I suppose one difference is that Jedism and Pastafarianism are widely acknowledged as parodies.
Parodies of what though? A parody that bears no resemblance to the thing it attempts to parody is not clever or insightful. I think that Jediism and Pastafarianism (As parody, I'm not talking about the people who take them seriously) is more of a strawman than anything else.
While there might be some among Christianity, Islam, whatever who don't believe in those religions, most in the religions actually believe there is a God and that the Bible/Koran/etc are true.
I can't speak to Islam terribly well, except that Allah is never represented in images, and his actual appearance is never discussed. So he in no way resembles the FSM. The same applies to Christianity - Christians follow Jesus, who, from all reports, had a normal amount of arms and legs - and (according to Christianity) still does. So the FSM doesn't parody either religion very well.
And then there is the question of what this farce actually achieves. I suppose there is a certain amount of personal satisfaction in mocking others - by belittling others, it makes your own beliefs seem more sensible and rational. But that is just feelings. In fact, I suspect that habitually mocking others is a sign of insecurity. In this case, the pretend pastafarians are suffering from a lack of self reflection. The mockery they make of other peoples beliefs apply just as much to their own beliefs. Only they can't see it.
Putting jediism on the census was for the same reasons as pastafarianism - neither were ever about mocking Dawkins, where would you get a dumb idea like that?
You are ascribing ideas to me that I've never expressed.
"BELIEFS" ARE WRONG.
Believe that if you want. Put it in all caps if it helps reinforce the belief in your wavering mind. But if true, then your beliefs are also wrong - by definition.
Ah. So it comes down some random decision that Jediism is "not offensive" and the Christianity is "offensive". There goes the atheist meme that those 2 beliefs should be treated the same I guess.
If the church has to force anything, then they are doing it wrong.
I don't think the church is trying to force anything, rather expressing puzzlement at this inconsistency - even Richard Dawkins recognises that in a healthy society, it is not the job of businesses to shield people from information they might confronting/offensive, regardless of regulation or law.
I don't think anyone has ever been thinking of Richard Dawkins when they've put Jedi down as their religion. I'm sure that they're doing it as a middle finger to the Church.
If so, it's poorly aimed. I think the Church would be aware of the fact that there are people who hold to a different set of beliefs the contradict with theirs. Lot's of Christians die every week because of the simple fact that there are people who disagree with them.
From their perspective Jedism is just another crazy, discredited belief. Just like you, and the supposed Jedi's, Christians think that all such beliefs are wrong - expect their own. Why is Jedism an insult to Christianity but not yours? Because yours are right?
I'm surprised by the title. Richard Dawkins is one man - amongst many who were a bit taken aback by the about face on the part of the cinema management.
What is surprising is the apparent support from the secular society. That should have been the headline.
That makes no sense, but not necessarily any less sense than you normal responses I suppose. Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
That makes no sense, but not necessarily any less sense than you normal responses I suppose.
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake a discussion about greenhouse gases for a discussion about greenhouses?
Did you think that an article entitled Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels was actually a discussion page for the local horticultural society?
That moment of hilarity when a dimwit finally realizes he was barking up the wrong tree.
So you did mistake a discussion about greenhouse gases for a discussion about greenhouses.
Caught you.
You're not going to get any answers...
Don't lie.
And don't kid yourself - you don't get to set terms. You've already answered 3 of my 4 questions, leaving only this one:
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake a discussion about greenhouse gases for a discussion about greenhouses?
Did you think that an article entitled Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels was actually a discussion page for the local horticultural society?
There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me:
(no explanation)
We agree then: you lied.
Illiterate moron doubles down.
Do what ever you like. But I have the answer I needed. One down, 3 to go.
Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect Yes or No?
What lie?
It's right there idiot.
Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
It's one or the other. Which is it?
I said something, you misunderstood it.
Ah, so you've chosen option 2. Excellent.
You did mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse.
Which leaves only 2 questions remaining:
-> Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? (Answer: yes)
-> Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? (Answer: yes)
There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me:
(no explanation)
We agree then: you lied.
Exchange repeated for amusement value. Do you not know what a greenhouse is?
Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect
Yes or No?
Which brings me back to my question:
Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
It's one or the other. Which is it?
Did I get an interpretation wrong?
Yes.
Which of the following did I get wrong?
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect?
1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming
A person with integrity would quote the entire sentence -
Happy to quote the whole thing:
You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction.
There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me: you said it, you claimed, after some squirming, that you didn't say it, now you admit that you did. Your whole argument rests on demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is something I just made up, then you disowned your argument and then re-admitted to it.
Thanks for dropping by to lie to us.
2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?
Why are you again trying to change the subject: uncomfortable with being caught in a lie?
For example, I called you a "compulsory liar" instead of a "compulsive liar". My bad.
Yes it's like being attacked by a squealing rabbit. Not enough brains to clearly form words. Maybe that's why you say things and then forget what you said and then contradict yourself and then change your mind again.
Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.
You don't think at all, rather. That's how your interpretation of my words ended up so far from anything I was actually saying.
Did I get an interpretation wrong?
Which of the following did I get wrong?
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions.
Stop lying.
1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming
2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
I've quoted your own words back to you several times whilst you ducked and scrabbled for cover, you must be a drooling moron if you didn't think I would be able to contradict your lies by quoting your own words.
No one cares how an illiterate irrational lying moron interprets my words. No credibility, remember?
Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.
All that matters is getting you to voice your lies so you can be nailed to them.
You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.
You really need to see a doctor and get medicated. Your grip on reality is slipping.
Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
That, or you're an compulsory liar.
An compulsory liar? Are you 10 years old? Don't use words you think you heard your mum use.
Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why.
Go see a doctor, soon. The pills will help quiet the voices in your head, and you'll stop falsely accusing others with the nonsense you hallucinated.
It's your choice. You can elaborate on your earlier comments Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"
to explain how my interpretation is false. Otherwise the interpretation stands.
You should stop listening to the voices in your head
You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.
Nice try, but you've already established you are an irrational, illiterate moron.
Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why. Nobody will take your thoughts on climate seriously ever again. Oh, and by the way, looks like you forgot to answer the questions:
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
Did you say You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect?
(no answer)
Should we assume you were lying then?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
(no answer)
Should we assume this interpretation of your remarks?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?
(no answer)
Should we assume you still think this?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
(no answer)
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
(no answer)
Should we assume this is true?
If you don't answer the questions, we'll just assume you have no explanation other than the most obvious interpretation of your remarks.
That's not even close to what I was talking about.
Did you say You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect
Yes or No?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
You weren't paying attention when I pointed out your false dilemma, huh?
This is the false dilemma the depends on your assumption that I, and not Svante Arrhenius, developed the theory of the greenhouse gas effect? False dilemma indeed!
Unless you think that I am Svante Arrhenius? Did I travel through time or am I just really well preserved?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose one difference is that Jedism and Pastafarianism are widely acknowledged as parodies.
Parodies of what though? A parody that bears no resemblance to the thing it attempts to parody is not clever or insightful. I think that Jediism and Pastafarianism (As parody, I'm not talking about the people who take them seriously) is more of a strawman than anything else.
While there might be some among Christianity, Islam, whatever who don't believe in those religions, most in the religions actually believe there is a God and that the Bible/Koran/etc are true.
I can't speak to Islam terribly well, except that Allah is never represented in images, and his actual appearance is never discussed. So he in no way resembles the FSM. The same applies to Christianity - Christians follow Jesus, who, from all reports, had a normal amount of arms and legs - and (according to Christianity) still does. So the FSM doesn't parody either religion very well.
And then there is the question of what this farce actually achieves. I suppose there is a certain amount of personal satisfaction in mocking others - by belittling others, it makes your own beliefs seem more sensible and rational. But that is just feelings. In fact, I suspect that habitually mocking others is a sign of insecurity. In this case, the pretend pastafarians are suffering from a lack of self reflection. The mockery they make of other peoples beliefs apply just as much to their own beliefs. Only they can't see it.
Putting jediism on the census was for the same reasons as pastafarianism - neither were ever about mocking Dawkins, where would you get a dumb idea like that?
You are ascribing ideas to me that I've never expressed.
"BELIEFS" ARE WRONG.
Believe that if you want. Put it in all caps if it helps reinforce the belief in your wavering mind. But if true, then your beliefs are also wrong - by definition.
I don't have any beliefs,
You mean you believe you have no beliefs. The rest of us don't share that belief.
If the church has to force anything, then they are doing it wrong.
I don't think the church is trying to force anything, rather expressing puzzlement at this inconsistency - even Richard Dawkins recognises that in a healthy society, it is not the job of businesses to shield people from information they might confronting/offensive, regardless of regulation or law.
I don't think anyone has ever been thinking of Richard Dawkins when they've put Jedi down as their religion. I'm sure that they're doing it as a middle finger to the Church.
If so, it's poorly aimed. I think the Church would be aware of the fact that there are people who hold to a different set of beliefs the contradict with theirs. Lot's of Christians die every week because of the simple fact that there are people who disagree with them.
From their perspective Jedism is just another crazy, discredited belief. Just like you, and the supposed Jedi's, Christians think that all such beliefs are wrong - expect their own. Why is Jedism an insult to Christianity but not yours? Because yours are right?
Ah - so if the CofE had made an ad *about* the life of Jesus the cinema would be forced to run it?
What is surprising is the apparent support from the secular society. That should have been the headline.
Of course - wait a minute, which one was the lunacy again? I've forgotten.
Of course. The slippery slope! This can only lead to infamy! Dogs and Cats living together!
That makes no sense, but not necessarily any less sense than you normal responses I suppose. Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
That makes no sense, but not necessarily any less sense than you normal responses I suppose. Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake a discussion about greenhouse gases for a discussion about greenhouses? Did you think that an article entitled Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels was actually a discussion page for the local horticultural society?
That moment of hilarity when a dimwit finally realizes he was barking up the wrong tree.
So you did mistake a discussion about greenhouse gases for a discussion about greenhouses.
Caught you.
You're not going to get any answers ...
Don't lie.
And don't kid yourself - you don't get to set terms. You've already answered 3 of my 4 questions, leaving only this one:
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you think that an article entitled Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels was actually a discussion page for the local horticultural society?
Observe how this dishonest cretin continues to manufacture lies so as to build a Narrative.
I'm observing one right now.
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me: (no explanation)
We agree then: you lied.
Illiterate moron doubles down.
Do what ever you like. But I have the answer I needed. One down, 3 to go.
Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect Yes or No?
What lie?
It's right there idiot.
Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"? It's one or the other. Which is it?
I said something, you misunderstood it.
Ah, so you've chosen option 2. Excellent.
You did mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse. Which leaves only 2 questions remaining:
-> Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? (Answer: yes)
-> Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? (Answer: yes)
There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me:
(no explanation)
We agree then: you lied.
Exchange repeated for amusement value. Do you not know what a greenhouse is?
Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect Yes or No?
Which brings me back to my question:
Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
It's one or the other. Which is it?
Did I get an interpretation wrong?
Yes.
Which of the following did I get wrong?
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect?
1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming
A person with integrity would quote the entire sentence -
Happy to quote the whole thing: You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction. There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me: you said it, you claimed, after some squirming, that you didn't say it, now you admit that you did. Your whole argument rests on demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is something I just made up, then you disowned your argument and then re-admitted to it.
Thanks for dropping by to lie to us.
2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?
Why are you again trying to change the subject: uncomfortable with being caught in a lie?
For example, I called you a "compulsory liar" instead of a "compulsive liar". My bad.
Yes it's like being attacked by a squealing rabbit. Not enough brains to clearly form words. Maybe that's why you say things and then forget what you said and then contradict yourself and then change your mind again.
Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.
You don't think at all, rather. That's how your interpretation of my words ended up so far from anything I was actually saying.
Did I get an interpretation wrong?
Which of the following did I get wrong?
Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions.
Stop lying.
1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming
2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
I've quoted your own words back to you several times whilst you ducked and scrabbled for cover, you must be a drooling moron if you didn't think I would be able to contradict your lies by quoting your own words.
No one cares how an illiterate irrational lying moron interprets my words. No credibility, remember?
Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.
All that matters is getting you to voice your lies so you can be nailed to them.
You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.
You really need to see a doctor and get medicated. Your grip on reality is slipping.
Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
That, or you're an compulsory liar.
An compulsory liar? Are you 10 years old? Don't use words you think you heard your mum use.
Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why.
Go see a doctor, soon. The pills will help quiet the voices in your head, and you'll stop falsely accusing others with the nonsense you hallucinated.
It's your choice. You can elaborate on your earlier comments Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius" to explain how my interpretation is false. Otherwise the interpretation stands.
You should stop listening to the voices in your head
You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.
Nice try, but you've already established you are an irrational, illiterate moron.
Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why. Nobody will take your thoughts on climate seriously ever again. Oh, and by the way, looks like you forgot to answer the questions:
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
Did you say You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect?
(no answer)
Should we assume you were lying then?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
(no answer)
Should we assume this interpretation of your remarks?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?
(no answer)
Should we assume you still think this?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
(no answer)
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
(no answer)
Should we assume this is true?
If you don't answer the questions, we'll just assume you have no explanation other than the most obvious interpretation of your remarks.
That's not even close to what I was talking about.
Did you say You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect
Yes or No?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
Except for Atheism of course, which is real and genuine! (thumbs up)
You weren't paying attention when I pointed out your false dilemma, huh?
This is the false dilemma the depends on your assumption that I, and not Svante Arrhenius, developed the theory of the greenhouse gas effect? False dilemma indeed!
Unless you think that I am Svante Arrhenius? Did I travel through time or am I just really well preserved?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?