple, mocks their faith.
The play's author has revealed threats had been made against her and she has been advised by police not to say anything in public.
Saturday night's protest turned violent at 1845 GMT as around 400 people gathered outside the theatre.
....
rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm)
details on the play's closure here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html)
IMHO the Sikh community is trying to have its cake and eat it, on the one hand seeking special exemption from laws because of their faith and then going on to demand their faith be 'respected', necessitating that others tradition of freedom of expression be curtailed.
Which is why I'm against making special provision for peoples religious beliefs, except in fairly trivial matters and at the same time is should be pointed out that the wider society expects some quid pro quo, in terms of tolerance of others viewpoints or descenting opinions.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:51:16 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? How is that possibly a response to what I said?
Belief has no objective value for others. It makes no difference in how you should be treated. Having just crapped a 3 kg baby, OTOH, is a fairly objective fact.
In fact Freedom of Religion was born because your beliefs were having an effect on how you were treated. A negative effect. But according to you guys it is somehow endangered if it is not used to claim privileges over others instead.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:49:12 PMYou do know that a fairly low percentage of draftees end up at the front lines, don't you? If a draft is necessary at all there would surely be somewhere they can serve.
they would still be contributing to the war effort, even if they never fired a gun. i think that is where their objection lies, not simply violence. though i could be wrong
Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.
Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with. TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 15, 2011, 02:58:55 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:49:12 PMYou do know that a fairly low percentage of draftees end up at the front lines, don't you? If a draft is necessary at all there would surely be somewhere they can serve.
they would still be contributing to the war effort, even if they never fired a gun. i think that is where their objection lies, not simply violence. though i could be wrong
Even if they tended for the wounded or some such?
Well, if society determines that a draft is necessary (not my cup of tea) and they don't want to contribute in ANY way, the can go fuck themselves for all I care. Defense is to a state as a keystone is to an arch.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:56:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:51:16 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? How is that possibly a response to what I said?
Belief has no objective value for others. It makes no difference in how you should be treated. Having just crapped a 3 kg baby, OTOH, is a fairly objective fact.
In fact Freedom of Religion was born because your beliefs were having an effect on how you were treated. A negative effect. But according to you guys it is somehow endangered if it is not used to claim privileges over others instead.
You don't treat people differently based on what they think or believe? What kind of unthinking asshole are you?
No - seriously. If a gues doesn't like fish, I won't serve them fish, even though there's nothing objectively wrong with eating fish. If someone doesn't like horror movies I won't insist on them watching a horror movie.
Muslims believe they need to pray 5 times a day. Unless there's a good reason, why shouldn't we let them? It's just simple courtesy.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
You give a hand, they take an arm. It's better to draw the line in the sand.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 03:04:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
You give a hand, they take an arm. It's better to draw the line in the sand.
And a stitch in time saves nine.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:56:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:51:16 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? How is that possibly a response to what I said?
Belief has no objective value for others. It makes no difference in how you should be treated. Having just crapped a 3 kg baby, OTOH, is a fairly objective fact.
In fact Freedom of Religion was born because your beliefs were having an effect on how you were treated. A negative effect. But according to you guys it is somehow endangered if it is not used to claim privileges over others instead.
Of course it's very, very simple to enact laws that are applied to everyone, but only effect a religious group. Say the outlaw of the public ringing of bells would only really effect religious groups that use bells (like a church), or outlaw shouting from towers (effecting Muslims). Then people could sit back and say, "this isn't discriminatory, I can't can't shout from towers or ring big bells. I just want the law to apply to every one why should these bill ringers and tower shouters have
extra rights?"
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 02:54:24 PM
Might I suggest we take a look at the Sikh community in Britain to see how some of the issues in this thread play out.
I should point out that I don't bear any grudges against Sikhs or their religion, on paper it seems to have many socially and egalitarian positive values.
In the 1970s the Sikh community fought a long successful legal battle to exempt them from the compulsory motorcycle helmet requirement and if iirc smaller actions, including some industrial desputes, to allow them to wear a turban in jobs that require a uniform. I'm of the opinion this was a socially acceptable trade-off, the probable increase serious injury, hospital costs and deaths resulting from unprotected Sikh motorcyclists, is most likely outweighed by social conservative characteristics of the community that will likely mean less drunk driving, criminality and reckless behaviour.
Sikh Kirpan knives are exempt from the tightened up UK knife laws, were any blade of 3 inches is banned and those under, eg a pocket knife, can be the subject of questioning depending on the situation.
However some Sikh wish to be able to carry their knives in most places and not be the subject of challenge:
Quote
Sikhs protest against knife rules
Sikhs say they are not being allowed to wear a kirpan - or ceremonial knife - in public places even though the law says they can.
Some have been refused entry to amusement parks and even government buildings because of fears the blade poses a security or safety threat.
The confusion has prompted the Department of Communities and Local Government to draw up guidelines for officials and employers on the rights of Sikhs to wear the kirpan. They are expected to be published later this year.
Sukhbir Kaur, 23, a Phd student, was one of a group of six Sikhs who were refused entry to a theme park in Staffordshire because they were wearing kirpans.
"We were waiting to pay and buy our tickets and then a security guard just came over and said we weren't allowed to go in," she said.
"When we said 'why?' He goes: 'because you're carrying knives.' I just felt like that's kind of wrong."
In 1983 Gurinder Singh Mandla made history after the Law Lords backed his right to wear a turban at school.
That ruling gave Sikhs considerable protection under British law. Twenty five years on though he says he is still facing problems practising his religion. This time it is over the kirpan.
"When you go into court you are asked what it is and you tell them it's a kirpan. On occasions I can remember at Wolverhampton Crown Court, I was then flanked by two police officers until they were able to sort out from the Lord Chancellor's Office what they should be doing about this issue," he said.
The Courts Service said Sikhs are allowed to wear the kirpan in court even though knives are banned. A spokesman said Sikhs were given special dispensation because of their religion.
The kirpan is a small ceremonial knife which usually has a 3in (7.6cm) blade. It symbolises the spiritual struggle over evil and is one of five articles of faith which baptised Sikhs are expected to wear at all times.
.....
rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm)
And yet we've also seen an instance where a substantial number of local Sikhs have sought through protest and illegal activity to restrict others freedom of expression, successfully so:
Quote
Theatre stormed in Sikh protest
Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple.
Five police officers were hurt during struggles at Birmingham's Repertory Theatre on Saturday night.
Two men were arrested and the theatre said some demonstrators stormed the building before the performance of Behzti (Dishonour) was cancelled.
The theatre and the Sikh community will meet police on Monday.
The theatre has been the scene of several protests by members of the Sikh community, angered by author Gurpreet Bhatti's depiction of murder and sex abuse.
The protesters claim the play, which centres around two characters and is set in a gurdwara, a Sikh temple, mocks their faith.
The play's author has revealed threats had been made against her and she has been advised by police not to say anything in public.
Saturday night's protest turned violent at 1845 GMT as around 400 people gathered outside the theatre.
....
rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm)
details on the play's closure here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html)
IMHO the Sikh community is trying to have its cake and eat it, on the one hand seeking special exemption from laws because of their faith and then going on to demand their faith be 'respected', necessitating that others tradition of freedom of expression be curtailed.
Which is why I'm against making special provision for peoples religious beliefs, except in fairly trivial matters and at the same time is should be pointed out that the wider society expects some quid pro quo, in terms of tolerance of others viewpoints or descenting opinions.
People do this sort of thing all the time - demand rights for themselves, but resist extending rights to others.
It should affect *our* judgment of what rights are reasonable not at all.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.
Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with. TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:49:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:44:14 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:06:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.
I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?
Yes.
And the benefits of throwing (say) the Amish and Quakers en mass in jail as cowards are ... to preserve equality above all?
Reminds me of an Emerson Quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". ;)
You do know that a fairly low percentage of draftees end up at the front lines, don't you? If a draft is necessary at all there would surely be somewhere they can serve.
Aren't you now doing just what you are complaining about - making special accomodation for those with different beliefs?
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 03:09:22 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 02:54:24 PM
Might I suggest we take a look at the Sikh community in Britain to see how some of the issues in this thread play out.
I should point out that I don't bear any grudges against Sikhs or their religion, on paper it seems to have many socially and egalitarian positive values.
In the 1970s the Sikh community fought a long successful legal battle to exempt them from the compulsory motorcycle helmet requirement and if iirc smaller actions, including some industrial desputes, to allow them to wear a turban in jobs that require a uniform. I'm of the opinion this was a socially acceptable trade-off, the probable increase serious injury, hospital costs and deaths resulting from unprotected Sikh motorcyclists, is most likely outweighed by social conservative characteristics of the community that will likely mean less drunk driving, criminality and reckless behaviour.
Sikh Kirpan knives are exempt from the tightened up UK knife laws, were any blade of 3 inches is banned and those under, eg a pocket knife, can be the subject of questioning depending on the situation.
However some Sikh wish to be able to carry their knives in most places and not be the subject of challenge:
Quote
Sikhs protest against knife rules
Sikhs say they are not being allowed to wear a kirpan - or ceremonial knife - in public places even though the law says they can.
Some have been refused entry to amusement parks and even government buildings because of fears the blade poses a security or safety threat.
The confusion has prompted the Department of Communities and Local Government to draw up guidelines for officials and employers on the rights of Sikhs to wear the kirpan. They are expected to be published later this year.
Sukhbir Kaur, 23, a Phd student, was one of a group of six Sikhs who were refused entry to a theme park in Staffordshire because they were wearing kirpans.
"We were waiting to pay and buy our tickets and then a security guard just came over and said we weren't allowed to go in," she said.
"When we said 'why?' He goes: 'because you're carrying knives.' I just felt like that's kind of wrong."
In 1983 Gurinder Singh Mandla made history after the Law Lords backed his right to wear a turban at school.
That ruling gave Sikhs considerable protection under British law. Twenty five years on though he says he is still facing problems practising his religion. This time it is over the kirpan.
"When you go into court you are asked what it is and you tell them it's a kirpan. On occasions I can remember at Wolverhampton Crown Court, I was then flanked by two police officers until they were able to sort out from the Lord Chancellor's Office what they should be doing about this issue," he said.
The Courts Service said Sikhs are allowed to wear the kirpan in court even though knives are banned. A spokesman said Sikhs were given special dispensation because of their religion.
The kirpan is a small ceremonial knife which usually has a 3in (7.6cm) blade. It symbolises the spiritual struggle over evil and is one of five articles of faith which baptised Sikhs are expected to wear at all times.
.....
rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm)
And yet we've also seen an instance where a substantial number of local Sikhs have sought through protest and illegal activity to restrict others freedom of expression, successfully so:
Quote
Theatre stormed in Sikh protest
Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple.
Five police officers were hurt during struggles at Birmingham's Repertory Theatre on Saturday night.
Two men were arrested and the theatre said some demonstrators stormed the building before the performance of Behzti (Dishonour) was cancelled.
The theatre and the Sikh community will meet police on Monday.
The theatre has been the scene of several protests by members of the Sikh community, angered by author Gurpreet Bhatti's depiction of murder and sex abuse.
The protesters claim the play, which centres around two characters and is set in a gurdwara, a Sikh temple, mocks their faith.
The play's author has revealed threats had been made against her and she has been advised by police not to say anything in public.
Saturday night's protest turned violent at 1845 GMT as around 400 people gathered outside the theatre.
....
rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm)
details on the play's closure here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html)
IMHO the Sikh community is trying to have its cake and eat it, on the one hand seeking special exemption from laws because of their faith and then going on to demand their faith be 'respected', necessitating that others tradition of freedom of expression be curtailed.
Which is why I'm against making special provision for peoples religious beliefs, except in fairly trivial matters and at the same time is should be pointed out that the wider society expects some quid pro quo, in terms of tolerance of others viewpoints or descenting opinions.
People do this sort of thing all the time - demand rights for themselves, but resist extending rights to others.
It should affect *our* judgment of what rights are reasonable not at all.
Do they, all the time ?
In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:03:55 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 02:56:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:51:16 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? How is that possibly a response to what I said?
Belief has no objective value for others. It makes no difference in how you should be treated. Having just crapped a 3 kg baby, OTOH, is a fairly objective fact.
In fact Freedom of Religion was born because your beliefs were having an effect on how you were treated. A negative effect. But according to you guys it is somehow endangered if it is not used to claim privileges over others instead.
You don't treat people differently based on what they think or believe? What kind of unthinking asshole are you?
No - seriously. If a gues doesn't like fish, I won't serve them fish, even though there's nothing objectively wrong with eating fish. If someone doesn't like horror movies I won't insist on them watching a horror movie.
Muslims believe they need to pray 5 times a day. Unless there's a good reason, why shouldn't we let them? It's just simple courtesy.
Wearing clothing in IDs that may make positive identification harder is objectively a negative effect.
If a guy doesn't like to eat fish, and the only foodstuff available is fish, is it unreasonable to tell him to fuck off if he demands something else?
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:15:42 PM
Only smart people can get into university.
And you were doing so well before you came to this point. :D
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.
Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with. TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.
But so what? Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?
Canada has had all the same debates regarding the turban and kirpan, and some of them have been quite contentious back in the day (anyone remember the RCMP / turban debate). But we've generally come to a consensus - Sikhs can wear a small, ceremonial kirpan in almost any place (including an airplane). They can wear a turban and be exempt from "no hats" policies, and even accomodations to standard uniforms. However, I believe they are still required to wear safety helmets / hard hats where required.
And you know what? Sikhs have become tremendously well integrated into Canadian society.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:15:42 PM
Only smart people can get into university.
And you were doing so well before you came to this point. :D
:blurgh:
You know what I'm saying.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:03:55 PM
You don't treat people differently based on what they think or believe? What kind of unthinking asshole are you?
No - seriously. If a gues doesn't like fish, I won't serve them fish, even though there's nothing objectively wrong with eating fish. If someone doesn't like horror movies I won't insist on them watching a horror movie.
Muslims believe they need to pray 5 times a day. Unless there's a good reason, why shouldn't we let them? It's just simple courtesy.
We're talking about the law here. Not me. Why would the law have to force me to serve meat to my friend who doesn't like fish?
If I had a Muslim employee carving wood at home I would be more than willing to let him work whenever he liked to as long as he fulfilled his contract. Just like any other wood carver I employed.
If, OTOH, he was working in an assembly line and stopped it 5 times a day costing me a fortune each time, I would obviously look to get rid of him. Yet you say the law should force me to keep him or at the very least cost me a kidney in lawyer fees to get rid of him.
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
free from uncessary government interference
There is a school of thought that this should apply to whatever the hell a person wants to do. This school has gained ground the latest centuries, and this is one of the reasons that having special rights for religions is seen by some as being fairly archaic.
I am not familiar with your school of thought, but find it passing strange that a subject of monarchy is so quick to pass judgment as to which political concepts are archaic.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.
Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with. TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.
But so what? Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?
Canada has had all the same debates regarding the turban and kirpan, and some of them have been quite contentious back in the day (anyone remember the RCMP / turban debate). But we've generally come to a consensus - Sikhs can wear a small, ceremonial kirpan in almost any place (including an airplane). They can wear a turban and be exempt from "no hats" policies, and even accomodations to standard uniforms. However, I believe they are still required to wear safety helmets / hard hats where required.
And you know what? Sikhs have become tremendously well integrated into Canadian society.
They get exceptions for cases where they cause risk to others but are forced to comply when their own safety is the only thing at stake? How... Canadian.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
Do they, all the time ?
In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.
Sure. As a lawyer, I get to see plenty of it. :lol:
Point is, people love freedom of expression - as long as it is expression they agree with. Not the expressions of those other fuckers, you know, the ones the state ought to ban for everyone's good.
The Sikhs you describe are hardly unique in this. It's a natural human tendency. One that ought not to be allowed to influence our thinking at all.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 03:18:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 15, 2011, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
free from uncessary government interference
There is a school of thought that this should apply to whatever the hell a person wants to do. This school has gained ground the latest centuries, and this is one of the reasons that having special rights for religions is seen by some as being fairly archaic.
I am not familiar with your school of thought, but find it passing strange that a subject of monarchy is so quick to pass judgment as to which political concepts are archaic.
I take from your jocular response that you understand my point.
I am not a destroyer of religions. I am a liberator of them.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.
Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with. TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.
But so what? Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?
.....
Because the one enables the other, tell people they have a special set of beliefs that exempt them from certain laws and some of them will be likely to assume their special faith, is just a little more special than the rest of society and it's norms.
Where necessary, I'm suggesting we enact an informal social contract; if you expect certain exemptions from the laws because of your religion, then your co-religionists should be expected to up hold and respect the rights of others in society.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.
Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with. TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.
But so what? Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?
.....
Because the one enables the other, tell people they have a special set of beliefs that exempt them from certain laws and some of them will be likely to assume their special faith, is just a little more special than the rest of society and it's norms.
Where necessary, I'm suggesting we enact an informal social contract; if you expect certain exemptions from the laws because of your religion, then your co-religionists should be expected to up hold and respect the rights of others in society.
Not necessary. Simply put, everyone who exists in our society is subject to the laws - laws which, in some cases, allow for reasonable accomodation of persons from
any religion, ethnicity, belief system.
Seems to work well enough without singling out Sikhs.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
Do they, all the time ?
In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.
Sure. As a lawyer, I get to see plenty of it. :lol:
Point is, people love freedom of expression - as long as it is expression they agree with. Not the expressions of those other fuckers, you know, the ones the state ought to ban for everyone's good.
The Sikhs you describe are hardly unique in this. It's a natural human tendency. One that ought not to be allowed to influence our thinking at all.
Is it ?
You're making a blanket statement that people act in the way you describe, I suspect different people hold a range of opinions as to how much others rights should be tolerated; personally in the public space I work on the assumption that my own religious beliefs may be entirely wrong.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2011, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
Do they, all the time ?
In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.
Sure. As a lawyer, I get to see plenty of it. :lol:
Point is, people love freedom of expression - as long as it is expression they agree with. Not the expressions of those other fuckers, you know, the ones the state ought to ban for everyone's good.
The Sikhs you describe are hardly unique in this. It's a natural human tendency. One that ought not to be allowed to influence our thinking at all.
Is it ?
You're making a blanket statement that people act in the way you describe, I suspect different people hold a range of opinions as to how much others rights should be tolerated; personally in the public space I work on the assumption that my own religious beliefs may be entirely wrong.
I'm not saying absolutely everyone does this, I'm saying it is common among groups of people and that Sikhs are by no means unique in having individulas that (a) want rights themselves and (b) want to deprive others of rights.
The fact that some individuals exist who are so benighted as to want things themselves and yet deprive others, should not influence what rights are granted in the first place.
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.
So they - the individuals Sikhs (and not Sikhs as an abstract collective) - are hypocrites.
So what?
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 03:18:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:03:55 PM
You don't treat people differently based on what they think or believe? What kind of unthinking asshole are you?
No - seriously. If a gues doesn't like fish, I won't serve them fish, even though there's nothing objectively wrong with eating fish. If someone doesn't like horror movies I won't insist on them watching a horror movie.
Muslims believe they need to pray 5 times a day. Unless there's a good reason, why shouldn't we let them? It's just simple courtesy.
We're talking about the law here. Not me. Why would the law have to force me to serve meat to my friend who doesn't like fish?
If I had a Muslim employee carving wood at home I would be more than willing to let him work whenever he liked to as long as he fulfilled his contract. Just like any other wood carver I employed.
If, OTOH, he was working in an assembly line and stopped it 5 times a day costing me a fortune each time, I would obviously look to get rid of him. Yet you say the law should force me to keep him or at the very least cost me a kidney in lawyer fees to get rid of him.
They were examples of taking someone's preferences and beliefs into account, even if they couldn't be objectively quantified.
We allow smokers to take smoke breaks. I fail to see therefore what is so offensive about a prayer break (and by the way the 5 prayers are over the course of the entire day, so no employer is being interupted 5 times per day).
You've obviously never worked on, for example, an assembly line (a common job for uneducated immigrants).
Any delay in one station affects all others in the line. In addition many lines require a long ramp up to full speed. Any interruption can cost tens of thousands in a decently sized plant. There's a whole area of engineering dedicated to minimize these kinds of occurrences.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 05:35:29 PM
Any delay in one station affects all others in the line. In addition many lines require a long ramp up to full speed. Any interruption can cost tens of thousands in a decently sized plant. There's a whole area of engineering dedicated to minimize these kinds of occurrences.
And in those circumstances it would likely to be found that a prayer break is an unreasonable accomodation. But I find it very hard to believe the other employees on that line dont also take any breaks for other purposes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 06:02:07 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 05:35:29 PM
Any delay in one station affects all others in the line. In addition many lines require a long ramp up to full speed. Any interruption can cost tens of thousands in a decently sized plant. There's a whole area of engineering dedicated to minimize these kinds of occurrences.
And in those circumstances it would likely to be found that a prayer break is an unreasonable accomodation. But I find it very hard to believe the other employees on that line dont also take any breaks for other purposes.
Though if they aren't allowed breaks, that
does tend to explain the occasional feces in my Pringles ... :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.
Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with. TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.
Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.
But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.
But so what? Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?
Canada has had all the same debates regarding the turban and kirpan, and some of them have been quite contentious back in the day (anyone remember the RCMP / turban debate). But we've generally come to a consensus - Sikhs can wear a small, ceremonial kirpan in almost any place (including an airplane). They can wear a turban and be exempt from "no hats" policies, and even accomodations to standard uniforms. However, I believe they are still required to wear safety helmets / hard hats where required.
And you know what? Sikhs have become tremendously well integrated into Canadian society.
Actually, I doubt many Euros would know that. Among other things, many Euros seem to think that minorities can't be integrated into a society.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:35:13 AM
There is no contention that this is a real religious belief. The whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.
Precisely. The manner in which genuine religious belief is accommodated under the law is absurd. Rather than relaxing the law so that people with certain religious beliefs can meet it, by, say, saying that headgear must not obscure the face, it says that the law simply does not apply to certain persons who "genunely" hold a religious belief, but applies to everyone else, including those who hold the belief but not "genuinely." Absolutely absurd, and unnecessary.
QuoteI see no value in this stunt but I do see harm.
I see no harm in this stunt but great value. It is the not the person who demonstrates the absurdity of a law that is a dick; the dick is the person who sees that the law has been demonstrated to be absurd, and attacks the demonstrator.
The emperor has no clothes, and Mr. Alm simply pointed this out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 03:38:26 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.
So they - the individuals Sikhs (and not Sikhs as an abstract collective) - are hypocrites.
So what?
:hmm:
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 08:43:46 PMSo they - the individuals Sikhs (and not Sikhs as an abstract collective) - are hypocrites.
So what?
I agree with you, mongers, that individual Sikhs who argue hard for the various exceptions they deem necessary for their religion while going off their rockers when they feel someone else's freedom of expression should be shut down for offending them are a bunch of jackasses.
But that's no reason to punish Sikhs collectively by withholding reasonable accomodations for their religious beliefs.
It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example. It's not reasonable to let them shut down artistic performances because they deem the performance blasphemous.
Similarly, Iormlund, it's reasonable to let Muslims observe their prayers. It's not reasonable to let them kill people who draw cartoons they find offensive.
Quote from: grumbler on July 15, 2011, 08:22:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 11:35:13 AM
There is no contention that this is a real religious belief. The whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.
Precisely. The manner in which genuine religious belief is accommodated under the law is absurd. Rather than relaxing the law so that people with certain religious beliefs can meet it, by, say, saying that headgear must not obscure the face, it says that the law simply does not apply to certain persons who "genunely" hold a religious belief, but applies to everyone else, including those who hold the belief but not "genuinely." Absolutely absurd, and unnecessary.
QuoteI see no value in this stunt but I do see harm.
I see no harm in this stunt but great value. It is the not the person who demonstrates the absurdity of a law that is a dick; the dick is the person who sees that the law has been demonstrated to be absurd, and attacks the demonstrator.
The emperor has no clothes, and Mr. Alm simply pointed this out.
What of value has done now? If he was trying to get the government to prevent him from wearing a pasta strainer on his head, he failed. All he managed to accomplish is to get a driver license photo that is even worse then a normal person's. Now when has to produce said card, people will laugh at him.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2011, 06:02:07 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 15, 2011, 05:35:29 PM
Any delay in one station affects all others in the line. In addition many lines require a long ramp up to full speed. Any interruption can cost tens of thousands in a decently sized plant. There's a whole area of engineering dedicated to minimize these kinds of occurrences.
And in those circumstances it would likely to be found that a prayer break is an unreasonable accomodation. But I find it very hard to believe the other employees on that line dont also take any breaks for other purposes.
You are allowed breaks. But it is one thing to have a single worker take an occasional bathroom break, which will be easily covered by his supervisor, and another to have entire groups of your workforce leave the line to pray 5 times a day.
And yes, it has been found an unreasonable accommodation ... after long and costly trials. So the end result is that if you own an assembly line you will take great care not to hire anyone you suspect of being Muslim. How's that for promoting Freedom of Religion?
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 09:20:26 PM
It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.
Is it reasonable to let
anyone wear turbans?
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 06:39:34 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 09:20:26 PM
It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.
Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?
Turbans become an issue when:
-the rule is no headgear (like in court)
-identity cards (as discussed)
-when your job mandates a uniform with a hat
-when mandated to wear safety helmets
Clearly a turban isn't an issue when walking down the street (or at least shouldn't be - given some of the nuttier euro efforts against the Burkha maybe I shouldn't make that assumption).
:hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on July 16, 2011, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 06:39:34 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 09:20:26 PM
It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.
Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?
Turbans become an issue when:
-the rule is no headgear (like in court)
-identity cards (as discussed)
-when your job mandates a uniform with a hat
-when mandated to wear safety helmets
Clearly a turban isn't an issue when walking down the street (or at least shouldn't be - given some of the nuttier euro efforts against the Burkha maybe I shouldn't make that assumption).
Sikhs do have problems in the oil industry with safety helmets and their beards. I've worked with and for Sikhs and it seems when when an exemption is just ludicrous, e.g. in areas with high H2S and all personnel must be clean shaven to be able to use gas-masks or unworkable, e.g. trying to fit a turban under a hard had while wearing the hardhat safely. In my line of work they always submit to safety rules over religious ones.
Reasonably accommodation cannot be that that rules are modified with different outcomes for one group because of religious reasons, but rather that rules should not be made in such a manner that the person has to choose between religious compliance and non-compliance when identical outcomes can be achieved with a different set of rules applying to all.
Comparing passport photos to Crash helmets for Sikhs. You can accommodate Sikh religious rules regarding headgear for passport photos because the objective (a photo suitable for identification purposes) can be reached while accommodating the religious rules. You cannot accommodate Sikh religion on crash helmets. Turbans are not crash helmet and will never be. Much pseudoscience has gone into trying to show that a turban is just as good as a crash helmet, but it is not factual to claim that they are either equally as good or nearly as good.
The reason that I and other skepitcs do react to claims to special privilege, and I don't think we have really discussed this outside of Raz's "Atheists hate religious people" schtick, is that we object in principle to the identity politics angle to each and every such claim which results in the individual finding himself being defined as belonging to a religious group rather than as a citizen and that we, in principle, oppose the view that religious arguments can be used to argue anything vis-a-vis the secular state.
Quote from: Barrister on July 16, 2011, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 06:39:34 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 09:20:26 PM
It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.
Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?
Turbans become an issue when:
-the rule is no headgear (like in court)
-identity cards (as discussed)
-when your job mandates a uniform with a hat
-when mandated to wear safety helmets
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Turbans, or any headgear, become an issue when the rule is (1) no headgear, or (2) other headgear.
The question was whether other people should be allowed to wear turbans under the same conditions as the Sikhs.
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 03:57:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 16, 2011, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 06:39:34 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 09:20:26 PM
It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.
Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?
Turbans become an issue when:
-the rule is no headgear (like in court)
-identity cards (as discussed)
-when your job mandates a uniform with a hat
-when mandated to wear safety helmets
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Turbans, or any headgear, become an issue when the rule is (1) no headgear, or (2) other headgear.
The question was whether other people should be allowed to wear turbans under the same conditions as the Sikhs.
This is a key point, if people self identify as a member of a group which has special legal privileges, should they not also accept that they have some explicit social obligations, for instance as I pointed out earlier, not attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of other citizens ?
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 04:01:40 PM
This is a key point, if people self identify as a member of a group which has special legal privileges, should they not also accept that they have some explicit social obligations, for instance as I pointed out earlier, not attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of other citizens ?
No. That's pretty unrealistic.
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2011, 03:14:12 PM
Reasonably accommodation cannot be that that rules are modified with different outcomes for one group because of religious reasons, but rather that rules should not be made in such a manner that the person has to choose between religious compliance and non-compliance when identical outcomes can be achieved with a different set of rules applying to all.
This has always been my argument. If the state can find that an accommodation works for a given person, that accommodation should be allowed for all persons. No one should be forced to justify, or even divulge, their religious beliefs in order to claim a privilege or exemption from the government. The separation of church and state should be such that the government doesn't even need know the creed of the persons using the alternative method or rule.
QuoteComparing passport photos to Crash helmets for Sikhs. You can accommodate Sikh religious rules regarding headgear for passport photos because the objective (a photo suitable for identification purposes) can be reached while accommodating the religious rules. You cannot accommodate Sikh religion on crash helmets. Turbans are not crash helmet and will never be. Much pseudoscience has gone into trying to show that a turban is just as good as a crash helmet, but it is not factual to claim that they are either equally as good or nearly as good.
The incentive for wearing a crash helmet shouldn't be "because the law says so" in any case. There should be incentives for doing so (cheaper licensing for a motorcycle with the "helmet required" tags, for instance) and people should be able to decide which side of the tradeoff that want to take, informed as necessary by their religion.
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 04:01:40 PM
This is a key point, if people self identify as a member of a group which has special legal privileges, should they not also accept that they have some explicit social obligations, for instance as I pointed out earlier, not attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of other citizens ?
I don't accept either inherent premise here; (1) that groups should have special legal privileges, and (2) that to refrain from attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of others is a social obligation that is only undertaken in exchange for special legal status. I think that no group should have special privileges (that is, that accommodations should be available to anyone who wants to enjoy them), and that everyone is obliged to refrain from infringing on the rights of others.
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 04:31:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 04:01:40 PM
This is a key point, if people self identify as a member of a group which has special legal privileges, should they not also accept that they have some explicit social obligations, for instance as I pointed out earlier, not attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of other citizens ?
I don't accept either inherent premise here; (1) that groups should have special legal privileges, and (2) that to refrain from attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of others is a social obligation that is only undertaken in exchange for special legal status. I think that no group should have special privileges (that is, that accommodations should be available to anyone who wants to enjoy them), and that everyone is obliged to refrain from infringing on the rights of others.
Well I largely agree with you, that's my position, but J.R said it didn't matter that people who had special privileges attacked the rights of others as people tend towards hypocrisy, something Malthus agreed on.
My point was if people like us, those that don't have special religious exemption, but live in a society that grants these rights to others special interest groups, might expect there should be some social quid pro quo, for instance maybe an explicit oath to respect the rights of other in return for society granting you these special rights.
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 04:27:48 PMThe incentive for wearing a crash helmet shouldn't be "because the law says so" in any case. There should be incentives for doing so (cheaper licensing for a motorcycle with the "helmet required" tags, for instance) and people should be able to decide which side of the tradeoff that want to take, informed as necessary by their religion.
I agree that this is the ideal approach, and believe I would support any move in that direction. However, absent that ideal I prefer "reasonable accomodation" to allow people to express their faith.
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2011, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 04:27:48 PMThe incentive for wearing a crash helmet shouldn't be "because the law says so" in any case. There should be incentives for doing so (cheaper licensing for a motorcycle with the "helmet required" tags, for instance) and people should be able to decide which side of the tradeoff that want to take, informed as necessary by their religion.
I agree that this is the ideal approach, and believe I would support any move in that direction. However, absent that ideal I prefer "reasonable accomodation" to allow people to express their faith.
This raises an interesting question, why do people need to "express their faith" ?
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 04:27:48 PM
The incentive for wearing a crash helmet shouldn't be "because the law says so" in any case. There should be incentives for doing so (cheaper licensing for a motorcycle with the "helmet required" tags, for instance) and people should be able to decide which side of the tradeoff that want to take, informed as necessary by their religion.
I agree with this idea in theory, but in a world where medical costs are more and more born by society as a group, I think there is something of a problem with individuals deciding that they don't need to wear a helmet, but we are still going to rely on society (to one extent or another) picking up the bill for trying to put their head back together when they get in an accident.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2011, 05:14:54 PM
I agree with this idea in theory, but in a world where medical costs are more and more born by society as a group, I think there is something of a problem with individuals deciding that they don't need to wear a helmet, but we are still going to rely on society (to one extent or another) picking up the bill for trying to put their head back together when they get in an accident.
Why couldn't those costs be paid for by the delta in licensing/registration fees (or insurance, where medical care is covered by insurance) between motorcycles with "helmet required" tags and those without?
Going without a helmet imposes a cost on society, agreed. And one should have to pay one's share of that cost in order to ride without a helmet. Whether one does this because once worships the movie easy Rider or because one worships a given god should have no bearing on what one pays for the privilege. If one cannot afford the privilege, one can go without motorcycle riding completely.
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 05:12:47 PM
This raises an interesting question, why do people need to "express their faith" ?
I cannot think of a less interesting question, except maybe "why do people feel the need to breathe?"
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 05:33:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 05:12:47 PM
This raises an interesting question, why do people need to "express their faith" ?
I cannot think of a less interesting question, except maybe "why do people feel the need to breathe?"
Or why do people respond to posts that are clearly only a statement of personal opinion. ;)
Not using crash helmets have costs and benefits to the health care system. On one side the not using the helmet costs the system due to increased violence of injury, but, on the other side not using crash helmets are organ donor machines par-excellence.
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2011, 06:11:56 PM
Not using crash helmets have costs and benefits to the health care system. On one side the not using the helmet costs the system due to increased violence of injury, but, on the other side not using crash helmets are organ donor machines par-excellence.
Yeah, I think it'd only be fair that if the people who get the helmet exceptions pay increased insurance premiums, they get a bit of a reduction for signing up as organ donors.
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 05:35:26 PM
Or why do people respond to posts that are clearly only a statement of personal opinion. ;)
Or "why do people post statements of personal opinion if they are going to get upset when people respond to their statements of personal opinion?" :showoff:
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 05:12:47 PM
This raises an interesting question, why do people need to "express their faith" ?
:huh:
Why do people need to express anything at all?
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 06:19:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 05:35:26 PM
Or why do people respond to posts that are clearly only a statement of personal opinion. ;)
Or "why do people post statements of personal opinion if they are going to get upset when people respond to their statements of personal opinion?" :showoff:
:lmfao:
Good grief man, you really are out of touch, if you think anything you say to me bothers me in the slightest.