Slashdot Mirror
Pastafarian Wins Right To Wear Colander In License Photo
gregmon writes "An Austrian follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has finally won the right to don the religious headgear of his choosing (a spaghetti strainer) in his driving license photo. After a three year battle with the un-enlightened Austrian authorities, Niko Aim can now wear his colander in all official photos."
THIS is news for nerds!
That must be some heretical Pastafarian sect. Traditional Pastafarians wear pirate hats, not strainers.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
That's using his noodle.
If Muslims and Jews can get away with cutting up the genitalia of their completely healthy sons, why can't anybody wear the most preposterous adornments for a license photo?
Authorities say that he did not pick up his license for full 2 years and that the unusual hat has nothing to do with rules for any religious exceptions to *passport photo rules* because it is a drivers license. The law for driver licenses only specifies that the face in its entirety has to visible (spelling that out a bit more, but I did not read the rules myself). This also means that the conclusion "in all official photos" is not quite correct. If he would apply for a passport authorities would have to conduct an in-depth review... The question remains why it took one year for the license.
Do you feel that a driving an automobile does not require a license that shows at least minimum capacity to actually operate said vehicle?
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
You don't have to have an official photo or even a license to drive... so long as you stay on your own property, and off of *public* roads. If you haven't proven you can drive, I don't want you doing it anywhere near me.
You're a moron.
Seriously, this is so wrong.
This is the opposite effect of what should be happening.
This is insane.
Religions shouldn't get special treatment, it's moronic.
The correct utterance for this occasion-most-touched-by-His-Noodly-Appendage is 'Ramen!'
Do you feel that a driving an automobile does not require a license that shows at least minimum capacity to actually operate said vehicle?
You just don't understand Libertarianism. In Libertarian Fantasy Land (tm), the Free Market (tm) solves all problems. Got run over by a guy without a license? Guess you'd better vote with your wallet next time!
Those people, who ordinarily would keep their faith to themselves, get pissed off at the trolls and fight back.
You, er, might want to re-calibrate your sample...
With all the shit talking that goes on about the bitcoin stories around here, where's the outrage over this story? This is barely idle-worthy.
Yes atheists are assholes but, bright side, there are no atheism-motivated wars or ethnic cleansings.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
So in addition to needing the ability to drive safely, they also need to be able to drive ecologically. And this somehow means that it has "nothing to do with safety" ?
And because there are currently dangerous drivers, we should allow even more dangerous drivers?
Where did you learn basic logic?
Yes what an ass. The right attitude is to sit in the middle, never challenge any stupidity, never take any risks, never try to change the world for the better by confronting harmful superstitions. It feels nice to hand out judgments to both sides of the argument wearing the "reasonable guy in the middle" hat.
This is the land where your wallet is made with Smith & Wesson, right?
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
This isn't about mocking religious people, this is about mocking multiculturalism, the idea that peoples rights should be affected by their religion or culture. It is clearly antithetical to the idea of a free society, and it restricts people from evolving their culture, but somehow, the powers that be need help to see that.
In this case, the right to choose what headgear to wear on your official photo is restricted if you don't belong to a particular religion. Either it is important that people don't wear headgear on official photos (to make recognition easier), and nobody should be allowed to wear headgear, or it isn't important, and everybody should be allowed to.
Un-enlightened Austrian authorities? No. I don't think so.
Anyone who refer to deities in their regular life, like Niko Aim, is un-enlightened.
That those Austrian authorities gave in to this makes me sad.
Really? What percent of people, in your day to day life, throw their religion in your face?
Now, what percent of internet atheists post smug shit every time they see a shadow of an opportunity?
Cue a million posts by smarmy fuckers about how religion is the only thing harming society, and if we could just make one more smug internet post about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it would all go away!
You complain about people who do not share your myths as ''trolling religious people'' and then proceed to do the same. What you are doing is to discourage discussion by getting those who might reply to think ''am I a troll and asshole?''.
People might not get so upsed about beliefs if everyone did indeed ''keep their faith to themselves'', but this generally does not happen with the result that you irritate non believers and induce those who adhere to different myths to shout back to show that their myths are the true ones ...
No: I don't think that ''religion is the only thing harming society'', there are plenty of other things as well.
What Mr Niko Alm is doing is to raise the question as to why religious people can bend society to give them special privileges. Why should everyone not be allowed to wear what ever they want on their head in their driving license photograph? Why restrict this right just to those who believe some mythologies to be true ?
Slashdot !== Reddit.
Sigh.
The article is wrong. This is not a "licence" card. It is even more important, it is a National Identification Card which is widely used in Europe (only UK doesn't use it). It is extremely useful as it is used in all government communications, specially thought Internet. In fact, most National Identification Cards are smart cards and the European law allows citizens to authenticate and sign with that cards with the same legal enforcement as a manuscript signature.
"Pastafarianism" is absolutely about mocking religion. The whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing is akin to asking how magnets work. It ignores any modern philosophical arguments for or against the existence of god, and instead mocks the "invisible (straw)man in the sky" view of religion.
This is an interesting read (the comments that is :D)
-- J.
Two virtually impossible to compile statistics:
Anybody not throwing their religion in my face could either be keeping quiet or not have one. Similarly, you can be pretty sure that smugly atheistic posts are posted by smug atheists; but you'll have a bit of trouble determining how many other posts are or are not posted by 'internet atheists' whose primary definition is not the god they don't believe in.
More to the point, two not clearly relevant statistics: People who merely proselytize in public, while somewhat irritating(and definitely nonzero in number), are making a basically harmless use of their rights to freedom of religion and speech. Similarly, 'internet atheists', while potentially obnoxious, are at worst a minor subcategory of the trolls of the WWW.
What counts is how efficiently well placed people throw their metaphysical positions, or the consequences thereof, into your face, your laws, or other aspects of your society. And on that metric, the news ain't pretty...
They force their faith on other people, namely and most often, on their own kids. That's why "would keep their faith to themselves" is bullshit.
When religious fucks truly keep their faith to themselves, not pushing it onto even their own offspring, then I can sympathize. Not before.
I've never had an atheist ringing my doorbell to promote atheism. So far only religious people did to promote their religion.
So far only religious people have asked me to keep quiet for a while before dinner.
So far I've only received religion-promoting pamphlets on the streets, never pamphlets promoting atheism.
So far I've only seen religious people wanting to control other people's desires on topics like euthanasia and gay marriage. It is not that atheists say that other's should go for euthanasia or must marry a same-sex person.
So yes, please re-calibrate. What you see is response to a trigger. Like this one, yes.
Bert
it's coddling the weak. If we let nature take it's course on the road then we will evolve the ability to not kill ourselves behind the wheel through natural selection. Then everyone will drive properly and we won't ever have accidents in the first place!
I'm not "trolling" anyone. I am pointing out that anyone who pretends to believe in a fake religion to mock real ones is a troll.
You say:
People might not get so upsed about beliefs if everyone did indeed ''keep their faith to themselves'', but this generally does not happen with the result that you irritate non believers and induce those who adhere to different myths to shout back to show that their myths are the true ones ...
A few days ago some mormons knocked on my door, and spoke to me for about thirty seconds before I politely told them I wasn't interested. This was noteworthy, because it was the first time in years that I was approached by people pushing religion. And yet I can hardly read a single discussion on the internet without finding some smug asses trying to show off how smart they are by making fun of the religious. Ask yourself.... when was the last time you read a discussion on /. in which someone brought up religion without someone first mocking it?
I'm willing to bet that you can't think of an example unless you go to hot button issues like abortion or homosexuality. In those cases, fine. Emotions run high, people will bring up their beliefs regardless. But otherwise, people are generally quiet about their beliefs until they start getting mocked.
Stop mocking people, and you might find they become a lot more agreeable.
Those people, who ordinarily would keep their faith to themselves, get pissed off at the trolls and fight back.
Who are you to judge that this Pastafarian doesn't actually believe the tenets of his religion? Who is truly mocking who here?
Really? What percent of people, in your day to day life, throw their religion in your face?
1 too many.
Now, what percent of internet atheists post smug shit every time they see a shadow of an opportunity?
Not nearly enough. The hope is that if it becomes fashionable to make fun of religion, maybe it will go away.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Oh no! Someone rang your doorbell?! Or asked you to pause ten seconds before a meal??! Tried to hand you a slip of paper!!!!?!? How did you survive?
And on issues like euthanasia and gay marriage, I think you will find an awful lot of religious people on both sides of those issues. Personally, I'm for both. Pro-choice, too. But it would be a hell of a lot easier to win people over if you didn't go out of your way to mock them at every opportunity.
Austrian regulations for drivers license pictures state that they have to have a specified size and that the whole head has to be visible. There is no constraint that you cannot wear something on your head! Austrian police released a statement, that they do not care about that and granted it because it is within normal specifications. Also, there was no "three year battle" at all. The guy applied for a license(Note: he specified that he did not want to be notified(!)) and the license was granted. End of story. Since the guy had specified that he wanted to take care himself and check for completion of the request himself(!), the license was simply waiting for him for more than two years. http://derstandard.at/1310511140592/Fuehrerschein-Nudelsieb-doch-nicht-aus-religioesen-Gruenden-genehmigt
You go Niko!
Now, if we can just get that show on our local stage sometime...
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
I get it every time I sneeze.
So in allergy season? Plenty.
No-one else think that not only did he waste 3 years of his life but also waste a lot of tax payer money as well?
He needs psychiatric help.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Why are you here? Looks like you have the wrong forum.
This is for people who think for themselves, not those who repeat the thinking of others.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Thank you for at least admitting that your sole goal is to mock people until they don't dare speak against you. That puts you a step above most.
Of course, in reality, mocking people simply makes them harden their stance. But hey, don't let basic knowledge of human nature get in your way.
Although geographically limited, there have been a few ad-buys on billboards or mass transit by secular groups.
And, for such terrifyingly vitriolic messages as "You can be good without god" and "Not a believer? You're not alone", they've had to go through a remarkable amount of flack...
Either you've just demolished the argument for making anything illegal, or you didn't quite think your brilliant plan all the way through.
So once again... Do you truly feel that the right to control something as powerful and potentially dangerous and deadly as an automobile should not require first demonstrating some minimal competency and possibly a few other basic skills at operating one to a nominally disinterested 3rd party?
He's saying that the test doesn't test what it's supposed to test. Pretty logical.
That's because mockery is a friggin useful tool! It keeps the faithless entertained, moves the wall-sitters to faithlessness, but it obviously doesn't move the unmoveable.
Satire has always been the most pleasant and entertaining way to debate the issues. The wrong way to do it is violence and threats, which the religulous have been doing for eons. If they really wanted to win people over, they should get some comedians.
Do you think that religion's utility as a smokescreen is unrelated to the degree of reverence that common opinion affords it? (or, for that matter, that every would-be theocrat is, in fact, insincere?)
While there is certainly some good, old-fashioned, trolling just for its own sake among atheists as elsewhere, the whole point of exercises like Pastafarianism, getting a driver's license with a colander on your head, Draw Mohammed Day, and the like is to corrode, by public display of irreverence, the great power of automatic deference traditionally enjoyed by assorted religious symbols.
You really think the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument has any effect on them?
Read the fucking article. This is about how 1 man challenged the law concerning religious headgear, using the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument as his tool to open up a debate on the issue. This has hit the mainstream media. People who read this will now question their current position on the argument. They may not change their position, but they will be at least consider it, if only for a second.
In a society which has rules which must be obeyed, err, except that not everybody has to obey them if they claim to belong to a religion which forbids it, we really need people like him to highlight the absurdity of the procedure.
We should either require compliance or not. This absurd half way house where most of us have to comply but some of us don't is divisive and pointless.
Now, what percent of internet atheists post smug shit every time they see a shadow of an opportunity?
So you're comparing the actions of reasonable people to the actions of those found on the internet? Talk about a double standard.
What percent of people, in your day to day life, throw their religion in your face?
I'd say about 5% of the religious people I know throw it in my face, and about 2% of the atheists throw it in my face.
Now, what percent of internet atheists post smug shit every time they see a shadow of an opportunity?
Well I can say a ENORMOUS percept of religious people post smug shit every time they see a shadow of an opportunity, and about an equal percent of atheists do as well.
See how the comparisons work out to be roughly equal when you compare valid samples?
as the other AC wrote this is not an ID card, see here for an actual Austrian "Personalausweis".
there are no atheism-motivated wars or ethnic cleansings.
You may be wrong on that front actually
Also the Cold War was partly motivated by atheism (it was more motivated by economic principles, but religion was thrown in on the Russian's side at least).
Before you say "that's only one time!" How many powerful atheist dominated societies have there been? I don't think us atheists really have anything to be proud of.
I dare say I understand statistics better than you do. But my anecdote wasn't meant as one.
You concede most trolls are atheists. Well, most people in the world are religious by every count I've ever seen. Therefore, even the most rudimentary understanding of math would lead you to the conclusion that atheists are more likely to be trolls than other people. Which supports my original statement, that atheists enjoy trolling religious people. Either with comments about the FSM, or invisible sky men, or talking about events from hundreds or even thousands of years ago as if modern day people are responsible for them.
And the primary drive of my post, if you bothered to read it, was that this is counter-productive. It sets people on the defensive, makes them angry, and makes it that much harder for us to coexist. If a Jew really wants to wear a skullcap in their picture, let them. You know it's important to them. Far more so than it is to you to be able to wear a baseball cap. So why mock them? Why go through this complicated three year ordeal just to try to convince people that the Jews shouldn't be allowed to wear their hats?
Simply put, a bunch of smug asshole atheists have it in their head that they can destroy religion if they mock it enough. All they're really doing is causing social strife and making people miserable. But the reasonable atheists don't seem to see this. They fall into the same tribal mentality as everyone else, and end up cheering on their team.
Anyone who defines their personality by the mockery of others is a complete and irredeemable asshole.
Well that covers 90% of tv commedians
Oh, it moves the unmovable. Just not in the direction you want. They go from luke-warm "church on easter and christmas" Christians to "Ban abortions and gays and evolution!" Christians, because they feel under attack. Whereas if you simply engage people and talk to them as equals, you can still sway fence sitters, without stirring up a hornets' nest.
But really, your first phrase says it all. It keeps the faithless entertained. That's what it's really about. Trolling.
Time to pull that crucifix out of your arse I'd say
It does test what it's supposed to test: driving safety. It additionally tests ecological driving knowledge.
Oh no! Someone rang your doorbell?! Or asked you to pause ten seconds before a meal??
I actually enjoy the discussions I have had with people coming to my door. The people calling usually don't, they are usually surprisingly unprepared for a real debate. I have actually had Mormons miss out my house when going down my road.
I am pointing out that anyone who pretends to believe in a fake religion to mock real ones is a troll.
I think you're missing the real point of the Pastafarianism thing; that all religions are fake. Most people are used to treating them as "real", and most believers are afraid of examining their core beliefs; by pushing the absurdity of a colander in their faces, this guy and others are forcing them to look again at the basic issues, and maybe help a few of them realize the absurdity of the whole concept of a religion,or at least help them take it less seriously. That's a GOOD THING.
It ignores any modern philosophical arguments for or against the existence of god, and instead mocks the "invisible (straw)man in the sky" view of religion.
True, but here's the thing -- the "invisible man in the sky" grade of religion is, at bottom, exactly what the vast majority of religious laypeople do in fact believe in. They don't like when people phrase it that way, of course, because it makes their religion sound silly. Clergy and philosophers might have more realistic and thoughtful ideas about God, but most people don't. So it's not really a straw man.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Do you think that religion's utility as a smokescreen is unrelated to the degree of reverence that common opinion affords it? (or, for that matter, that every would-be theocrat is, in fact, insincere?)
Yes, and irrelevant.
Yes to the first, because the people who are fooled by the smokescreen are going to become even more likely to vote based on faith when they feel under attack. Those who wouldn't fall for the smoke screen weren't going to vote for the guy using it anyway.
Irrelevant to the second, because whether the theocrats are sincere or just using religion as a tool, either way they're not going to be swayed by some internet trolls.
Meanwhile, people are starving the world over while this guy apparently posts comments on slashdot! You're the REAL hero!
This is true. The problem is that most atheists also believe that that's all there is to religion. So they're mocking something they don't even try to understand. Surely you can see the problem with that? It's like when congressmen get up and complain about "a million dollars spent studying hornets in China" without any idea as to what the research is about.
But anyway, my core point is that mockery makes people harden their views. If your goal is to reach a point where religion doesn't interfere with science, then mockery is counter-productive.
Are they? Do you have any support for that statement? Or do you just believe it because you've heard some convincing sounding arguments from Dawkins or whoever and nodded along with them. I'm willing to bet that you haven't given the question any serious thought. This is what actual thinking looks like. Pretending theists all believe in an invisible sky man is just willful ignorance.
that'd be painful given the shape.
Those people going door to door are not so much being sent out to convert others as they are being sent out to force them to make a public commitment and expenditure of time for their religion. Any converts they get are a bonus.
If you actually get intellectual enough to seriously question their religion, that would defeat the purpose, since instead of being forced to commit to the religion, they could be pushed farther away.
There have been atheistic state religions, but they were never motivated by atheism.
Atheism has never been a motivation to kill people the way religion has and it never will be.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
First of all, the world is not the Internet. There may not be many pro-religion discussions on Slashdot, but there may be in the real world (especially depending on where you live.)
Second, people don't just "bring up their beliefs" for issues like abortion or homosexuality. Those beliefs are not incidental to those issues, they are the main reason for their stand.
Actually, my goal *is* to mock people until they don't dare speak against me. How am I doing?
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Religions are for dumb people who dont know how to lead their lives. In today's world we dont need any religion to tell us to be good humans. Religions are anti- nature and wildlife.....
60EUR and he can get a new one. Those new card-licenses expire after 10 or 15 years anyway.
Shouldn't this be a requirement for followers of all religions?
If a Jew really wants to wear a skullcap in their picture, let them. You know it's important to them. Far more so than it is to you to be able to wear a baseball cap. So why mock them? Why go through this complicated three year ordeal just to try to convince people that the Jews shouldn't be allowed to wear their hats?
Had it occurred to you that perhaps this guy believes that all should be equal under the law more as or more strongly than other people believe in their religion? This is something that I believe very strongly too: I feel very strongly that I and others should not have fewer rights because we don't profess an allegience to something that clearly does not exist[*]. So, he's doing the best that he can and is mocking the official position, and raising the issue publicly.
[*] Many religions get special dispensation. Only one can be right at most, so this is a fair claim even if you are religious.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Somalia doesn't - off you go, I'm sure you'll love it there!
There was a brochure issued by the DMV that said that you only may wear headgear for religious reasons on the photo. That was the initial trigger why @NikoAlm started the whole thing. The law regarding driving licenses says nothing about religion, only that the head must be "fully visible", but that came up only recently.
The clerk at the DMV initially refused to issue the driving license, asking for a photo without headgear. When Mr. Alm asked to get that in writing, the DMV issued a (kind of) subpoena instead and had Mr. Alm examined by a medical officer regarding his mental health. Luckily the examination only took 5 minutes and Mr. Alm now has it in writing that he is mentally sane and fit to drive a vehicle.
The DMV then issued the driving license after about a year but did not contact Mr. Alm so that he could pick it up, that's where the long delay came from.
That's the whole story as told at http://blog.alm.at/2011/07/12/hl-fuhrerschein-episode-6-das-finale/ (translation: http://goo.gl/MOsG1)
Yes, it is only a moral victory. For a real victory, somebody would have to do that with a passport photo where headgear really is only allowed for religious reasons. But hey, given the even international publicity, somebody might... :-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That was beautiful goal-post moving. I mean, "mocking religious people"->"mocking religion", I wouldn't have discovered that, if not for the fact that people do it EVERY SINGLE TIME this subject is discussed.
Religion deserves mocking if people use it to get special rights or to influence politics (remember, Pastafarianism was started because of Creationism).
Anyway, I see this story as more about mocking authorities who give special rights to religious people than it is mocking of religion. If he wears the colander every day, and points out that he does it because of his religion, that would be mocking religion. If he only wears it for taking his drivers license photo, then it is mocking the fact that religious groups have special rights.
He didn't waste 3 years. He invested nearly nothing that would exceed the costs of a "normal" driving license, he even only borrowed the colander. And it cost him lets say one hour or two extra due to the medical examination and the paperwork.
And he did not waste tax-payers money, the DMV did it by not recognizing his religious rights in the first place...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can't speak for all atheists, but my biggest problem with the religious is not that they want to tell me about their faith - it is the fact that they want their faith to be mandatory. You can't tell me that the opposition to gay marriage cones from anywhere other than religious intolerence, for instance. This becomes even more dangerous when a majority of the population buys into such bullshit.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Is there a combo mod for dumbass AND troll? Trollass? Dumbtroll?
Kristopeit., Michael Trollack
The initial reason why Mr. Alm started the whole thing was a brochure issued by the Austrian DMV that stated that headgear on the photo was only allowed for religious reasons. Now would you doubt the legality of an oficially-issued prochure?
Yes, it only took about one year due to the DMV requesting the mental examination. Yes, Mr. Alm did not pick up the driving license, but the DMV did not send him notification that he may pick up his drivers license as they usually do when a driving license isn't picked up.
I am a transplanted Canadian living in Austria. My wife has known Niko for many years. What he is doing is bringing light to the issue of separation of religion and state, and the removal of power by majority or minority religions on society. He is not some serious Pastifarian, please do not belittle a reasonable and intelligent fight with humour not guns against the power of religion to dictate the abilities of a person in a society. I also suppose some people that think this is stupid would think putting cross-hairs on an political opponent on their website is ok... and the resulting outcome not their fault.
Niko is bringing to light the issue of religious rights. He is not for religion. One has to understand the Austrian history a bit, and current situation here to get why he is doing this. On one hand you have a 74% Catholic majority of the population, a large noticable immigration of Islamic persons, and even if they are not the largest immigrating sector (Eastern block is) they are the most culturally different and integration is not an option of choice for many, whether it be language, religion, or culture. The common Austrian greeting on the street is "Gruess Gott", meaning "Greet God".....not exactly bipartisan. In schools there are still crosses in classrooms, something else he is fighting to have removed. Most (if not all) legislated holidays allowed by the government are only Catholic in nature. Added to this, historically Austria has been overtaken through history by various cultures and empires, since Roman times.... whether it be eastern based or western European civilizations. Out of this there is a rooted feeling of protectionism in "Austrian" even if that is a mix of those ruling cultures over time. One only has to look at the last election here where the FPÖ, the right wing party won 27% support, one campaign slogan was "Foreign blood is not good for Austria" (how scary is that!) There is a trend in Europe of right wing protectionist parties gaining in strength right now, with Holland being a good example of this as well. So there are many parts of society that may be railing against the Burka to support what may appear "Church out of State issues", but are really it is protectionist based. The Burka has become the lighting rod for this state vs religion and culture issue. Hence his use of a colandar in a photo, not a burka. One only has to look to France that has outlawed the wearing of the Burka and now Belgium as well to see how this issue of religious rights protectionism is being polarized in Europe. He is not pandering to the majority religion side, or part of it, quite the contrary. Austria is taking a more cautious approach, and bending in some ways, and not in others.
Canadians have dealt with these issue for many years, as crosses in classes have not existed since 1896 in British Columbia. And close to that time in other provinces, as it is controlled at a provincial level. Also on the issue of religion Canada has had to deal with 10 year old children wearing Kirpans to school(Religious dagger) to school. Regarding national identity, the RCMP has had to allow people to wear turbans as part of their official dress. With culture and religion, one only has to look at the divide that raises and falls with the French/English relationship inside of Canada. Canada is mulit-cultural, America is a melting pot, Austria I would say is "tolerant through the lessons of the past", and cautious on how to change. Niko is one of the few voices of the "new social leaders" in Austria that is trying to bring light to these issues and do it in a way that is not too confrontational, yet gets people talking and the issue being addressed by the government. These are not easy topics within Austrian society or at a governmental level here.
For me Austria is a very cautious nation aware of the mistakes and lessons of the past. But with such a large religious majority it is hard for the government to not take the side in protecting the rights of Christians as a majority politically. Niko is trying to point out that democracy of society is without religion, not religious majorities ruling when it comes to rights of a society. Not something easily dealt with for any society.
Good work Niko!
potentially dangerous and deadly as reproduction
Dangerous and deadly to people not involved in the act? I'd like to see that.
Dilbert RSS feed
I vote for carrying landmines in your bag, that way you can respond even after being killed!
Dilbert RSS feed
Do you enjoy the tactile feedback that your finger tips provide? A super nerve dense area of skin that allows your hands to do delicate stuff. Imagine if as a baby someone came along and shaved off all of your finger tips. Do you think you'd be able to do the types of work that an 'un shaved' would be able to do? You wouldn't know any different. As far as you know that's how fingers are supposed to work.
"Ribbed for her Pleasure" condoms. Where the heck do you think 'rib' was supposed to come from? Prosthetics are nice but not quite the same.
Multiculturalism wasn't about rights, those are absolute in most places. It was about people tolerating different cultures, but it turned out that there are lots of situations where you can't do that. That is why it failed.
As an example a few years back I was fixing PCs for a living. People brought them to the shop, we told them our labour and parts cost and they decided if they wanted it or not. Problem is in some cultures haggling is the normal way to do things, and people in those cultures add a large margin to cover what they will have to concede to the customer. We don't do that in British culture so it created a difficult situation. If we stuck to our guns it would upset the customers, if we caved in it would upset up.
Fortunately multiculturalism is dead, but it would be nice if we made more effort to help people integrate. A lot of the customers were students of the local university and it wouldn't have been hard for them to have a half hour session on cultural norms here when they arrived. We need to be less afraid of requiring people to abide by our cultural rules, like France has done with banning the full face veil.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
so you shouldn't clean your own house if you live next to a sob? the guy is an Austrian trying to improve Austrian law.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
I did this once as well. The joker ambushed me as I was taking my groceries in. The guy had no idea what Taoism was, and his only response after I finished explaining to him was. "But what if you're wrong?" My response was to pose his own question back him, and finish unloading my groceries.
I want to shoot the messenger!
. Glad he's fighting for the rights of people who really aren't discriminated against in today's society instead of actually helping people.
He is in fact fighting against preferential treatment for mainstream religions, i.e. for secularism, which is often not really thorough in so-called modern democracies. Members of the Catholic Church get tax cuts to compensate their membership fees, religious people get to teach ethics classes at school, crosses are still hanging on the wall in many classrooms. He chose this way to protest against lack of secularism and will apparently try to claim all other unjustified favours the Catholic Church gets for Pastafarianism as well, to get authorities to rethink this favouritism.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Hence the psychiatric evaluation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1DVWX96PNg
You can talk to people as equals while poking fun at them. But also, it's a bit disingenuous to talk to them as equals when most atheists really cannot, for the life of them, fathom why someone has faith. It just comes out sounding false.
And how does the government show it tolerates people from different cultures? By giving them extra or fewer rights. In Britain, Sikhs have the right to drive motorcycle without a helmet, people of other religions haven't. In the EU, people who are of certain religions have the right to wear headgear on the photos in their drivers license and passports, people not of those religions haven't. This is multiculturalism, and it is about what rights people have.
Multiculturalism isn't dead (unfortunately), even though it has been a massive failure from an integration viewpoint. Britain has had the most multicultural politics in Europe, most muslims in Britain doesn't see themselves as British. In France, the state sees individuals, not cultures, and a majority of the muslims in France see themselves as French. For some reason, the European countries are copying Britain in stead of France in their integration politics**.
** The example you gave is not what I thinks should be copied from France, banning clothes is a violation of the freedom of speech, and not something free societies should be doing.
When the religious stop trying to force their set of believes in my laws (from school curriculum to sex laws), I'll stop mocking them. Deal?
Separation of church and state, it's about time we finally do it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
potentially dangerous and deadly as reproduction
Dangerous and deadly to people not involved in the act? I'd like to see that.
Clearly you've never done it medieval style!
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
The smart Libertarian will save up for a shopping trip to General Dynamics. Of course, any Libertarian who can't afford their own Abram just needs to work harder or maybe smarter, or maybe in a zig-zag pattern that's hard to target.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Actually, I think they probably would do a psychiatric evaluation on anyone who attempted to wear a mutilated penis on their head in an Australian driving licence photo.
An Austrian photo, on the other hand, may be more likely to show a cap with a reservoir tip if this article is any indication.
...mock-religions.
Which is... wait for it... to mock religions. ReligionS. As in plural.
Not "one sect's beliefs". That would be religious bullying, which is the first cousin (on its mother's side) of religious persecution.
Besides. Every religion out there already has its own methods and channels for that particular activity, on sect by sect basis.
Mostly based around claims that everyone else who is NOT a member of their sect is going straight to hell.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The article calls him "A self-confessed atheist".
Doesn't confessing imply an admission of guilt? That doesn't seem necessary.
Also, what's the difference between "self-confessed" and "confessed"?
Believe me, I tried to understand. I spent quite a while reading the Bible (also in Latin and (as far as I could) in Greek) and to some degree the Koran, though I didn't bother to learn Arabic just to get closer to the original, sorry. It does have a solid and sound foundation and in its time it was a perfect basis for a good cooperation and quite possibly even actually making the cooperation of more than a clan of people possible. The ten commandments exist in many religions to some degree, and their basic reason to exist is precisely that: Allowing people to live together without being wary of one another constantly. The rules and regulations, from living to clothing to eating to behaviour, they all make a lot of sense in the context of 3000 BC.
They don't necessarily five millennia later.
What I don't understand is why religiously zealous people think that laws that were written in a completely different context, a completely different political, economical and social environment and a technologically far less developed society would apply to our times. There is a reason we adjust and adapt our laws, not constantly, but certainly more often than once every couple millennia. Certain rules are probably timeless. I'd say it is still a very good idea to make killing someone else illegal and punishable. But we no longer have to make sure our population doesn't die out and hence outlaw practices and strategies that aim at not producing babies. We can now keep food from perishing and examine it for diseases, so we needn't avoid certain foods that are easily perishable or can contain diseases that affect us.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Pastafarianism [...] came into being during the "teach the controversy" creationism period in the US, to demand that its own creation myth be included in official curricula, if other people's were
If I were designing the curriculum, science books would have history sections explaining what people believed before the current models arose. For example, a book about chemistry might open with a progression from continuous matter to indivisible atoms to plum-pudding to Bohr orbits to quantum wave models of the atom. Likewise, the chapter on the big bang in an earth science textbook would list the creation myths of the most famous religions.
I see faith as not unlike Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Both show that there exist truths within a system of things that cannot be proved within the system.
Gee, you need to keep up with the odd Atheistic cults, the IPU (Invisible pink unicorn) is for mocking the invisible man in the sky,
the real question is do you believe her invisibly is surpassed by her pinkness, or is her pinkness surpassed by her invisibly.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
sorry, vi sucks.
I can't believe all of this talk of false religions. Everyone KNOWS the universe was sneezed out of the nose of The Great Green Arkleseizure. Ye shall all fear The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief!
Yeah. -1 kdawson.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
No, it just means that, like many others, you're the kind of smooth-brain cretin who can't distinguish between the negative right for yourself to be whatever religion you wish, and the imaginary right -- or, shall I say, entitlement delusion -- to try to shove it down everyone's throat.
If that still confuses you, here's a useful analogy: sex is also mostly free, but that doesn't give you a right to knock on everyone's door once a week and harass them with repeated requests to accept your dick. What you do between consenting adults is one thing -- for sex or religion alike -- and we won't stop you, but if you mistake that for some "right" to harass others then you're just an antisocial idiot.
Still, maybe singling out JWs was narrowing it too much. I'd phrase it more like "if you're the kind of frakking moron who thinks that 'freedom of religion' means an entitlement to try to shove your delusions down others' throat, GET OFF MY LAWN!"
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This was one guy trying to make it so that Jews are forced to remove their yarmulkes to get their picture taken
No, this was about making the law apply to everyone equally. If it is acceptable for Jews to wear yarmulkes in this situation, then it should be acceptable for anyone to wear similar headgear. If it is not acceptable for anyone, then it should not be acceptable for Jews. Substitute Sikhs and turbans for Jews and yarmulkes there if you prefer.
Religion should not be a valid excuse to opt out of laws that you don't like.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I got into a debate with two jehovah's witnesses about the incompatibility of accurate prescience and free will in the same universe. Sending two of them out at once may have been a mistake - they were still arguing with each other when they left. They started avoiding my house after that.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I suppose that within a few years, Pastafarianism, or the Church of the FSM, will gain earnest followers whose number will eventually overwhelm the ironic followers. Another ironic religion will need to be established, and fought for, to demonstrate how ridiculous the idea of a Flying Spaghetti Monster really is. The true believers will always chase out the ironic founders. This is what happened with Scientology, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They all started out as jokes or games, and soon became deadly serious. The Church of the FSM thinks it's so clever, but it's just giving the Ouroboros of credulity more tail to devour. Or something like that.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
I don't know if it matters but I do think there is one glaring difference between what this guy is doing and what all of the favorite targets of Slashdotters are doing. That is, the believers of real religious faiths actually do believe in what they're doing, even the apparel they wear as part of their worship. Does anybody truly believe this guy believes in a spaghetti god or any supernatural reason to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head?
If he doesn't, and the only reason he's wearing this thing is to make a political statement, then he shouldn't be compared to any member of a real religious faith. Instead, maybe he should be compared to PETA people who put on animal makeup and get photographed naked in cages to protest animal abuse. They're doing something outrageous to draw attention to a cause they believe in.
Maybe he shouldn't even be compared to them. Maybe he's more like Howard Stern, just doing whatever he can to get attention. But I certainly don't believe he's fighting for religious freedom, which is what he claims to be fighting for. In fact, if his goal is to mock people who are allowed to practice their religious beliefs then he's actually fighting to take away religious freedom.
I'm not saying what he's doing is bad or wrong. I'm just saying there is a difference between fighting for what you believe in and fighting against what other people believe in. I have issues with a lot of people who claim to be Jewish and people who claim to be Christian. But what they wear on their head isn't one of those issues. And I wouldn't have a problem with this guy wearing a spaghetti strainer on his head, except for the fact that the only reason he's doing it is to insult people who believe in things he doesn't believe in. I can understand him being upset if the person believes in something that hurts him. But what they wear on their head doesn't hurt him.
well, good point, but given that most religions are incompatible with eachother, it can be concluded that at least MOST religions are fake.
Pastafarianism, Scientology, The Church Of The Subgenius, and I'm sure others were all originally pretend religions.
Once they got large enough it was practically inevitable that someone would take them seriously.
In the case of Scientology, it didn't help that the person who invented it intended for people to take it seriously (from my understanding, there was a bet involved).
Heck, I bet there are even people who seriously believe the fake spoofs of Scientology.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Though I suppose they will for your passport if the TSA has their way...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If I had mod points I'd have used 'em
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
... herein lie the seeds of pastafarian jihad.
Actually, it's Flak, from german Fliegerabwehrkanone (anti-aircraft gun).
The argument is simple: Yes, it is less traumatic as a child, but the child also cannot give consent. Maybe the child will grow up to think it's normal. Maybe they'll grow up to think they've been mutilated.
In either case, it seems important to me that before removing a part of your body, you should have some say.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You don't understand Libertarianism either. What you describe is more akin to Anarchism.
Libertarians do not resist all government. Just that which gets in the way of personal freedom. Using a public road with a license to do so does not invade my personal freedom. Telling me what I can('t) do with my own body does. Preventing me from killing someone protects their personal freedom from my meddling and is an acceptable compromise to a real Libertarian.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Sometimes "treat others as you would want to be treated" can be open to interpretation. Suppose you where doing something, that without your knowledge, would condemn you to hell -- like wearing shorts. Wouldn't you want someone to notify you of this horrible transgression so that you can fix it and go to heaven?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
100%
Every time someone gives me change for a dollar, blesses me when I sneeze, say's "God willing", "Thank God", or one of the other various religion based sayings.
This doesn't count the number of license plates I see on a regular basis: GZUSLIVS, BLESSD, etc. or bumper stickers with Bible quotes. There's even one car in the area with hand painted on all four sides "Jesus Saves"
There's also the very large and sometimes garish monuments built depicting various bible events outside or on top of churches. One common one is a device used to display and possibly kill people commonly called a cross. I suppose if you lived in Rio / Brazil you could also point to a very large statue as yet another example.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
You can't debate/argue logically with someone who bases their entire argument on faith. Faith requires discarding logic.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
The reason that Muslims and other religious people are allowed to wear head cover in driver license photographs and other situations where hats would normally not be allowed is because they have a religious belief that their heads should always be covered in public. Thus there is no way for them to comply with both their religion and the government rule that hats should not be worn.
If rarely wear the holy hat anyway, then you shouldn't have any problem not wearing it to have your photograph taken, or to enter government buildings etc.
Sometimes "treat others as you would want to be treated" can be open to interpretation.
I prefer STP treatment, less engine wear, better gas mileage.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
You ask for supporting arguments (ie: proof) but I assume, like most religious folks, you fall back on "faith" when asked for the same of your religion?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Their cause is to be recognised, they are recognised. I don't understand the harm to their cause?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
12.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I think you are not conflating weak and strong atheism. Weak atheism as far as i can see is perfectly reconcilable with science. Also in a very real sense we are all agnostics; Even true believers.
I usually don't trust oil additives, but while looking up STP treatment, I noticed their smoke treatment. That may work very well in my oil burning 77 chevy pickup.
Suppose you where doing something, that without your knowledge, would condemn you to hell -- like wearing shorts.
Not possible; a Christian's sins are forgiven. The only unforgivable sin is worshiping a different god or gods (like money, for example).
In that hypothetical case yes, I'd want to be told, but not in a hateful, accusatory tone. Screaming "YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL" is most decidedly not Christian behavior.
Free Martian Whores!
Sadly... There's NOTHING in the Bible that would lead anyone to think that you're going to Hell because you're wearing shorts- save that maybe they feel that it's "seductive". They didn't say that, only that she was risking her immortal soul to wearing shorts. I suggest that those folks quit speaking of the splinter in their brother's eye and pluck out the plank in theirs first- they're not following what he taught by doing it the way they did it, regardless of the thinking you're talking to.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Clearly some sort of Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox Pastafarian."
I believe you are mistaken. The article specifically mentions that his religious headgear was "unorthodox".
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Wouldn't you want someone to notify you of this horrible transgression so that you can fix it and go to heaven?
I see that exact rationale used all the time. It makes me sad.
Libertarians do not resist all government. Just that which gets in the way of personal freedom
Which is admiral, as a theoretical philosophy. As a philosophy, I support Libertarianism. In practice, however, good luck finding 3 Libertarians that agree on which are essential functions of government and which are functions that interfere with personal freedoms. The problem with Libertarianism, just as with Communism, is that it appears to be impossible to actually implement in a society full of humans.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
At the risk of invoking Godwin, seeing as the NSDAP wanted to obliterate not just Judaism, but pretty much every religion, including Christianity, you can add them to AC's list.
Speaking as an atheist, it's a complete fallacy that atheism is peaceful and understanding. As with believers, you'll always find some fanatics* - granted you're less likely to find an atheist willing to blow themselves up to make a point - but don't say never. As this case shows, atheists can take their lack of belief pretty seriously.
*While not of the gun toting variety, I'd include Richard Dawkins in the fanatical column - just as I've got a right no to be preached at, people of faith have a right not to be told they're fucking idiots for believing in an afterlife. I finished the God Delusion, but it took some will power not bin it afterwards.
Does anybody truly believe this guy believes in a spaghetti god or any supernatural reason to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head?.
He may not, but sometime somewhere someone will. There is a slippery slope from playing at a religion to believing it. You find yourself saying "may the noodly appendage bless me" when nobody is there. Then you start to feel that perhaps if you don't ask for the FSMs blessing things won't go well - nothing supernatural but its some psychological preparation.
Then you start to have ridiculous thoughts that perhaps there is some supernatural being, who has chosen to make himself known to you as the FSM. My friend told me this anyway, and said that at this point he stopped it all just in case he ended up not knowing that the thoughts are ridiculous.
I repeat: Goedel's claims NOTHING outside of formal languages. Don't use it to try to justify (blind) faith. Faith is _not_ required in math.
I originally intended it as an analogy from formal languages (which are covered by the theorems) to other fields that aren't covered by the theorems. Religion is an attempt to know about what we can't prove with science.
that is an example of "trust" not of (blind) "faith"
I'm failing to see much of a diffference.
What church membership fees are you talking about, exactly? I was not aware that any catholic church imposed fees on their congregation to remain members
Or are you talking about tithes (something wholly separated from church membership)?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
cool - Tell you wife's friend, "Nicely done!" :-)
Religion requires faith, in the sense that there is something which cannot be proven and hence we'd either have to believe it or not. The problem I have with it is that you don't need religion at all for it. Yes, there are things we cannot prove, some have not been discovered yet, some will probably never be discovered. But where does religion come in? No matter what miracle you present me that "proves" God's existence, I will show you an equally likely event that doesn't need a god. Creation of humankind? Some alien did it. Creation of the universe? A botched experiment of some extra-universal scientists. Miracle cure? Statistics and selective perception. Jesus' ascent to the heavens? Provided it happened at all, Jesus was an alien and was taken back by his mothership.
Yes, I cannot prove any of those. How could I? There is no trace, no evidence, for any of those "theories" (I use the term as loosely here as it is used by the theological "scientists"). And yet it is as likely as God's intervention because there is equally much evidence. That's the problem I have with religion. You can easily take God out of the equation or simply replace him with something equally outlandish or even more rational without worsening the likelihood.
But, and that may surprise you, I have no beef with people who want to believe in Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Eris (hail Eris, full of mischief!). As long as they don't try to push their illusions into the realm of real science.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do you have any support for that statement? Or do you just believe it because you've heard some convincing sounding arguments from Dawkins or whoever and nodded along with them. I'm willing to bet that you haven't given the question any serious thought. This is what actual thinking looks like. Pretending theists all believe in an invisible sky man is just willful ignorance
First, I'm not the one who should support anything. You're the one coming up with extraordinary claims, about something that is or is not an invisible beard in the sky; you're the one that needs to prove his claims.
Second, yes, I have given the question a lot of serious thought, when I was in my twenties and later. I have read a lot of religious literature, including Augustine, Origenes, Aquinas and a brace of more modern ones. To put my opinions in a nutshell, they will only convince one who already believes (and the same is true of the article you linked to). Their thinking is invariably biased by their belief in the existence of (a) God. Therefore their arguments are themselves twisted and ultimately faulty. After much thought, I reached the conclusion that all religions are fake. I haven't seen anything to convince me of the contrary yet, but I'm open to (reasonable) discussion. Note that "reasonable discussion" means all preconceived ideas are on the table, and excludes quoting the Bible, threats of hellfire or attacks on Dawkins, Darwin or any other such thinkers.
google images "penal scrotal webbing"
I did as you said, and googled for it (including the quotes), and it just returns one image - the Austrian Pastafarian driver's license.
Way to go. How you found out he not only has the thing on his head but also what his scrotum looks like AND feed it all to Google is beyond my imagination. You sure are one of those brilliant LULZSEC hax0rs. ^^
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
I'm feeling compelled to see how far I can get with getting pastafirism or even kopimism recognized as a religion in my country. I hope others are under this compulsion too and this turns into a worldwide thing. That would be quite funny and hopefully an eyeopener to some people :)
Creation of the universe? A botched experiment of some extra-universal scientists.
If the extra-universal scientist's name happens to be Jehovah, this is not unlike what I believe. An alien who goes by Satan has been botching the experiment for the past few millennia, and it has been revealed how he will handle this: once Satan finishes iterating through every possible botch all the way up to World War V, Jehovah will put Satan on death row for 1000 years to show how it should have been done.
You can easily take God out of the equation or simply replace him with something equally outlandish or even more rational without worsening the likelihood.
I'm sort of seeing what you mean: any religious belief is isomorphic to science fiction.
You really think pastafarianism, or the church of subgenius for that matter, has caused pro-life bombings, gay-bashing and anti-scientific education? Aren't you switching cause and effect here?
The mockery is a response on a war against science that is raging in the US. If the US fundies stop their war against rationality, the mockery will stop. Honestly, young earth geology? Creationism? WTF?
You concede most trolls are atheists. Well, most people in the world are religious by every count I've ever seen. Therefore, even the most rudimentary understanding of math would lead you to the conclusion that atheists are more likely to be trolls than other people.
It doesn't really support your claim that the OP was a troll. You're misusing the term. Saying something to make a point is not the same as saying something simply to piss people off. Making a point may certainly piss people off as well, but it's not trolling.
And the primary drive of my post, if you bothered to read it, was that this is counter-productive. It sets people on the defensive, makes them angry, and makes it that much harder for us to coexist.
No, what makes it hard to coexist is the idea that some people should get special treatment just because they believe in some fairy tale. Obviously they can't all be right, so we know that at least most of them are wrong, yet we still make exceptions to the law for them. This causes strife.
Simply put, a bunch of smug asshole atheists have it in their head that they can destroy religion if they mock it enough.
Religious folks have no business calling anyone else smug assholes.
But the reasonable atheists don't seem to see this. They fall into the same tribal mentality as everyone else, and end up cheering on their team.
What team? Atheists in general just want religious people to stay out of their business and quit trying to make laws, or exceptions to laws, based on their religion. When we hear politicians trying to turn our country into yet another theocracy, we naturally get a bit defensive. When they say things about how we're not good citizens because we don't share their myths, we naturally get a bit defensive. It's hard to feel sorry for those in the religious majority when they stand idly by allowing this crap to go on.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Are they? Do you have any support for that statement? Or do you just believe it because you've heard some convincing sounding arguments from Dawkins or whoever and nodded along with them. I'm willing to bet that you haven't given the question any serious thought. This is what actual thinking looks like. Pretending theists all believe in an invisible sky man is just willful ignorance.
There's really no need to argue about the existence of any god, let alone a specific god of the type described by the major religions. There's simply no evidence that supports it. All you have is writings of ancient people attempting to explain the world around them and/or ensure control of the masses, and the universe as we understand it at this point. None of it actually supports the kinds of beliefs that religious people have, but we still have to endure their insistence that they are the bearers of The Truth(TM), and their endless attempts to make others buy into their mythology and to force others to behave in accordance with whatever text/prophet they consider sacred.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Religions mock themselves well enough without our help.
...Nazis will eventually die from old age well enough, without our help.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe".
Pastafarians, Jedi etc. are ANTI-theists.
"I don't believe" is not enough when you actually want to take an active stand AGAINST the waste of humanity's money, time and other resources, exploiting of the gullible and promotion of hate and alienation and other fun activities organized religions have been into since the first manlike creature decided to worship the first piece of rock that looked interesting to him.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I wasn't arguing against any points you made. If you actually made some.
I'm not really sure what you were trying to say, your sentence structure being rather incoherent there.
I was simply informing you that those are not atheists but ANTItheists.
Cause the difference is rather huge. I.e. like between agnostics and atheists.
Or agnostics and Major ReligionTM on the other side of the scale.
How can I be putting up a strawman argument if I'm not arguing any points you made?
Or did you confuse my explanation of antitheist motives with me arguing against some point you made?
I mean, I know that most people come here expecting an argument (or abuse) but some comments ARE just attempts at being informative.
I mean, there's even a moderation option recognizing exactly that.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Speaking as an atheist, it's a complete fallacy that atheism is peaceful and understanding
No, it's not. It's a fallacy to say that all atheists are peaceful and understanding, but that's not what he said. He merely pointed out that atheism itself inherently cannot be the motivation for that kind of behavior. Even if you weren't completely wrong about the nazis, it would have been irrelevant - being an atheist doesn't mean that your actions are motivated by atheism.
Even if you weren't completely wrong about the nazis
Can you expand on that please - I've got not issue being told I'm completely wrong about something, but I like to be told why.