Slashdot Mirror
Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo
An anonymous reader writes "Eddie Castillo is the first American to successfully have his government-issued photo identification taken while wearing a colander, though DPS officials are reportedly planning to follow up with Castillo in order to 'rectify' the situation. Others have tried unsuccessfully, and Castillo told KLBK that he was surprised at his victory, which he called a 'political and religious milestone for all atheists everywhere.'" Two years ago Niko Alm won the right to wear a pasta strainer on his head although Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.
Can't think of a better symbol for atheism than someone wearing a bowl on their head.
He'd look just like Eddie Castillo.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all His Noodly Appendages!
It's all just an attempt from NSA and CIA to create more news, driving attention from Snowden's leaks, plus to show the whole world that USA is still more free and open country than Russia and China.
What would you say on that, cold fjord, eh?
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
OK, so what about the women who INSIST that their religion says they MUST wear a full-face Burka in public? NO SUCH DEMAND EXISTS IN THE QURAN!
Surely, then, these people should have to have a phsychologists' report to see if they are fit to drive.
It highlights the idiocy in having special laws for religious beliefs. If something should be illegal, it should be illegal for everyone. If something should be legal, it should be legal for everyone. You shouldn't get special privileges for holding certain beliefs. If it's fine for some people to wear hats or other head coverings in official photographs then it should be legal for everyone.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Of course he is psychologically fit, the pasta strainer will shield his brain from the orbital mind control lasers.
I submitted a photo where I wear a pasta strainer for my official electronic health insurance card in Germany -- and it got accepted, no questions asked! Always good to get some laughs when I have to go to a doctor.
Head coverings were not allowed, but religious ones were exempt. Oddly enough however, a friend of mine got a photo accepted where he poses with a beer mug (Maßkrug, you know, the typtical bavarian 1l mugs). Maybe because that's a religious symbol as well?
Saying communism and capitalism are "atheistic religions" is a comment so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin. How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism? They are completely disconnected in just about every way.
As for your other assertion, yes, billions of people still think of religions in terms of sky-fairies as opposed to philosophies and systems of ethics. Perhaps not those who study these systems, but for your average religious person, of course that still applies.
You give too much credit to the "religious faithful". I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.
I think the general point of movements like this is to remind people that they can *have* their "philosophy or systems of ethics" - they're welcome to them - but there's no need to have the group-rituals and sky-fairy baggage that go along with it. And once you stop doing that then there's no need to call what you're involved with a "religion" any more.
How is this the least bit on topic? This highlights not what religion is about, but that governments have been giving people special privileges based on their religion.
Either there is a good reason for the demand that you shouldn't wear anything on your head on official photos, or there isn't.
In the first case, why are we allowing people to forgo it because of their religion?
In the second case, why is the rule there?
Pastafarians make fun of the archaic aspects primarily.
They also attack special prvileges given out to religions.
This attack is against religions requiring you to always wear some type of hat and thus people of that religion are allowed to take their photo with this hat.
They find this to be wrong since other poeple are not allowed to use hats on the photo.
It is ridiculous that people are allowed to hide their face on ID photos by wearing headgear. No kind of headgear should be allowed on ID photos for any reason whatsoever, no exception allowed.
It's curious you assume he wants more restrictions, rather than more freedoms. I would argue his efforts are more about pointing out the arbitrariness of religion. If some people are allowed to do X, it stands to reason that everyone should be allowed to do X.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
Yes, they do, that's the entire reason for pastafarianism existing. To push back against people demanding that we teach things about sky fairies in science classes.
Lord. As I recall this was a contraction of `hlaf` (bread) and `weard` (ward, guardian). Keeper of the Bread.
Food certainly is an important thing to guard, but it kind of ruins the luster of the term "lord" duddinit?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Um, what?
Yes.
Cultural behaviour is almost entirely driven by self-identity. Most first world, western (I'm assuming this is what you meant by "in 2013" - otherwise your statement is farcical) people self-identify with their neighbours rather than with their "religion". Behaviour differences due to religion barely register when we all watch the same TV, go to the same schools / shops / workplaces, etc.
Religion comes down to the particular brand of irrational to which you subscribe. This usually manifests itself as odd thoughts about natural processes like death and sex.
Your last sentence naively negates my argument by implying that any identifiable system of human behaviour can be labelled a religion. Labelling communism and capitalism "religion" demonstrates a lack of understanding of all three phenomena.
And the primarty atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism
Such ignorance I've only seen from A.C.s.
atheism n. - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
That's it. It's not a religion. It's not about ethics. It's not about economics. Fuck right off you simple minded slanderous twit.
I can't believe I'm having to actually debate such stupid points on /., but here we go.
Economic systems are not religions.
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god(s).
The two have no connection to each other. Nada. In fact, here's a link to help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism
I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Sorry, logical argument doesn't work that way. The original sentence was "...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?". Given the prevalence of God(s) in just about every major religion still practised in this day and age, there needs to be evidence to back up this claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person calling it into question.
Showbiz Pizza was a front for the Pastafarian movement.
May as well start killing and eating one another.
give the middle finger to any camera that can or is taking a picture of me.
And no, I don't have a current I.D. card. So when someone asks me for my I.D., i just show them what it would of looked like. Needless to say, this gets me in trouble.
Religions seems to be nothing but trouble...
Be seeing you...
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
Yes. Because you can have a system of ethics without religion, and therefore religion is just about the magic sky-fairies. Or, you know, about controlling a bunch of sheep into doing stupid shit like giving you money in exchange for lies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That "religion" is a fake religion created to protest against the real religious impositions in society.
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?
How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism?
Millions of them have have sworn allegiance to a piece of cloth fluttering in the breeze. So very similar to those who bow and scrape before a statue. Many of them have given their lives for whom the statue or flag represents while killing those who put faith in a different statue or flag.
Exactly. For instance, you declare yourself a member of the Church of Caruso. A tenet is that you wear sunglasses (type is not important, so go nuts with the design if you want). This isn't allowed in ID photographs as it obscures your eyes. Yet a burka / turban / etc is allowed which obscures your hair, an arguably larger and more noticeable feature.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Religion is a form of governance and population control which cannot be criticized because "peoples feelings will be hurt" or the critic might get shot
Makes me think of when a religious person posts an opinion on Slashdot.
I half-heartedly await the day on which we can have a decent discussion about social issues without people being so vile. Somehow I don't expect this will happen in my lifetime.
Economic systems are not religions.
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
I'm not going to argue about Capitalism here. But Communism is not just an economic system. Its most famous version, the Marxist–Leninist version, but also the maoist version, provide a full-fledged philosophical world view. They have unverifiable dogmas, their own version of heaven. (On Earth, after the communist revolution is completed) They have rituals that mirror Christians Rituals. They sing songs in groups to the honor of the party, just like Christian sing songs to honor god. They claim superhuman status for their leaders. So these versions of Communism are religions, at least under functional definitions of religion.
And these versions are also atheistic, because a important part of their world view is also atheism.
Jan
I can't worship a deity that isn't gluten free.
Then that makes me...multireligious! woot!
Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?
Yes. But I have also seen many physics textbooks, but I'm quite sure that most Physicists do not imagine electrons as middle sized dots or colorful bubbles. Humans are able of abstract thought. Just like you can not illustrate electrons exactly how they really look like, you can not illustrate god. The ban of images of god that exists in many religions is clear sign that people always have been aware of this. Banning images of god is way to deal with this problem, symbolic images like the ones in the sixtine chapel are a different way of dealing it.
Jan
Logically speaking, yes: I have philosophical ideals and believe strongly in holding myself to a system of ethics I feel is right -- those have been true since I was 11-12 years old, yet I'm no longer a member of any religion (including the one that I grew up with) because I'm also agnostic.
For that matter, the primary gap between the different religions is which god(s) they believe in, and what rules they feel their god(s) want them to follow. The main difference between all of them and an atheist is that the atheist doesn't have a god & feels the rules come from mankind.
Capitalism and communism are economic designs, and whether someone thinks either is a great/awful idea isn't related to their views on religion. I'd like to know what on Earth you think a religious economic system would be, if you believe those two polar-opposites must both be atheist. You do know that extremely religious people in the USA are as likely to be cut-throat capitalists as much as any agnostic or atheist, right?
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
"Economic systems are not religions."
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
From Merriam-Webster
Given the way many on Wall St approach Capitalism, it could be argued that they are very religious. Similar on the Communist side where actions are taken to the extreme and no other viewpoint is accepted. When one begins to worship an economic system, it gets more and more like religious Dogma, not free will.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
You are confusing religion with culture. All the definitions of religion that I have looked up include not only cultural factors, but also involve supernatural beliefs (such as deities, a creator, life after death, etc.). Communism and its versions qualify as cultural systems, but not as religions.
Communism, as a philosophy, and what has actually been implemented in the real world, are very different things. The communist structures you mention were/are lead by dictators. Dictatorship is not a requirement in communism. If you read Marx's Communist Manifesto you'll see that the power structure in communism could be just about anything - even a democratic republic. Communism is an economic system. Not a political system, and not a religion.
The reason the dictatorship communists have a 'full-fledged philosophical world view' is due to the dictator demanding it on their people. Their demands are not derived from the communist manifesto or the communist system in general. Their demands are derived from their political system. Communism does not ban the worship of God, god(s) or goddess(es), and the only place of proof is the communist manifesto, and I would have to cite the entire book to show it's not in there.
As far as singing songs, I think you are mislead by pop culture. You make it sound as if Communism forces people to sing songs about The Party. People in communist countries sing songs about The Party because they want to, not because they have to. American culture for the last century has been devoted to demonizing communism to the point that most Americans think that citizens in communist countries are prisoners being forced to do things they don't want to do.
You should also look at the American system, which uses capitalism, and does a lot of the same things: children are told to say the pledge of allegiance as early as elementary school - a practice paralleled by countries like North Korea, the national anthem is sung at sporting events -which is about the government, just as much as songs about 'The Party' are, and people buy and cherish flags that represent the country. My point: these are not practices that are driven by an over-bearing, oppressive regime. These are things that are done willingly by the people. It's also important to note, that during all of this, religion hasn't come into the picture once. Why? Because capitalists, just like communists, are allowed to be Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Taoist, or any other religion they decide to follow.
In summary:
Dictatorship & Democratic republic = political systems
Communism & Capitalism = economic systems
Atheist & Theism = religious systems
The reason any particular dictatorship is theistic or atheistic is determined by the dictator. Same goes with communism and capitalism, and every other system that makes up the society being ruled.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, that is how the average person worships consumerism. You worship capitalism by proclaiming that everything done by the government is bad and that private companies can do it better even when it clearly isn't true.
I believe in the universe. I am part of it and will always be in one form or another. Nothing less, nothing less. I am more scientist than atheist.
Tomorrow is another day...
Makes me think of when a religious person posts an opinion on Slashdot.
Having people comment - even very caustically - because someone has paraded their superstition on a web site frequently mostly by rational people who aren't still stuck in a primitive time warp isn't the same as being shot. You get that, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You can't have a religion with no gods. That is like saying non-fruit apple. It makes no sense.
Soviet communism was a political and economic system, not a religion. You might be able to say its supporters had a set of common beliefs, but still those are not a religion.
You get that, right?
Of course! I was illustrating what I see as a parallel where someone expresses a minority opinion amongst a group having a contrary point of view. In the meantime, I got to thinking what the response around here would have been if the man in the original post had wanted to wear 1/ a Windows hat, or 2/ a Linux hat? 1/ridicule? 2/support?
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?
I was raised catholic. I'm an atheist now, but when i was in school, i was taught that all the imagery was not intended to be a factual illustration of heaven and god. As they liked to put it, all that stuff is unfathomable to our human minds. People draw pictures of god as a grandfatherly old guy with a beard because it's familiar and looks pretty.
I'm sure there are old people in the church, probably my grandmother's generation, who expect to meet that guy when they die. I'm pretty sure my parents only see it as an abstract though i'm not sure how "faithful" they really are. They go to church. I'm certain that the rest of my brothers are all atheist or at least agnostic.
No, I have equal disdain for all religions from Judaism to capitalism.
To quote an earlier poster, but removing one word, all religions are about "egocentric lords watching over us and determining our rights and wrongs", with a complex philosophy to justify it.
And how do you define "god", dear sir?
Obama does. Here he is... direct quote... talking about his faith in the Zombie Jesus:
"I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life." - Barack Hussein Obama
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Communism, as a philosophy, and what has actually been implemented in the real world, are very different things.
That is often claimed, but I'm not sure if that is really true. I do not think it is just a matter of bad luck that all real world attempts to implement communism ended in a horrible mess. Stuff like "Dictatorship of the proletariat" or "Class warfare" is right from Marx.
Communism does not ban the worship of God, god(s) or goddess(es), and the only place of proof is the communist manifesto, and I would have to cite the entire book to show it's not in there.
Communism as a philosophy contains far more than just the communist manifesto. All the other works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Trotsky, ....
You do not need to agree with them, but these works are still part of the philosophy of communism. There is not a single true version of Communism, but many different versions with different teachings and some of them are religions. What you are trying to do here, is the Communist version of the "True Christian" defense tactic. A Christian is still a Christian even if he does evil things, that are completely against your interpretation of what are a true Christian should do. And a Communist is still a Communist even if he, in your opinion, completely misunderstood Marx. Notice that I explicitly mention Marxism-Leninism and also Maoism in my last post. Sure, there is also a version of Communism that is just a economic system and nothing else. But Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and Stalinism are also versions of Communism and they are not just an economic system.
Atheist & Theism = religious systems
Atheism and Theism are not religious systems, but properties that can be part of religions and also non-religious world views.
Jan
You can't have a religion with no gods. That is like saying non-fruit apple. It makes no sense.
I think you might be interested in learning about Zen Buddhism. (quick tip: it does not require belief in any deities) Also see Jainism and Taoism.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
What? Have you listened to the religious folk? You'll find millions of reasonable, pleasant, even brilliant people if you engage in polite conversation about other topics. Bring up faith and they string together a series of logical fallacies that make your head spin and a supreme being that's some bizarre unknowable sadist but somehow represents all that is good in the universe. I defy you to find an exception, except maybe Buddhism - but depending upon the sect, some Buddhism is more personal philosophy than religion.
Note also that almost all war and murder before the 20th century had religious belief as a motivator for the conflict or was a secular conflict conducted by devoutly religious people. The Civil War was secular, but faithful Christians were butchering each other over a practice almost no atheist defends as moral - slavery.
If I argue that ROT13 is the ultimate unbreakable encryption scheme on Slashdot, or that Windows 95 is the most secure operating system ever created, I would get ridiculed and I would deserve to get ridiculed. Religion is no different.
The site is often friendly to people asking questions, but it's harsh to people asserting illogical ideas.
Your two words "atheistic religion" is as logical as "watching television when the television is off".
Pose with a glowing picture of the hypnotoad.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Robert Heinlein had some wacky ideas, but in one of his books he has the guideline, "Thou shalt pay lip service to the prevailing religious belief of thy culture." i.e. When in Rome, act like the Romans do.
The crazy religious people are still an overwhelming majority in the US, I suspect we're at least one or two generations away from the time an atheist could be elected president. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the Presidents and Presidential candidates of the last fifty years were closet atheists who pretended to Christianity for the sake of winning the election.
Hmm, with all that symbols (red stars and everything like that), rituals (Ever seen initiation to the Pioneers? Which, BTW, was mandatory for every schoolchild) and classical church hierarchy (Party and Komsomol), with scriptures (whole set of works of Lenin), that had to be heavily cited even it technical doctorate works (I kid you not), with portraits of Marx, Engels and of course Lenin (and maybe Stalin somewhere) in every home and on every workplace, even with the friggin Mausoleum of the dead Great Prophet Lenin on the Red Square - it surely had much more traits of the religion than even some religions do. And yes, blind faith in the Marksism-Leninism always trumped real facts, just look at the Soviet economy.
I do not consider atheism being a religion, of course, but considering Soviet communism it was as close as it could have been.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
True.
It's sad that there are filters in place to ensure that only liars and the spineless can get elected to high office.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
six of one, half a dozen of the other.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Transcendental experience?
Do you hallucinate much?
As already said, for an example see Zen Buddhism, also see the theory of political religions. Some definitions of religion require a god, many definitions of religions do not require God or anything supernatural, e.g.:
Clifford Geertz: "Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, persuasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in [people] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
Soviet Communism is clearly a religion under such a definition. It had all: a system of symbols, powerful motivations, a big theory about the general order of existence and last but not least it also did (4). The predictions done by the communist ideology were treated as completely proven facts.
Jan
Too bad this just makes them look like obnoxious spoiled brats.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It does not require blind faith to have a general policy of rejecting unfalsifiable things as false.
Going from "there is no evidence of any gods" to "there are no gods" isn't any different than going from "there's no evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun" to "there is no teapot orbiting the sun." It's not blind faith; it's common sense.
Blind faith is when you go from "there is no evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun" to the amazing fantastical "there is a teapot orbiting the sun."
The two different conclusions stemming from the initial unknown condition aren't equivalent, because one takes a falsifiable position and one does not.
The guy who believes in the orbiting teapot and the gods, is no longer able to learn anything, because no new evidence can ever possibly change his estimate of how correct his belief is. Evidence plays no role at all; he has ceased to be able to obtain information. He doesn't have a theory and nothing ever happens to increase or decrease his estimate of his belief's truth. His "knowledge" is a pure fantasy with no connection to truth (except perhaps accidental).
The guy who says there are no orbiting teapots and no gods, has a falsifiable theory. Discovery of an orbiting teapot or a god will invalidate it, and continued absence of contrary evidence (especially after deliberate searches) will confirm the theory. His position contains knowledge. You can build on that kind of knowledge, as you might have noticed with all the rocket ships and cellphones and medicines.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I get that this is a "win" for freedom and that the religious shouldn't get special privileges... but isn't this guy and maybe everyone fighting to wear colanders on their heads in photo IDs missing the point of photo ID and why there are exceptions? The purpose of this photo is to identify you. If you are a Muslim woman who always wears a hijab or a Sikh man who always wears a turban because your religious beliefs tell you to then doesn't it make sense for you to wear one in your photo ID? Are Pastafarians walking around all day with colanders on? I don't think the reason for wearing the headgear should be the issue: just that it is an everyday occurrence. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I've never heard of someone claiming their religion requires that they only wear headgear in photos taken by the DMV.
Because government officials/politicians are lazy/sheep who'd rather not have to deal with the media or even one belligerent religious folk over having to remove a hat or whatever. This is, presumably, precisely why this guy got away with forgoing the rules as well. That this can be spun into "local officials are secretly pastafarians" or some such is why there's any push back, but they'll obviously miss the whole point and simply order more push back at the BMV/DMV under some claim that because the belief in pastafarian isn't genuine the exception doesn't apply. And that just means the next successful pastafarian who comes along will have to make a big scene of it, being very belligerent about it. This will, of course, cause negative publicity for the atheists/pastafarians. Butthe only time actual equity will occur is when enough people claim pastafarianism at BMV/DMVs that the push back from below becomes enough that the law is changed to remove the exception--though odds are just as good they'll go the quasi-equality route and give broader exceptions for the atheists or more classes of people.
For the same reason the photo is there at all, as a means to further attempt to identify the person in question as being one and the same as the license. Of course, license photos are notorious for being so far off from what a person normally looks like, so it's questionable if it'd matter much regardless. Although I guess it could be argued that a religious person who regularly wears a hat would be more identifiable by wearing their hat in the photo...but that would basically highlight that no hats should be removed ever if it's the norm for the person. The same should hold true for glasses, jewelry, mustaches, etc. In short, it all sounds like a rather ill-conceived rule.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Yes, and? He did not claim otherwise,
Yes, and? I did not claim otherwise.
and your statement has nothing to do with the argument that religions include a code of ethics.
That is not the argument.
Need a car analogy?
I cannot wait, since I know of no one on slashdot who is better at them than I am, he said modestly.
If someone describes their car as wheels and an engine to drive the wheels, you don't say that your truck has wheels and an engine, therefore a car is just so much painted fiberglass.
Nobody said that. What was said was that a car is not a spoiler, aftermarket bumper cover, or underbody neon, because none of those things are necessary to have a car. If your car includes those things, it's not because it's not a car without them. It's because they make you feel better. Ethics doesn't become not-ethics because religion is not associated with it. But ethics does become religion when you associate magic sky fairies. And it becomes goddamned fantasy when you suggest that you can't have ethics without religion — or morality, for that reason. I regularly see assertions that both things are products of religion, but I didn't say that, nor did I say that religion is inherently unethical or immoral.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It says 'In God We Trust' right on our money. Who's jamming what down who's throats?
You are conflating religion with spirituality. Religions deserve to be disparaged.
If a secular government is making rules, it has to be for secular reasons. In this case, the no-hat rule is to aid in identification. Your transcendent experience does not change the identification practicality of a photo showing your whole head; therefore, it should not be an exception. If it is acceptable for one to keep his hat on, then it should be acceptable for all.
>>>about controlling a bunch of sheep into doing stupid shit like giving you money in exchange for lies.
Not only "stupid shit", and not only "exchange for lies". Religions, like any other set of arbitrary values and believes, can impose benevolent or harmful world view. You have to evaluate its effects as a whole, and by only focusing on negatives you are not being objective.
For example, "Do not kill" part of Christianity can be credited with sufficiently stabilizing society that scientific progress became possible, directly leading to establishing Western Civilization as a successor to Roman Civilization. You can correctly point out that morality/ethics does not require religion, but this only holds true in already civilized society. Now try to stop Viking raiding party from pillaging, raping, and burning crops with appeals to morality. You need something stronger, like a set of superstitions that designed to scare you into normality (or else you eternally burn in hell, and who wants to chance that?).
"You do know that extremely religious people in the USA are as likely to be cut-throat capitalists as much as any agnostic or atheist, right?"
I'm always amused when I get in disagreements with other Mormons over whether or not Socialism is "Evil". Let alone that they usually mean Communism not Socialism. The belief that they are evil is usually backed up with a Mormon leaders quote from the cold war period. I find it funny because one of the principles that is taught that we will all live after Christs second coming is called "The Law of Consecration" which basically amounts to a form of Theocratic Socialism.
Anyways... I'm not suggesting that all religions aren't invented by man at some point, but at the very least, most such religions can at least claim that the people who follow them *genuinely* believe what they do, and cannot point to any specific historical person and say that *that* person invented the religion (some can... but most, at least of those that are actually recognized as religions today, cannot).
And heck, the guy who even invented Pastafarianism is still alive today.... The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by a specific individual, Bobby Henderson, to protest the Kansas State Board of Education proposal to permit teaching intelligent design in 2005. It's demonstrably a friggen joke religion, with extremely clearly documented origins, and there's no rational reason to consider it equivalent to religions for which no historical record exists which categorically shows that they were made up by somebody (which, I think, would make the religion be classified as a cult moreso than religion anyways, and so would not have all of the same protections anyways).
I'd suggest that maybe in a thousand years or so when its origins have been lost in antiquity it might somehow get elevated to the level of a real religion, but I don't even know if that's likely given the popularity of literacy today unless a lot of our written records today also get destroyed in the interim.
In the meantime... I think everybody gets the point. ID isn't appropriate for teaching in public schools... can people who are claiming to believe this made-up thing now *please* just give it a rest?
I'm probably just going to get modded down as some sort of troll who's intolerant of some particular religion, but I'm not.... I'm just intolerant of something claiming to be a religion when it's historically verifiable that it's not. If somebody can erase all record of what Bobby Henderson did 8 years ago last June, then maybe... but until then. No... just... no.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There is an axiom of computing that proposes that any sufficiently complex system is implicitly intelligent.
The most complex system in existence is the universe itself.
Therefore the universe is intelligent.
That does not mean the universe gives a shit about you, me, or the whole freaking planet any more than I care about the death of a cell in my body.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
FSM!
: D
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
What he is doing is attempting to destroy Ausyian freedom with the heckler's veto. I don't know if it is legal there, but it is illegal but done here in the US.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
"Every "system of ethics" that comes from a religion "
I wouldn't attribute a "system of ethics" to any religion or holy book. They are full of hate and demand various atrocities to prove you "love" your deity. There are more ethics in the Harry Potter books than the "holy" books
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I suppose under the banner of rational engineering we forfeit any understanding of transcendent experience, keeping our minds locked in facts and missing the beautiful mystery right in front of our faces.
You suppose wrongly. What does the mockery of religion have to do with the recognition of beauty? I spend as much time as I can in and on the oceans, and I've never once watched a soft coral sway in the current or listened to the snap of the rigging as I swing into a new tack and thought to myself, "Well, since there is no god, this is all just rubbish." I wouldn't sully the experience with a meaningless and befouled label like "sacred," but that has no bearing on the matter.
You can engage in transcendental naval gazing all you like. Just don't ask the government to grant you a special dispensation on that basis. It is really is that simple.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
you could say religion is an illness too. a sort of mild mental one where you can't determine fact from fiction.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
you having difficulty with comprehension? maybe you're only 12 years old
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
quite a lot from reading his post
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
ALL religious organizations need to devote massive PR to disavowing their own nutjobs, instead of a weak passive disapproval. Hunting them down, and disowning them out kind of disapproval. They seem to like having a few rabid members around.
They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
My experience in Virginia, and at most DMVs I've heard of in recent years, is that you are not allowed to smile in your photo. They instituted this rule because apparently it throws off the facial recognition algorithms. Because your "driver's license" is actually your ID for most things, and because it is also the means by which the government collects biometric data on everyone for the massive shared databases. Currently used when you go to a major sporting event, for one example (everyone entering is face scanned and matched). I don't think the facial recognition is used by the police in driver stops, though (yet).
No one seriously believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Blasphemer.
One day, perhaps you can be touched by his noodly appendage.
Han shot first!
Wait... what forum is this again?
I agree, but apparently we have to be tolerant of these Sikhs, muslims and other obnoxious spoiled brats.
Good. You go and help the current generation. He's helping make sure your work wont be needed by the next one.
3: Contempt. Wearing an OS related hat would break the law.
Wearing religious paraphanalia doesn't break the law. That's illogical (see reasons posted above), and the person being celebrated was merely highlighting the lack of logic.
Had he claimed that the great God Linus had proclaimed that wearing a Windows hat was an essential form of worship then the response would've been a combination of 1/ and 3/ - but the ridicule would've been for believing in the great God Linus.
Although, that _does_ have a good sound to it. Hmm.
Those aren't noodles, they're tentacles.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is really Cthulhu!
Pasta fthagan, Ia! Ia!
I can't believe nobody's pointed out that it's actually the Sistine Chapel.
Sorry, but you're wrong, the correct theory is that after killing Tiamat, Marduk cut her body in half and formed the universe.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
+Beard didn't fit on Subj line, but all 3 were to be seen "masking" licensee's photo.
We think it was OK... since S. AU's gov't had same person's Driver's license in its database.
Why should beard + sunglasses + hat be OK on a firearm license???
Well, if someone finds that f/arm license, why make it easy to know who to follow home, eg, as footwork before breaking-in to steal guns...?
We say ir should be the norm, along with instructions to consider shaving off the eard, to make it even harder to make use of by such crims. Such licensees could also be advised to to to the photo shoot with coloured hair, for the same reason.
Exactly why you never discuss religion with the religious. They seem to think an old book (different books but same story) of contradictory myths trumps reason.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
How do you know a politician is telling the truth? He is saying his opponent is a liar.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Cue ROT26 joke.
Groucho Marx
Like we don't know why you picked psychiatry in the first place. Figured yourself out yet?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I wrote "or was a secular conflict conducted by devoutly religious people". The slaughter by the Nazis was over money and land. The slaughter by Stalin was over money, land, and paranoia. Those are terrible events, led by atheists. But in the previous centuries terrible wars were conducted over money, land, and paranoia by people who had a strong faith in a benevolent god.
So the presence or absence of religion does not seem to impact this particular problem.
It would have been nice if the Christians actually had practiced 'Do not kill'.
Actual history disagrees. It took the fall of the influence of Catholicism for Western Civilization to reawaken. While the Pope was in charge it stagnated.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's a stretch to call it evil. More correct: Inescapably broken in such a way as to guarantee that evil people will take power.
The basic defect of socialism: Unhealthy concentration of power; which then corrupts...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Sure, smartass, you have have yer license pitchur taken with a colander, BUT!!! you must have a colander on your person when you drive.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
100 years war. They might have wanted to profit from the war. But they just fought until the Swiss bankers had all the money (they were funding both the Catholics and the Protestants).
Perhaps the dumbest war in history. Very much like what we should be doing to the Sunnis/Sheits today.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Which branch of the sciences is your specialty? "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freedman", or "Mythbusters"?
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Saying communism and capitalism are "atheistic religions" is a comment so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin.
In most Communist countries religion was specifically forbidden. Think China and Falun Gung, Stalin and Christianity.
Capitalism worships the almighty dollar. Its precepts aren't exactly atheist, since the dollar is an object of worship, but it is in complete opposal to Christianity. Capitalist: "NO NEW TAXES!" Christ: "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's". Capitalist: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Christ: "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin". Capitalist: "Loose the lawyers on them, we're getting a cut." Christ: "And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." Capitalist: Money money money MONEY!!!" Christ: "Blessed are the poor."
Free Martian Whores!
For example, "Do not kill" part of Christianity can be credited with sufficiently stabilizing society that scientific progress became possible,
Who told you that shit? That is horribly fucking ignorant. Crusaders burned books on religion and books of knowledge equally — and we would not today have the works of the ancient Greeks if they had not been preserved in the Middle East. Of course, then theocracy rolled in there in a big way and they started setting shit on fire, too. In fact, religion has generally been harmful to knowledge.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...the primarty [sic] atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism...
Yeah... you do know that neither "Soviet communism" or "American capitalism" are "religions" right..?
You do know that 'atheism' is, by definition, non-religious..?
Well, thanks for reading. I'm going to make myself a cup of atheistic coffee and put some clothes in my atheistic washing machine now.
Idiots.
Everybody knows that Ilmatar raised her knee so a bird could land on her. The bird then laid six eggs made of gold and one made of iron. As the bird incubated her eggs Ilmatar's knee grew warmer and warmer until finally she was burned by the heat and reacted by jerking her leg. This motion dislodged the eggs, which then fell and shattered in the waters. Land was formed from the lower part of one of the eggshells while sky formed from the top. The egg whites turned into the moon and stars, and the yolk became the sun.
It's pretty obvious if you think about it.
...If other people get special treatment or advantages because of their beliefs, why cant he?
Speaking of that: I'm atheist, where's my tax break?
Most Atheists seem to be more on the Agnostic side of things; in that they acknowledge there might be, or there might not be a god. There is no solid proof either way though it's looking less and less likely given the claims of the Theists.
Stop trying to marginalize us. Agnostics call themselves agnostics or use a phrase of some sort to summarize their beliefs, and are usually fairly upfront about not wanting to be called atheists. Atheists by definition (hint: a-theist) do not believe in a god, and most of us are pretty goddamn emphatic about it.
Please help metamoderate.
Yeah, those scary tyrants who rule Sweden with an iron fist are the most corrupt in the world.
This space intentionally left blank
Very cool example!
As it happens, most scientists would say that yes, they did accumulate evidence that it probably doesn't exist: for certain ranges of mass. A Y2K guy has a narrower Higgs boson hypothesis than a 1960s guy. The later guy knows things, thanks to experiment and absense of finding the particle, that the 1960s guy doesn't. The later guy's hypothesis is more specific.
I'll have a new respect for believers in the paranormal, when one of them says they've searched very hard, and through repeatable experiment have probably ruled out 721 names of Genesha, thereby refining their Ganesha-exists hypothesis to 279 names at most. Learning that Ganesha consistently fails to respond to appeals to 721 names wouldn't be proof that he doesn't have those names or that he doesn't exist, but it'd be something. It'd be evidence, weak though it be. It would pave the way toward further narrowing his names down to where eventually an experiment is performed, where it's learned that by concentrating on one of 3 names, Ganesha does respond to prayers, and then confirming the hypothesis that he exists.
As if. :-)
Some people will say you can't rule out or narrow down any of Ganesha's properties (e.g. his names); there's no experiment which could ever be performed. I agree. That's why I don't consider Ganesha to be a falsifiable theory (i.e. not a serious hypothesis) and why the idea contributes nothing to the body of knowledge. It is worthless bullshit.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump