Atheist wears pasta strainer as 'religious headgear' in driver's license photo

[The Man]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

He has applied to Austrian Authorities to create the faith 'Pastafarianism' as an official faith. He is also creating a church called "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."


An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".

Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons.

Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism.

The Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.

The idea came into Mr Alm's noodle three years ago as a way of making a serious, if ironic, point.

A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted faith whose members call themselves pastafarians.


A medical interview established the self-styled 'pastafarian' was mentally fit to drive
The group's website states that "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma".

In response to pressure for American schools to teach the Christian theory known as intelligent design, as an alternative to natural selection, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote to the Kansas School Board asking for the pastafarian version of intelligent design to be taught to schoolchildren, as an alternative to the Christian theory.

Straining credulity
In the same spirit, Mr Alm's pastafarian-style application for a driving licence was a response to the Austrian recognition of confessional headgear in official photographs.

The licence took three years to come through and, according to Mr Alm, he was asked to submit to a medical interview to check on his mental fitness to drive but - straining credulity - his efforts have finally paid off.

It is the police who issue driving licences in Austria, and they have duly issued a laminated card showing Mr Alm in his unorthodox item of religious headgear.

The next step, Mr Alm told the Austrian news agency APA, is to apply to the Austrian authorities for pastafarianism to become an officially recognised faith.

What are your opinions on this? Please move to Religious section if needed.

[OhYesIdid]

the idea came into Mr Alm's noodle three years ago as a way of making a serious, if ironic, point.

Gotta love journalists

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

i wonder if i can wear bomber hat in photo?

[Diello]

Beautiful.

[ComradeGrant]

I'm so doing this.

[Sir Comradical]

I find such douchebag atheists annoying.

[Pioneers_Violin]

The American version is the Aluminum Foil Defector Beanie. (AFDB)

That is, you wrap your head in aluminum foil with the shiny side facing out so as to keep the mind control rays broadcast by the CIA and Aliens out of your head.

The faithful must always wear their AFDB outside of their foil-lined bedrooms so as to maintain control over their minds because of their belief (in mind control rays) so it is a bona-fide religious headgear.

But what would be the best name for their religious organization?

It would be hard to use either the name: "The Only Sane, Uncontrolled People on Earth" which is what they call themselves or "Paranoid, Insane Lunatics" which is what everyone else calls them.

So how about: "The Church of the Metallurgically Anointed"?

One used to live next door, years ago.

Or was it "shiny side IN? :lol:

[PhoenixAsh]

Why not...

Seems like just as valid as anything.


@Pioneers Violin....dont mock that dude. Those rays are real!!

[Leftsolidarity]

I find such douchebag atheists annoying.

I find people who don't see light-hearted irony and double-standards funny annoying also. Glad to see where we stand on things.

[crazyirish93]

wow u guys only finding out about Pastafarianism and the spaghetti monster now :confused:?

[Obs]

Mocking millions for their religious beliefs? Why, that's just the thing for leftists to be cheerleading!

[Leftsolidarity]

Mocking millions for their religious beliefs? Why, that's just the thing for leftists to be cheerleading!

I'm almost positive you were being sarcastic but I can't help but completely agree.

[Obs]

I'm almost positive you were being sarcastic but I can't help but completely agree.
Have fun going through life as a fucking asshole.

[Leftsolidarity]

Have fun going through life as a fucking asshole.

Shall do and you have fun going through life being quiet and polite about the stupidity that surrounds you.

[Revy]

wow u guys only finding out about Pastafarianism and the spaghetti monster now :confused:?

Yeah....welcome to 2006.

[Obs]

Shall do and you have fun going through life being quiet and polite about the stupidity that surrounds you.
People making personal choices to deal with the strain of living in an inherently exploitative society sure is stupid. Do you point and laugh at drug addicts when they ask you for change?

[RedSonRising]

This does nothing to encourage secularism, tolerance for atheists, or a bridge of understanding and communication between members of varying belief systems and cultural groups. It's just an immature troll-stunt that juvenile 14 year old atheists love to fantasize about doing. Pointless.

[Johnny Kerosene]

People making personal choices to deal with the strain of living in an inherently exploitative society sure is stupid. Do you point and laugh at drug addicts when they ask you for change?

It's not mocking people with personal spiritual beliefs, it's mocking the restrictive dogmas that organized religions expect everyone to follow.

[Obs]

It's not mocking people with personal spiritual beliefs, it's mocking the restrictive dogmas that organized religions expect everyone to follow.
I think the muslim reaction to Quran burnings would be enough to prove that religious people tend to feel otherwise.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think the muslim reaction to Quran burnings would be enough to prove that religious people tend to feel otherwise.

Wait, hold on a second. Did you just equate some guy wearing a strainer on his head to someone burning millions of peoples' holy book? Do go on....

[Sensible Socialist]

Are some people here too busy "doing revolution" to laugh at this light-hearted joke? He's not using slurs against a group of people, or pissing on something people value. He put a pot on his head and took a photo. It seems like some people wouldn't mind a fatwa on that man. Lighten up; it was pretty funny.

[Sir Comradical]

I find people who don't see light-hearted irony and double-standards funny annoying also. Glad to see where we stand on things.

Petty bourgeois pseudo-rebelliousness is lame. I just don't find it that funny that's all!

[Leftsolidarity]

Petty bourgeois pseudo-rebelliousness is lame. I just don't find it that funny that's all!

If I type like a stuck up asshole that thinks I'm better than everyone else too will that make me cool?

[Johnny Kerosene]

I think the muslim reaction to Quran burnings would be enough to prove that religious people tend to feel otherwise.

If someone identifies as a Muslim, then they likely embrace the strict religious dogma that is Islam, thus the pasta strainer would in fact be mocking most Muslims. However, as an Anarchist, and Islam being one of the most restrictive mainstream religions, I have absolutely no problem with this.

[Obs]

If someone identifies as a Muslim, then they likely embrace the strict religious dogma that is Islam, thus the pasta strainer would in fact be mocking most Muslims. However, as an Anarchist, and Islam being one of the most restrictive mainstream religions, I have absolutely no problem with this.
Ah, yes, ideas restrict people, not class relations. Why don't you lot go read Dawkins and leave politics to people who know what they're talking about.

[Leftsolidarity]

Ah, yes, ideas restrict people, not class relations. Why don't you lot go read Dawkins and leave politics to people who know what they're talking about.

So are you arguing that religions are not restrictive?

[Comrade Crow]

I was going to say this is stupid but then I saw the picture of it, he pulled it off well, kind of funny.


Are some people here too busy "doing revolution" to laugh at this light-hearted joke? He's not using slurs against a group of people, or pissing on something people value. He put a pot on his head and took a photo. It seems like some people wouldn't mind a fatwa on that man. Lighten up; it was pretty funny.

Snapple Fact: Fatwa means legal opinion/ruling, not death sentence.


If someone identifies as a Muslim, then they likely embrace the strict religious dogma that is Islam, thus the pasta strainer would in fact be mocking most Muslims. However, as an Anarchist, and Islam being one of the most restrictive mainstream religions, I have absolutely no problem with this.

Islaam really isn't that restrictive. See above for my opinions about the story.

[Obs]

So are you arguing that religions are not restrictive?
Yes. Ideas, being reflections of material reality, don't do anything.

[Johnny Kerosene]

Ah, yes, ideas restrict people, not class relations. Why don't you lot go read Dawkins and leave politics to people who know what they're talking about.

Both ideas and class restrictions are capable of restricting people. The fear that you'll burn in hell for all eternity if you don't follow certain rules is a terribly powerful motivator for some people. Whereas the restrictions imposed by religion are sometimes undertaken by choice, and those caused by class relations will exist so long as capitalism/monarchy/feudalism exist, some people don't have much say in their religion. For instance the kids who are raised by extreme Evangelicals in the U.S. Most of them are home-schooled, and attend church every Sunday, and have been taught that their reactionary ways are right from the day they were born. Indoctrination like that is hard to break in a person, and those kids will for the most part grow up and continue the vicious and restrictive cycle that is very much a part of organized religion. To say that all restrictions are caused by class relations is ridiculous. Mainstream Christianity and Islam both say that homosexuality is wrong, and that women are inferior, which is a pretty reactionary view if you ask me, and those views could continue to exist even if capitalism ceased to exist.

[Johnny Kerosene]

Yes. Ideas, being reflections of material reality, don't do anything.

Anarchism, Communism, and Capitalism are ideas as well.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yes. Ideas, being reflections of material reality, don't do anything.

ughhhh......sure............

You know religions aren't confined to ideas right? Ever seen a church or heard of religious laws? Are laws not restrictive since they are only "ideas"?

[Sir Comradical]

If I type like a stuck up asshole that thinks I'm better than everyone else too will that make me cool?

I apologise for not finding this funny. Happy?

[Leftsolidarity]

I apologise for not finding this funny. Happy?

It's okay, I accept your apology.

[Johnny Kerosene]

Islaam really isn't that restrictive. See above for my opinions about the story.

No booze, no pork, women aren't supposed to expose themselves, and men aren't supposed to show like from their elbows up to their shoulders or two their knees or something when they're in temples or some shit I dunno. A number of double standards in regards to gender. No premarital sex, must pray 5 times a day. I don't know about you, but from an anarchist perspective that's pretty damn restrictive.

[Comrade Crow]

No booze, no pork, women aren't supposed to expose themselves, and men aren't supposed to show like from their elbows up to their shoulders or two their knees or something when they're in temples or some shit I dunno. A number of double standards in regards to gender. No premarital sex, must pray 5 times a day. I don't know about you, but from an anarchist perspective that's pretty damn restrictive.

I would say the extent in which a woman should be covered is subjective, I think the texts involved could be interpreted in numerous ways and it's up to the woman herself to determine what she decides is obligatory of her to cover out of religious obligation. As for the standards of modesty for men or the extent to which he is to be covered, I have no problem with this, really. Booze? I'm a bad Muslim where this is concerned, the West has tempted me with it's delicious Satanic dranks. Pork? Gross. Praying 5 times a day? In total that's like 25 min or so out of my day, not a big deal and I like structure in my daily schedule. I, from the inside, don't see it as being to restrictive, while admitedly it can be so if you're Wahhabi or something.

[Johnny Kerosene]

I would say the extent in which a woman should be covered is subjective, I think the texts involved could be interpreted in numerous ways and it's up to the woman herself to determine what she decides is obligatory of her to cover out of religious obligation. As for the standards of modesty for men or the extent to which he is to be covered, I have no problem with this, really. Booze? I'm a bad Muslim where this is concerned, the West has tempted me with it's delicious Satanic dranks. Pork? Gross. Praying 5 times a day? In total that's like 25 min or so out of my day, not a big deal and I like structure in my daily schedule. I, from the inside, don't see it as being to restrictive, while admitedly it can be so if you're Wahhabi or something.

So long as someone is a reasonably educated adult who has voluntarily decided to become a Muslim and does bother other people about it, I have no problem with it. It's their life not mine. When others are encouraged to convert (even if it's out of "goodwill" because you don't want them to be condemned to hell it's only the business of the individual) I don't agree with raising kids to follow one religion or another because it should ultimately be the individuals choice and not something forced upon them by their parents. It's ok to try to convert someone if they show interest in the religion, which case it would be helpful to the individual.

I wasn't trying to say that it's wrong to be a Muslim or anything, but no one should be forced to be one religion or another as it is restrictive, and if someone voluntarily chooses that religion it's fine, it's their life. But I still reject dogma in the belief that no one can be truly free unless they free themselves from such things (and many other things, dogma is only one of the), but I don't try to force people to abandon their spiritual beliefs so long as they don't follow discriminatory beliefs.

[Rafiq]

Yes. Ideas, being reflections of material reality, don't do anything.

No, religions are restrictive ideas, but they are merely reflections of the material reality. But religions were reflections of the reality of ancient times and fuedalism, so some evolved, while some, in developed countries, haven't.

[Crux]

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed, the soul in a soulless world, as that famous quote goes.

[LegendZ]

I really don't see what the point of this was. In a week everyone will forget about it and he'll have a picture of him with a pasta bowl on his head.

[Threetune]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uywIYQEHZLs

[PhoenixAsh]

I think there are two parts to this.

One part is he is mocking the rules society take and exceptance that is made for religion on doing stuff which is otherwise prohibited for others. There is no reason why not everybody should be allowed to wear something on their head in pictures if you exempt people from that rule who do so for religious reasons.

And on the otherhand he mocks the idea of religion itself. Which is perhaps indeed assholish.....but no more or less valid than any existing religion which has killed non believers or different believers to enforce their version of the spaghetti monster or ruined peoples lives by making them second rate people. To religious people everywhere who are offended by this...I'd like to say: "proof the flying spaghetti monster does not exist"....or accept this guys religion just like we have to and should accept yours.

[Aurora]

It's a colander

[Ocean Seal]

I don't think that anyone has pointed this out, but this type of thing is done as an attack towards a religious minority that being the Muslim faith. And whether or not you respect the faith isn't important, its things like this which promote Islamophobic attitudes in Europe and incite a national consciousness. It was done to mock the women who were wearing burqua's for their driver's license photos, and not merely to mock them but to establish the idea that there is a way that things are done in a certain country.

[Hit The North]

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed, the soul in a soulless world, as that famous quote goes.

When Marx wrote this he was attempting to explain the hold religion has over people, not to justify people subjugating themselves to religious doctrine.

Just because in some countries the majority of workers hold religous belief, wouldn't make it alright for religion to dominate in the workers movement. As communists we would fight this, right?

If people like Obs are afraid of being unpopular amongst workers and so choose to hide their views about religion, then they might as well give up being communists altogether as that's pretty unpopular as well!

And, as others have pointed out in this thread, the notion that ideas have no effect is the worst kind of reductionism. Political struggles are all about ideas. We need to be clear about ours. Whilst we should never refuse to organise with people who hold religious beliefs, how do we expect to shift people away from their more reactionary beliefs, if we don't expose them to our critique?

Obs, seemingly employing a mechanical materialism, appears to believe that ideas will simply change in concert with changing material relations. But if this was the case, how do we explain the existence of atheist workers and religious workers working side-by-side on the same assembly line, living in the same communities? Do the atheists have a different set of material relations to the religious?

[Kenco Smooth]

This is one thing that really annoys me on this site. When Marx's work is paraded around as an all encompassing, all explaining philosophy/science of everything.


Yes. Ideas, being reflections of material reality, don't do anything.

Except they do. Ideas are causal both in terms of other ideas and behavior. The root of these ideas is irrelevant as regards the fundamental nature of their subsequent influence. Ones position in the hierarchy of culture and ideas is just as important as regards the development of beliefs and typical behaviors as ones position in the economic hierarchy (in fact it's near impossible to methodologically separate the two without horribly warping the representation of reality any study tries to make).

The idea that material conditions alone cause every aspect of a social relation falls to tiny pieces when you take a good hard look at the results of the educational system which, all things being equal, favours those with the more abundant cultural capital. This form of capital expresses itself socially in terms of learned behaviours and practices all based on consciously and unconsciously learned ideas.

As regards the headpiece. Does anyone here really care about it that much?

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol this couldn't possibly be problematic in europe

[danyboy27]

I don't think that anyone has pointed this out, but this type of thing is done as an attack towards a religious minority that being the Muslim faith. And whether or not you respect the faith isn't important, its things like this which promote Islamophobic attitudes in Europe and incite a national consciousness. It was done to mock the women who were wearing burqua's for their driver's license photos, and not merely to mock them but to establish the idea that there is a way that things are done in a certain country.

muslim are not the only one wearing headgear you know.

http://www.photos8.com/thumbs/jewish_boy_with_head_kippah-t2.jpg

http://www.sikharchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/turban200104.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Eastern_Orthodox_man_in_Jerusalem_by_David_Shankbo ne.jpg/220px-Eastern_Orthodox_man_in_Jerusalem_by_David_Shankbo ne.jpg

[Pretty Flaco]

It's funny, but the guy still seems like a total dick to me.

P.S. 666 posts.

[communard71]

Any effort to poke fun at antiquated beliefs is cool with me, especially since almost always, those who espouse those beliefs have sided with the reactionary elements in all societies where leftists have struggled. Winning over the religious is fruitless; ask anarchist soldiers who fought Carlist troops in Spain or the Parisian Communards who were gunned down by rural, religious French National troops. I could go on. I disagree fundamentally that religious people should receive special treatment in any way which is (whether intentionally or not) the purpose of this stunt. In the end, religious people tend to be traditional, conservative adversaries whether we want to acknowledge that painful fact or not. Picking a fight with them in my opinion is just as valid as confronting a capitalist.

[Tablo]

I don't like militant atheism, but this really is fucking funny.

[piet11111]

I don't think that anyone has pointed this out, but this type of thing is done as an attack towards a religious minority that being the Muslim faith. And whether or not you respect the faith isn't important, its things like this which promote Islamophobic attitudes in Europe and incite a national consciousness. It was done to mock the women who were wearing burqua's for their driver's license photos, and not merely to mock them but to establish the idea that there is a way that things are done in a certain country.


So wearing something on your head is an attack on islam since they have the exclusive right to religious headwear ?
Good look explaining that to the other faiths.

[Black Sheep]

If a muslim/christian/jew wants to wear her religious headgear,it's just practicing their religious customs and dress codes.
If a pastafarian wants to wear her religious headgear, it's an attack to other religions.

Your double standards are disgusting and discriminating.
You pastaphobes.

[Crux]

When Marx wrote this he was attempting to explain the hold religion has over people, not to justify people subjugating themselves to religious doctrine.

Just because in some countries the majority of workers hold religous belief, wouldn't make it alright for religion to dominate in the workers movement. As communists we would fight this, right?

Yes? The question then is "how". And I don't think putting pasta strainers on our heads is helpful, well actually I have no problem with that, what I do have a problem with is the attitude that is seemingly coming with this. The point is, religion does not exist because of stupidity. Marx, for one, realized this pretty early on, this was a crucial part in his transition from a radical liberal to a scientific socialist.
Thus I do defend people of the pastafarian faith and their right to practice their religion.

[Ocean Seal]

muslim are not the only one wearing headgear you know.

I know, but if you consider the context, it becomes fairly clear that its being directed towards Muslims. The whole driver's license thing is a reference to the situation where Muslim women tried to take their pictures with their veils.

[SJBarley]

This guy is a legend :laugh: I mean "Pastafarian" I actually laughed out loud

[CommieTroll]

I think the muslim reaction to Quran burnings would be enough to prove that religious people tend to feel otherwise.

Yes but believing in a ''higher power'' is an irrational view, after all ''Religion is the opium of the people''

[Astarte]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

He has applied to Austrian Authorities to create the faith 'Pastafarianism' as an official faith. He is also creating a church called "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."



What are your opinions on this? Please move to Religious section if needed.

Ho ho! How clever! Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Ho-ho! Sure haven't heard that one before.

[Johnny Kerosene]

I don't think that anyone has pointed this out, but this type of thing is done as an attack towards a religious minority that being the Muslim faith. And whether or not you respect the faith isn't important, its things like this which promote Islamophobic attitudes in Europe and incite a national consciousness. It was done to mock the women who were wearing burqua's for their driver's license photos, and not merely to mock them but to establish the idea that there is a way that things are done in a certain country.

Point 1: Islam is one of the largest and fastest growing religions in the world. I would hardly call it a minority.

Point 2: Would you be so offended if it were blatantly mocking, say Christianity? Because I've noticed that a lot of people are like "Oh yeah Christianity is so dumb, but we can't make fun of Islam because then we're Islamophobes."

Also, I don't think the guy who did this did it to mock the followers, I think he did it to mock the religion itself. While that may be offensive to a number of a religion's followers, it's not the same thing as intentionally insulting the members. Insulting someone because of their religious beliefs is discriminatory and stupid, insulting the religion that they follow is acceptable because a religion is not a living breathing thing and therefore cannot be discriminated against.

Now if by Islamophobe you mean someone who hates the actual religion of Islam and the Dogma attached, then yes you would be correct in calling someone like the pastafarian or me an Islamophobe. If by Islamophobe you mean someone who hates Muslims, because they are Islamic, then you are incorrect in calling someone like the pastafarian or me an Islamophobe. Some people seem to have trouble understanding the difference between not liking a religion and not liking its followers. There's a huge difference.

I hate all religions equally, and don't hate anyone purely because of their religious beliefs, or discriminate against them for them (assuming the don't push their beliefs on everyone).

I take that back, I hate the the Mormon church a wee bit more than most religions, and I hate Sikhism a little less.

[PhoenixAsh]

Ho ho! How clever! Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Ho-ho! Sure haven't heard that one before.

He refered to exactly that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Robocommie]

Point 1: Islam is one of the largest and fastest growing religions in the world. I would hardly call it a minority.

There's a billion Chinese, does that mean that Asian-Americans aren't a minority? Cultural majorities and minorities are about a lot more than simple demographics, and certainly more complicated than global demographics.



Also, I don't think the guy who did this did it to mock the followers, I think he did it to mock the religion itself. While that may be offensive to a number of a religion's followers, it's not the same thing as intentionally insulting the members. Insulting someone because of their religious beliefs is discriminatory and stupid, insulting the religion that they follow is acceptable because a religion is not a living breathing thing and therefore cannot be discriminated againstHow can you insult my religious beliefs and yet somehow not insult ME because of my religious beliefs? You cannot separate the concept of a religion from the practicioners of a religion. Religion is defined by practice. When you insult Islam, you're not just insulting a set of ideas, but also everyone who identifies as Muslim. The people, cultures and societies which practice Islam make up the totality of the vast world that is implied when you say "Islam." And the same goes of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

It's absurd to suggest you can hate a religion, without hating the religious. After all, how can you claim to respect me if you also think what I hold to be sacred is stupid? Even if you view religion as being something I've fallen under the influence of and should ideally be "woken up" from, then your respect is only a false, condescending one.

This blanket hatred and intolerance of whole religions or all religions, is a form of intolerance and bigotry. You're passing judgement on billions of people and their social, cultural and philosophical practices based on your own personal experiences, perceptions and biases. You can't possibly understand what a given religion means to everyone who practices that religion or what it brings to their life. Nobody can. Just because it doesn't hold any appeal or meaning to you does not justify your own personal hatreds and biases by virtue of you thinking it's worthless.

Or in other words, more fucking hatred for people being different is not what we fucking need.

[Leftsolidarity]

It's absurd to suggest you can hate a religion, without hating the religious.

That's completely untrue. I can dislike ideas without disliking those who hold those ideas.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Mocking millions for their religious beliefs? Why, that's just the thing for leftists to be cheerleading!
Why not? These religions are often very reactionary and anti-working class forces. As Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is a brilliant practical demonstration of the absurdity of religious practice. It highlights the ridiculousness of granting exemptions on religious grounds without targeting a particular religion to do so.

That anyone is even considering acts like this to be anywhere near an "insult" is indicative of the massive social privilege that religion recieves in comparison to any other field of human life. Why should religious beliefs enjoy such protection from criticism?

[Robocommie]

That's completely untrue. I can dislike ideas without disliking those who hold those ideas.

Religion is not just a noun, it is a verb. And as Marx expressed, we are what we do.

[L.A.P.]

So are you arguing that religions are not restrictive?

An existential spiritual worldview is not inherently restrictive, but the material institutions that use these "existential beliefs" as justification for exploitation in class society are. Wearing a satiric religious outfit is not mocking the exploitation using those "existential beliefs" but a tradition that means a lot to a person involving their "existential beliefs". Of course, I do find it funny because taking a joke like that seriously is giving it too much credibility. However, trying to justify the joke as a valid form of protest is equally stupid.

[Comrade Crow]

wow u guys only finding out about Pastafarianism and the spaghetti monster now :confused:?

I was about ready to say this, it's been stupid for a good 4 years now or more.

[Leftsolidarity]

Religion is not just a noun, it is a verb. And as Marx expressed, we are what we do.

You can try to word it in any way you see fit but when it comes down to life, I hate religions but for the most part not the religious. So am I the exception to your rule? Or are you about to inform me about what I ACTUALLY believe since I must be mistaken about my own beliefs? Your all or nothing approach is nonsense.

[L.A.P.]

This is a brilliant practical demonstration of the absurdity of religious practice. It highlights the ridiculousness of granting exemptions on religious grounds without targeting a particular religion to do so.

That anyone is even considering acts like this to be anywhere near an "insult" is indicative of the massive social privilege that religion recieves in comparison to any other field of human life. Why should religious beliefs enjoy such protection from criticism?

Because criticizing someone's spiritual beliefs is politically unproductive for a Communist.

[Leftsolidarity]

Because criticizing someone's spiritual beliefs is politically unproductive for a Communist.

But criticizing how society treats those beliefs is.

[L.A.P.]

Why not? These religions are often very reactionary and anti-working class forces. As Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".

So you think fighting "opium of the people" is an effective way to fight capitalism? That's like saying the war on drugs and gun control is an effective way to fight capitalism.

[Obs]

But criticizing how society treats those beliefs is.
Does it seriously harm you that Sikhs are allowed to wear a turban on their driver's license even though you're not allowed to wear a baseball cap? Does it so shake you to your core that you need to protest against it in a manner that's offensive to religious people pretty much everywhere?

[Leftsolidarity]

Does it seriously harm you that Sikhs are allowed to wear a turban on their driver's license even though you're not allowed to wear a baseball cap? Does it so shake you to your core that you need to protest against it in a manner that's offensive to religious people pretty much everywhere?

That is one of the worst arguments on here. Try again.

[Obs]

That is one of the worst arguments on here. Try again.
You could start off by trying to counter it. Why do you even care about how secular societies treat religions, insofar that it's tiny, insignificant things like this? Why isn't your outrage more aptly directed at the discrimination Muslims in the west, for instance, face each day? Are you just too busy laughing at how stupid they all are?

[Robocommie]

You can try to word it in any way you see fit but when it comes down to life, I hate religions but for the most part not the religious. So am I the exception to your rule? Or are you about to inform me about what I ACTUALLY believe since I must be mistaken about my own beliefs? Your all or nothing approach is nonsense.

I just think it's silly that you're going to go on about how you have no hostility in general towards most religious folks, just their religion, and act like that's not going to bother the religious. I'm religious, and that's not going to change. However, and I know I'm not alone in this, but the level of hostility held towards all religion in general by many posters makes for a somewhat hostile, unwelcoming environment for a lot of religious posters. For religiously-oriented leftists, that hostility is just something we have to endure in order to participate in a community of people with similar views on economics and revolution.

Now, I realize a lot of people don't care if I don't feel welcome because of my beliefs. In fact I know a lot of people think it should be that way. But whether you happen to feel that way or not, it's the consequence of being hateful towards religion, but not "the religious." I can't tell you what you believe; but can you tell me what I feel?

I'm a secularist, or perhaps a pluralist. I dream of a society in which one day, people of all faiths and non-faiths will be able to live together, and learn from one another, in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Part of that mutual respect is a certain level of courtesy in not saying things that are needlessly offensive to other people.

[Robocommie]

That is one of the worst arguments on here. Try again.

Actually, it's pretty much spot on. Just like I'd say to people who hate the idea that government signs are being printed in both Spanish AND English, instead of just English... what the hell harm does it do you?

[Comrade Crow]

I just think it's silly that you're going to go on about how you have no hostility in general towards most religious folks, just their religion, and act like that's not going to bother the religious. I'm religious, and that's not going to change. However, and I know I'm not alone in this, but the level of hostility held towards all religion in general by many posters makes for a somewhat hostile, unwelcoming environment for a lot of religious posters. For religiously-oriented leftists, that hostility is just something we have to endure in order to participate in a community of people with similar views on economics and revolution.

I just try to ignore the usual anti-religion bs, to be honest. I just wish we could be just as obnoxious with our religiosity as they are with their irreligiosity or militant anti-theism but of course, that could never happen because accusations of being "reactionary," would probably follow. I don't know, it is slightly unwelcoming but for me, personally, no big deal but I see how it could be for some people.

[Robocommie]

I just try to ignore the usual anti-religion bs, to be honest. I just wish we could be just as obnoxious with our religiosity as they are with their irreligiosity or militant anti-theism but of course, that could never happen because accusations of being "reactionary," would probably follow. I don't know, it is slightly unwelcoming but for me, personally, no big deal but I see how it could be for some people.

I do too, and I usually say nothing, but every once in a while I get a little pissed off when I realize I shouldn't have to always just shrug it off.

I suppose a religious person might point out it's an opportunity to learn patience. :p

[Leftsolidarity]

I just think it's silly that you're going to go on about how you have no hostility in general towards most religious folks, just their religion, and act like that's not going to bother the religious. I'm religious, and that's not going to change. However, and I know I'm not alone in this, but the level of hostility held towards all religion in general by many posters makes for a somewhat hostile, unwelcoming environment for a lot of religious posters. For religiously-oriented leftists, that hostility is just something we have to endure in order to participate in a community of people with similar views on economics and revolution.

Now, I realize a lot of people don't care if I don't feel welcome because of my beliefs. In fact I know a lot of people think it should be that way. But whether you happen to feel that way or not, it's the consequence of being hateful towards religion, but not "the religious." I can't tell you what you believe; but can you tell me what I feel?

I'm a secularist, or perhaps a pluralist. I dream of a society in which one day, people of all faiths and non-faiths will be able to live together, and learn from one another, in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Part of that mutual respect is a certain level of courtesy in not saying things that are needlessly offensive to other people.

So you are whining that we 'aren't making a welcoming environment' for religious people? That's too fucking bad. Once again, I am against religion but not religious people. If you choose to be offended and feel unwelcomed by that fact, even though I said I have nothing against you for being religious, that is your own problem not mine. If you choose to view it as that people must accept your belief system or pander too it then it is you who is exclusive.

[Ocean Seal]

Point 1: Islam is one of the largest and fastest growing religions in the world. I would hardly call it a minority.

Islam is a minority religion in the west.



Point 2: Would you be so offended if it were blatantly mocking, say Christianity? Because I've noticed that a lot of people are like "Oh yeah Christianity is so dumb, but we can't make fun of Islam because then we're Islamophobes."

To a lesser extent, in part because things like this often tend to fan the flames of Islmaophobia which isn't productive. Muslim people have to deal with constant discrimination and something like this doesn't help them deal with it any better.





Also, I don't think the guy who did this did it to mock the followers, I think he did it to mock the religion itself. While that may be offensive to a number of a religion's followers, it's not the same thing as intentionally insulting the members. Insulting someone because of their religious beliefs is discriminatory and stupid, insulting the religion that they follow is acceptable because a religion is not a living breathing thing and therefore cannot be discriminated against.

Religion is a belief that many hold strongly. He cannot merely insult the religion without insulting its following. This protest is an attack on the followers who he mocks for going to the lengths of wearing headgear in a driver's license picture. He is not attacking the religion but rather the people who practice it.

[Rafiq]

Ho ho! How clever! Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Ho-ho! Sure haven't heard that one before.

True, that is pretty old. I prefer church of the invisible banana man

[Obs]

So you are whining that we 'aren't making a welcoming environment' for religious people? That's too fucking bad. Once again, I am against religion but not religious people. If you choose to be offended and feel unwelcomed by that fact, even though I said I have nothing against you for being religious, that is your own problem not mine. If you choose to view it as that people must accept your belief system or pander too it then it is you who is exclusive.
"Quit whining, you wimp, I say what I want. By the way I have nothing against you."

It's not about pandering to people, it's about just showing some common courtesy. If I think the piercing/tattoo/whatever you got is ugly, I could just up and say that, but it'd make me a jackass.

And that's what you're doing right now. You're being a jackass. Cut that out.

[Sir Comradical]

It's okay, I accept your apology.

I get the point being made that if some people are allowed to wear headgear because of their beliefs then it follows that all beliefs should be respected in the same way. Pointing out this double standard is legitimately humorous. But think about it this way. For your average militant atheist douche, the primary antagonism in the world is that of the religious hordes oppressing the atheists. From this perspective they delude themselves into thinking they're being subversive when what they're ACTUALLY doing is aligning their petty-bourgeois complaints within the confines of ruling class racism because after all, the religious community in Europe that have been targeted the most over their religious garb are obviously the Muslims.

[Pioneers_Violin]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to be very upset with all of his/her bickering little meatballs.

All of those mean, mean Atheist meatballs making fun of him or her and all of those heretical UNBELIEVER meatballs that run around worshipping false gods. Even the occasional inanimate musical instrument heaped on the abuse!

We're all doomed!
Repent NOW and beg forgiveness from his/her Spaghettiness before it's too late.

Let us make amends to our favorite Deities and most especially to each other.

I'll start:

O mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster, please forgive me. I am but a mere child's stringed instrument but yet I dared ridicule your greatness. I have seen the Light (or at least the Sauce) and am suitably humbled. Please bless this thread with your kindness, good will amongst Comrades and a communal spirit of mutual co-operation.

[Die Rote Fahne]

So you think fighting "opium of the people" is an effective way to fight capitalism? That's like saying the war on drugs and gun control is an effective way to fight capitalism.
I never suggested making laws regarding it, or "fighting" it. However, ridicule, criticism and arguing against religion is something which should be done.

As I have said, religion is the cause of some of the most reactionary elements in society.

[Robocommie]

So you are whining that we 'aren't making a welcoming environment' for religious people? That's too fucking bad. Once again, I am against religion but not religious people. If you choose to be offended and feel unwelcomed by that fact, even though I said I have nothing against you for being religious, that is your own problem not mine. If you choose to view it as that people must accept your belief system or pander too it then it is you who is exclusive.

"Choose to be offended" "pander" Yeah, that's really big of you.

You have nothing against me for being religious, and yet when I ask for just a modicum of courtesy, you tell me, too fucking bad. That's really grown up of you. I don't ask you to believe what I believe, to pray my prayers, or adopt any of my practices, but simply to show a little tolerance for people with different perspectives, but that's too much for you? That makes ME intolerant, or as you put it, exclusive? Well, fine. Like I said, I knew some people would take that attitude.

[Obs]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to be very upset with all of his/her bickering little meatballs.

All of those mean, mean Atheist meatballs making fun of him or her and all of those heretical UNBELIEVER meatballs that run around worshipping false gods. Even the occasional inanimate musical instrument heaped on the abuse!

We're all doomed!
Repent NOW and beg forgiveness from his/her Spaghettiness before it's too late.

Let us make amends to our favorite Deities and most especially to each other.

I'll start:

O mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster, please forgive me. I am but a mere child's stringed instrument but yet I dared ridicule your greatness. I have seen the Light (or at least the Sauce) and am suitably humbled. Please bless this thread with your kindness, good will amongst Comrades and a communal spirit of mutual co-operation.
You're... you're really not funny, did you know that?

[Robocommie]

I get the point being made that if some people are allowed to wear headgear because of their beliefs then it follows that all beliefs should be respected in the same way. Pointing out this double standard is legitimately humorous. But think about it this way. For your average militant atheist douche, the primary antagonism in the world is that of the religious hordes oppressing the atheists. From this perspective they delude themselves into thinking they're being subversive when what they're ACTUALLY doing is aligning their petty-bourgeois complaints within the confines of ruling class racism because after all, the religious community in Europe that have been targeted the most over their religious garb are obviously the Muslims.

Exactly.

[Robocommie]

As I have said, religion is the cause of some of the most reactionary elements in society.

It's also the cause of some of the most progressive. It's really problematic to see only the worst in people and none of the good.

[Pioneers_Violin]

You're... you're really not funny, did you know that?

I guess praying to my deity didn't work. :(

Perhaps someone else should try.

Goodnight, sorry to post & run.
Best wishes, PV.

[Leftsolidarity]

You have nothing against me for being religious, and yet when I ask for just a modicum of courtesy, you tell me, too fucking bad. That's really grown up of you. I don't ask you to believe what I believe, to pray my prayers, or adopt any of my practices, but simply to show a little tolerance for people with different perspectives, but that's too much for you? That makes ME intolerant, or as you put it, exclusive? Well, fine. Like I said, I knew some people would take that attitude.

I'm tolerant of religious people but if people are going to whine and complain about some guy wearing a strainer on his head then I will not be so kind. If you think I'm coming down on you for being religious you are way off.

[Comrade Crow]

True, that is pretty old. I prefer church of the invisible banana man

The Church of the Subgenius is the only Atheist gigglery I find actually funny and or smart.

Past that, all your pastafarians and what have yous, is just dumb.

[Leftsolidarity]

Past that, all your pastafarians and what have yous, is just dumb.

What makes their pastafarianism dumber than any other religion?

[Robocommie]

I'm tolerant of religious people but if people are going to whine and complain about some guy wearing a strainer on his head then I will not be so kind. If you think I'm coming down on you for being religious you are way off.

Look at Sir Comradical's post for my explanation as to why I think the guy with the strainer for a hat is a tool. It's not a coincidence that the cultural zeitgeist of the 21st century has had a lot of New Atheist critique of Islam at about the same time that the ruling class decided to start wars in a shitload of Muslim countries. I have little sympathy for glib middle class kids and their funny jokes until Internetatheistan is being bombed by the USAF.

[Leftsolidarity]

Look at Sir Comradical's post for my explanation as to why I think the guy with the strainer for a hat is a tool. It's not a coincidence that the cultural zeitgeist of the 21st century has had a lot of New Atheist critique of Islam at about the same time that the ruling class decided to start wars in a shitload of Muslim countries. I have little sympathy for glib middle class kids and their funny jokes until Internetatheistan is being bombed by the USAF.

The guy put a strainer on his head..............

Also, are we not supposed to critique something that oppresses just because it is being bombed? I give unlimited sympathy to the victims of imperialist aggression but that doesn't mean I give Islam a pass.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's also the cause of some of the most progressive. It's really problematic to see only the worst in people and none of the good.
Do go on and explain the progressive actions of religion, as well, be specific about the religion. Whilst doing so, note why, they do it.

[Robocommie]

Do go on and explain the progressive actions of religion, as well, be specific about the religion. Whilst doing so, note why, they do it.

Well for starters, they all got you mad.

But no, I'm not going to answer to an Inquisition. (ZING)

[Leftsolidarity]

Well for starters, they all got you mad.

But no, I'm not going to answer to an Inquisition. (ZING)

Great support for your claim :thumbup1::lol:

[Obs]

Do go on and explain the progressive actions of religion, as well, be specific about the religion. Whilst doing so, note why, they do it.
This is too easy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology)

[Obs]

The guy put a strainer on his head..............

Also, are we not supposed to critique something that oppresses just because it is being bombed? I give unlimited sympathy to the victims of imperialist aggression but that doesn't mean I give Islam a pass.
If you see some guy you think is a shithead lying on the ground and getting the shit kicked out of him by another asshole you hate, do you join in?

[Leftsolidarity]

If you see some guy you think is a shithead lying on the ground and getting the shit kicked out of him by another asshole you hate, do you join in?

*sigh* I refer you back to the "against religion but not religious people" thing.

[Robocommie]

Great support for your claim :thumbup1::lol:

Generally, there's really no point to arguing with people who have already made up their minds about what you're talking about. I had to reach that conclusion over many long and tiring efforts to appeal to people's empathy and reason both.

[Sir Comradical]

The guy put a strainer on his head..............

Also, are we not supposed to critique something that oppresses just because it is being bombed? I give unlimited sympathy to the victims of imperialist aggression but that doesn't mean I give Islam a pass.

The isolated action of an individual placing a strainer on his head wouldn't even pass for humour. Such an act becomes humorous only when it's done within a social/political context which I've already explained to you. While we shouldn't shy away from criticising the ideology of Islam, we should absolutely defend it's adherents from the racism of the boss class. That is all!

[Leftsolidarity]

The isolated action of an individual placing a strainer on his head wouldn't even pass for humour. Such an act becomes humorous only when it's done within a social/political context which I've already explained to you. While we shouldn't shy away from criticising the ideology of Islam, we should absolutely defend it's adherents from the racism of the boss class. That is all!

Actually, I would think it is funny anyways but yes it is funnier because of the context. I haven't seen one racist comment on here.

[Robocommie]

The guy put a strainer on his head..............

Yeah, in order to make a political statement. A douchebag political statement.


Also, are we not supposed to critique something that oppresses just because it is being bombed? I give unlimited sympathy to the victims of imperialist aggression but that doesn't mean I give Islam a pass.Well who the hell are you to give Islam a pass or not? What makes you think you have such perfect understanding of the Muslim world that you can pass judgement on it? Islam is not a monolithic thing which you can put under a microscope and quantify. Dude, you're from the Mid-west. You and I are from the same world. Unless you are just about the best-travelled motherfucker since Marco Polo, you can't tell me that you truly KNOW Islam.

Anyway, here's something to consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covering_Islam

[Sir Comradical]

Actually, I would think it is funny anyways but yes it is funnier because of the context. I haven't seen one racist comment on here.

You're an idiot.

[Princess Luna]

its amazing how one guy with a cooking utensil on his head could cause so many people to rage

[Robocommie]

its amazing how one guy with a pasta strainer on his head could cause so many people to rage

It's really not about him, and I'd like to think people could see that.

[Leftsolidarity]

Well who the hell are you to give Islam a pass or not? What makes you think you have such perfect understanding of the Muslim world that you can pass judgement on it? Islam is not a monolithic thing which you can put under a microscope and quantify. Dude, you're from the Mid-west. You and I are from the same world. Unless you are just about the best-travelled motherfucker since Marco Polo, you can't tell me that you truly KNOW Islam.

Anyway, here's something to consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covering_Islam

I am the one to give Islam a pass or not to myself. Just because they live in a different section of the world than I doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with their belief in a God or scripture.


Yeah, in order to make a political statement. A douchebag political statement.


Following your own logic, who are you to say that it is a douchebag political statement? What makes you think you have such a perfect understanding of the Austrain world that you can pass judgement on it?

It is a stupid argument

[Comrade Crow]

What makes their pastafarianism dumber than any other religion?

I would prefer not to get into that talk and totally derail the thread.

Needless to say, it's dumb and isn't legitimately funny, religious affiliation aside. Bob? Slack? That's genuinely funny/smart satire/parody.

[Robocommie]

I am the one to give Islam a pass or not to myself. Just because they live in a different section of the world than I doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with their belief in a God or scripture.

Doesn't mean you have a clue what you're talking about, though.



Following your own logic, who are you to say that it is a douchebag political statement? What makes you think you have such a perfect understanding of the Austrain world that you can pass judgement on it?

It is a stupid argumentNo, the difference is that I am not making a judgement call on Austrians, atheists, or Austrian atheists, and saying shit about how Austrian society is ridiculous, or oppressive, or other such essentialist, generalizing nonsense. You can say that Saddam Hussein, who was Muslim, was an asshole based on what we generally know about him. You can't extend that same judgement to Iraqi Muslim leaders, or to Iraqi Muslims, or to Muslims all over the world in general without being a bigoted tool.

It's not a stupid argument, unless you think prejudicial generalizations are perfectly valid.

[Obs]

I am the one to give Islam a pass or not to myself. Just because they live in a different section of the world than I doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with their belief in a God or scripture.
During the Kamakura period, Shinkan studied Tendai six years and then studied Zen seven years; then he went to China and contemplated Zen for thirteen years more.

When he returned to Japan many desired to interview him and asked obscure questions. But when Shinkan received visitors, which was infrequently, he seldom answered their questions.

One day a fifty-year-old student of enlightenment said to Shinkan: "I have studied the Tendai school of thought since I was a little boy, but one thing in it I cannot understand. Tendai claims that even the grass and trees will become enlightened. To me this seems very strange."

"Of what use is it to discuss how grass and trees become enlightened?" asked Shinkan. "The question is how you yourself can become so. Did you ever consider that?"

"I never thought of it in that way," marveled the old man.

"Then go home and think it over," finished Shinkan.

[Comrade Crow]

Question: I would like to know how the hell Muslims and Islaam got caught up in this thread? Did some people here just assume that we would be the most pissed off about this for some silly reason? Initially, I could give a fuck less about the incident, he kind of pulled it off well, woo, neat, meh but apparently, I should be really pissed off about this, right, so, tomorrow, I need to wake up, do Fajr, smoke a bong, then go bomb the Austrian embassy and run around enraged the entire day, got it.

[Leftsolidarity]

You can say that Saddam Hussein, who was Muslim, was an asshole based on what we generally know about him. You can't extend that same judgement to Iraqi Muslim leaders, or to Iraqi Muslims, or to Muslims all over the world in general without being a bigoted tool.


And when did I do any of that? For some reason you keep replacing the religion with the people who follow that religion. I hold no predetermined beliefs about Muslims other than that they follow Islam. There is nothing more to be assumed than that but just because I don't agree with Islam that suddenly makes me a bigoted tool.

[Leftsolidarity]

During the Kamakura period, Shinkan studied Tendai six years and then studied Zen seven years; then he went to China and contemplated Zen for thirteen years more.

When he returned to Japan many desired to interview him and asked obscure questions. But when Shinkan received visitors, which was infrequently, he seldom answered their questions.

One day a fifty-year-old student of enlightenment said to Shinkan: "I have studied the Tendai school of thought since I was a little boy, but one thing in it I cannot understand. Tendai claims that even the grass and trees will become enlightened. To me this seems very strange."

"Of what use is it to discuss how grass and trees become enlightened?" asked Shinkan. "The question is how you yourself can become so. Did you ever consider that?"

"I never thought of it in that way," marveled the old man.

"Then go home and think it over," finished Shinkan.

Your argument is great against a militant Anti-Theist but that I am not. I just think that getting all butt-hurt and up in arms about this guy wearing a strainer on his head is ridiculous.

[Leftsolidarity]

You're an idiot.

Okay, we don't have the same taste in humor. I think we actually found that out on the first page.

[Robocommie]

And when did I do any of that? For some reason you keep replacing the religion with the people who follow that religion. I hold no predetermined beliefs about Muslims other than that they follow Islam. There is nothing more to be assumed than that but just because I don't agree with Islam that suddenly makes me a bigoted tool.

To be honest man, when you justify your hatred of Islam with "it oppresses people" (which, correct me if I'm wrong, you DID say) then you're making a really bold, all-inclusive declarative statement.

[Leftsolidarity]

Question: I would like to know how the hell Muslims and Islaam got caught up in this thread? Did some people here just assume that we would be the most pissed off about this for some silly reason? Initially, I could give a fuck less about the incident, he kind of pulled it off well, woo, neat, meh but apparently, I should be really pissed off about this, right, so, tomorrow, I need to wake up, do Fajr, smoke a bong, then go bomb the Austrian embassy and run around enraged the entire day, got it.

Because for some reason a few on here think that this is done to mock muslims which I don't think is the case at all and highlights many other points.

[Rafiq]

Yeah, in order to make a political statement. A douchebag political statement.

Well who the hell are you to give Islam a pass or not? What makes you think you have such perfect understanding of the Muslim world that you can pass judgement on it? Islam is not a monolithic thing which you can put under a microscope and quantify. Dude, you're from the Mid-west. You and I are from the same world. Unless you are just about the best-travelled motherfucker since Marco Polo, you can't tell me that you truly KNOW Islam.

Anyway, here's something to consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covering_Islam

Im probably more familiar with islam than anyone at this discussion, maybe even comrade crow. I can say Islam most resembles Mormonism and could be best described as a cult. No, most Muslims don't advocate violence or conversion by force, but it is astoundingly reactionary and right wing. It should be opposed.

That's not to say I don't support Muslim workers, but our goal, as the middle eastern left, should be to lure them away from islamism..


Anyway, we shouldn't be spending too much time fighting religion, which, is just a reflection of the conditions present, imo.

[Robocommie]

Question: I would like to know how the hell Muslims and Islaam got caught up in this thread? Did some people here just assume that we would be the most pissed off about this for some silly reason? Initially, I could give a fuck less about the incident, he kind of pulled it off well, woo, neat, meh but apparently, I should be really pissed off about this, right, so, tomorrow, I need to wake up, do Fajr, smoke a bong, then go bomb the Austrian embassy and run around enraged the entire day, got it.

I'm not sure of the exact moment, but Islam is the religion which most people like to hold up as an example of how religion is awful. I kind of feel like this whole strainer thing was done to jab at women who want to have their license photo taken with the hijab.

[Robocommie]

Im probably more familiar with islam than anyone at this discussion, maybe even comrade crow. I can say Islam most resembles Mormonism and could be best described as a cult. No, most Muslims don't advocate violence or conversion by force, but it is astoundingly reactionary and right wing. It should be opposed.

That's not to say I don't support Muslim workers, but our goal, as the middle eastern left, should be to lure them away from islamism..


I assume you're from Dearborn?

Edit: Don't answer that if you're not comfortable, I don't mean to ask pig questions. I'm just interested in Dearborn as an immigrant community.

[Leftsolidarity]

To be honest man, when you justify your hatred of Islam with "it oppresses people" (which, correct me if I'm wrong, you DID say) then you're making a really bold, all-inclusive declarative statement.

Did not say that. I don't even hate Islam. I've actually looked into it before because I used to think it was something I could follow. I just don't like it any more than any other religion or believe in it. One of the things that makes me not like it more than other religions is that it is oppressive in some ways.

[Robocommie]

Did not say that. I don't even hate Islam. I've actually looked into it before because I used to think it was something I could follow. I just don't like it any more than any other religion or believe in it. One of the things that makes me not like it more than other religions is that it is oppressive in some ways.

Dude, when we started this argument, you said you hate all religion. Didn't you?

[Obs]

Muslims don't advocate violence or conversion by force, but it is astoundingly reactionary and right wing.
That's weird. When I've talked about Islam with my friend's dad, who's an imam, I got the complete opposite impression.

[Die Rote Fahne]

This is too easy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology)
Sure. That is one example. However, weighing Liberation Theology against the Christian majority, still shows the reactionary nature of Christianity. It's in the bible...I mean, sure, you can pick and choose from the bible, but at the end of the day, it's still in there.

I don't see how the movement of Liberation Theology is the equivalent to the major Churches of the world which hold the largest following. Those churches are the reactionary ones. Liberation Theology is an exception to the reactionary, but not the bat shit.

Just because they do good, should not excuse them from criticism.

[Leftsolidarity]

Dude, when we started this argument, you said you hate all religion. Didn't you?

I do not believe I did. If you show me that I did I will retract that statement but I think if you show it in context you will see that I was saying that one COULD hate religion without hating religious people.

Edit: You were correct I did say that. I take back that statement. I do not hate all religions.

[Robocommie]

Sure.

However, I don't see how the movement of Liberation Theology is the equivalent to the Churches of the world which hold the largest following. Those churches are the reactionary ones.

Liberation Theology is an exception to the reactionary, but not the bat shit.

There are regions of the world in which liberation theology is the dominant form. It's pure selection bias to say most Christians are the bad ones. That's completely unsupported and unverifiable. Most people, in general, aren't hateful or violent. That extends to all religions and culture groups.

[L.A.P.]

But criticizing how society treats those beliefs is.

You mean mocking someone's personal ritual? No it actually isn't.

[Obs]

Sure.

However, I don't see how the movement of Liberation Theology is the equivalent to the Churches of the world which hold the largest following.
It's not. That's partially the point - religion, even individual denominations of individual religions, are not monolithic things that can be quantified and analysed perfectly by anyone other than their adherents. Religions mean different things to different people, and one Anglican Christian can easily have a much different relationship to and interpretation of his religion than the Anglican Christian next door.

[Leftsolidarity]

You mean mocking someone's personal ritual? No it actually isn't.

No, the way society treats religion and the religious.

[Robocommie]

I do not believe I did. If you show me that I did I will retract that statement but I think if you show it in context you will see that I was saying that one COULD hate religion without hating religious people.

Edit: You were correct I did say that. I take back that statement. I do not hate all religions.

Okay then, let's just chalk this up to a misunderstanding. I don't object to your perspective at all, I just don't share it.

[Leftsolidarity]

Okay then, let's just chalk this up to a misunderstanding. I don't object to your perspective at all, I just don't share it.

Agreed

[Die Rote Fahne]

There are regions of the world in which liberation theology is the dominant form. It's pure selection bias to say most Christians are the bad ones. That's completely unsupported and unverifiable. Most people, in general, aren't hateful or violent. That extends to all religions and culture groups.
I'm not saying most Christians are bad, or reactionary, or anti-worker. I am saying the religion; the holy bible. the institution of Christianity, it's leaders are reactionary and anti-worker. This applies to most religions, if not all religions.

Yes, of course there are the exceptions. Liberation theology is one of them.

[Rafiq]

I assume you're from Dearborn?

Edit: Don't answer that if you're not comfortable, I don't mean to ask pig questions. I'm just interested in Dearborn as an immigrant community.

Yes, I'm from around that area.

In my opinion, Dearborn is less progressive than some places in the middle east. Dearborn, in a way, is more culturally conservative than Lebanon is. But that's only the old people, the new generation is getting more and more progressive, however, in regards to politics, there is a trend (It's decreasing) of Right Wing conspiracy theorists(illuminati, freemasons), or even more right wing total anti semites(Hitler was good, All jews bad) But those are just the uneducated, jersey shore type kids (Dearborn's teen community, in some places, are jersey shore wannabes).

Now, the educated, college people from Dearborn, are usually almost all Leftists, with the exception of right wing conservatives, who support the neoliberal economic policy but oppose imperialism. Socialism and Communism are very popular trends among the 'intellectuals'.

Food is great, really good, and so is the haircut places, etc.

I wouldn't recommend flying half way across the country there, but if you're ever visiting detroit, it's definitively a place to go for food.

[Rafiq]

That's weird. When I've talked about Islam with my friend's dad, who's an imam, I got the complete opposite impression.

That they advocate violence and conversion by force? Perhaps it's like that in Europe, where, from what I hear, Islamism is more widespread(probably as a response to widespread xenophobia against muslims

If you are speaking about it not being reactionary and right wing, than that doesn't make a difference, since some Imams hold 'progressive' views, though many contradict the Qu'ran

[Aspiring Humanist]

I am always astounded by the obnoxiousness and how attention deprived atheists can be

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am always astounded by the obnoxiousness and how attention deprived atheists can be

The world would be a much better place if more people were like this "obnoxious" Austrian atheist than any number (http://fstdt.net/) of devout religious believers.

Did this guy assault or intimidate anybody to make his point? No.

So I'll ask again, why should religion enjoy such privilege and protection from criticism?

[Hit The North]

Generally, there's really no point to arguing with people who have already made up their minds about what you're talking about. I had to reach that conclusion over many long and tiring efforts to appeal to people's empathy and reason both.

This is quite a hypocritical statement when earlier you claimed that you are religious and "this will never change". This would mean that discussion with you on this matter can never be furthered as you assume a dogmatic position from the outset.

On the other hand, you can appeal to my empathy. I deeply empathise with the fact that life can be scary, brutal and unfair and the consolation of religion can be a soothing thing. In other words I'm in agreement with Marx. But religion cannot appeal to reason once reason goes beyond a mere acknowledgement of an individuals right to their subjective feelings. This is because outside of these feelings, there is no evidence for the existence of God or a spiritual realm. Unless you are going to invoke scripture as material evidence of the existence of god, I can't see that there is any data for reason to work with.

Religious communists could win some ground if they argued why religious belief is important for the liberation of the working class, but they seldom engage in this argument besides vague references to "liberation theology". But all I see in examples of liberation theology is a clergy won over to the people's cause and then exerting hegemony over that cause. I'd challenge any of our religious communists to answer whether they think these movements would have been more effective if they'd been mobilised by religious ideas or communist ones?

[Principia Ethica]

I'd personally have no problem with religion if it didn't encroach upon my life. It's one thing to say that people have freedom to practice their religion. I'm totally fine with that. It's a whole nother can of worms when they get "special circumstances" granted to them because of it. This includes wearing clothes at work that go against dress codes. . .many are there for safety reasons. Or for official pictures.

But here in America, it goes further than that. References to god is on money. Money I have to handle every day. To be a witness in a trial, I have to swear on bible, every day as I child I had to say the pledge of allegiance which makes reference to one nation under god, and the list goes on.

Do I get a special high heel shoe to say my oath in court? Absurd as it sounds, it is equally absurd to have atheists or muslims swearing on a bible. Or can I trade my money into something more religion neutral such as gold? Can I use the reason that my ancestors wore bandanas to pick cotton and I want to honor them as a reason to go to the DMV and have my license picture taken with a bandana on?

So to hear that the religious are being persecuted is kinda bunk from my perspective. I'm atheist and I endure it every day. . .because religion is somehow something special that needs to be protected IN PUBLIC.

I think it is the whole making exceptions for religious people that sometimes gets under my skin. It has nothing to do with elevating their status to that of everyone elses or making things "equal." It seems not so equal to be granted "special" status and exceptions.

[piet11111]

The problem i have with religion is that it takes away the need to think for yourself.

You have a moral dilemma ? ask the priest and he tells you what to do.
Did you commit a sin ? 3 hail mary's and everything is A-okay.
You are gay ? don't worry there are facility's where jesus will take the gay away.

And most of all if your living in crippling poverty just be good work hard and don't steal from your boss heaven will be waiting for you once you die.

Being religious is one thing but having to resort to a church for instructions on how to live your life in a way good enough to go to heaven is oppressive.
Nobody should be stuck in such a straight-jacket where a fire and brimstone priest can make you do things that you would not have done if you where thinking with common sense.

Organized religion should be fought tooth and nail.

[Robocommie]

This is quite a hypocritical statement when earlier you claimed that you are religious and "this will never change". This would mean that discussion with you on this matter can never be furthered as you assume a dogmatic position from the outset.

For fuck's sake Bob, my privately held religious beliefs are not up for debate, no more than anyone's atheism is or should be up for debate. I'm not going to listen to any of your arguments about my relationship with my parents or my girlfriend, the clothes I wear or the food I eat either. Sorry.

[Crux]

The Church of the Subgenius is the only Atheist gigglery I find actually funny and or smart.

Past that, all your pastafarians and what have yous, is just dumb.
Ain't got nothing on Discordianism.

[Robocommie]

The problem i have with religion is that it takes away the need to think for yourself.

You have a moral dilemma ? ask the priest and he tells you what to do.
Did you commit a sin ? 3 hail mary's and everything is A-okay.

It doesn't actually work that way. Religious people are not cattle, and confession is not a drive-thru car wash.



You are gay ? don't worry there are facility's where jesus will take the gay away.Now you're conflating conservative Christian religion with all religion. A lot of Christians think reparative therapy is absurd.



And most of all if your living in crippling poverty just be good work hard and don't steal from your boss heaven will be waiting for you once you die.I've known a lot of working class, working poor people with religious convictions, and I can honestly say I have never heard anyone say this or express anything to that effect. Maybe you have, but it's far from universal.


Being religious is one thing but having to resort to a church for instructions on how to live your life in a way good enough to go to heaven is oppressive.Church fulfills a lot of roles. In fact, its primary purpose is not to tell people what to do, but in fact to provide a community for like-minded people to gather and share in each other's fellowship. To put it biblically: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I amongst them."

Seriously, you say going to a church and all that is oppressive, and I just have to laugh because for the most part I have memories of community Easter Egg hunts on the church lawn, potluck dinners, and being expected to do my part in the Church soup kitchen to feed the hungry.

Nobody's straight-jacketed by church, unless it's literally a cult. If people don't like a church, they stop going and find another one. People do it all the time. Even Catholics typically have one church or another which they prefer because they like the sermons one priest gives more than another, or because their friends go to the same one, or because they've gone there most of their lives and it's a familiar, comfortable place.

I'm not going to say religion is never abusive and it's never hierarchical or hegemonic, but quite frankly there's a huge difference between acknowledging that there's problems with some forms of religious practice - which is true of every human activity, including left-wing politics - and holding the least charitable, most dehumanizing and degrading possible view of religious people as frightened little sheeple who are unable to make decisions for themselves in the big bad world.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Church fulfills a lot of roles. In fact, its primary purpose is not to tell people what to do, but in fact to provide a community for like-minded people to gather and share in each other's fellowship.

Seriously, you say going to a church and all that is oppressive, and I just have to laugh because for the most part I have memories of community Easter Egg hunts on the church lawn, potluck dinners, and being expected to do my part in the Church soup kitchen to feed the hungry.

Nobody's straight-jacketed by church, unless it's literally a cult. If people don't like a church, they stop going and find another one. People do it all the time. Even Catholics typically have one church or another which they prefer because they like the sermons one priest gives more than another, or because their friends go to the same one, or because they've gone there most of their lives and it's a familiar, comfortable place.

The problem is that all the nice, fluffy, friendly stuff that everyone likes is not at all unique to religion - it's the absurd claims about the cosmos and the demand that such claims be respected despite the deafening silence on the evidence front.

What's worse is that some posit that religious claims cannot be verified or denied by scientific means, yet still demand that we respect those same unsupported, unsubstantiated beliefs! Or even worse, enact them into laws that all of us, religious or otherwise, are forced to follow.

While I can respect a Christian as a fellow human being (if I didn't, I wouldn't even try to argue religion at all), I cannot respect their beliefs any more than I can respect someone else's belief that the world was formed entirely as it was last Thursday.


I'm not going to say religion is never abusive and it's never hierarchical or hegemonic, but quite frankly there's a huge difference between acknowledging that there's problems with some forms of religious practice - which is true of every human activity, including left-wing politics - and holding the least charitable, most dehumanizing and degrading possible view of religious people as frightened little sheeple who are unable to make decisions for themselves in the big bad world.

The problem is not that religious folk are "sheeple" (that's the Christian view), the problem is that people who have been steeped in religion since birth are far more likely to make the wrong decisions because of that.

In any case, it's easy to become frustrated when religious idiocy has such a strong influence in society - the fact that people like Michele Bachmann are even considered as candidates for the Presidency of one of the world's leading nation-states is a testament to that.

[Diello]

Good god; and I thought whining and religious apologism was prevalent in Oklahoma.

[Zanthorus]

...it's the absurd claims about the cosmos and the demand that such claims be respected despite the deafening silence on the evidence front.

What's worse is that some posit that religious claims cannot be verified or denied by scientific means, yet still demand that we respect those same unsupported, unsubstantiated beliefs!

So, would you like to present us with the hard empirical evidence that substantiates your belief that the only form of knowledge possible is knowledge gained through 'scientific means' (Whatever that actually is supposed to mean anyway)?

[Mather]

So, would you like to present us with the hard empirical evidence that substantiates your belief that the only form of knowledge possible is knowledge gained through 'scientific means' (Whatever that actually is supposed to mean anyway)?

Errr, things like technology, medicine and all the knowledge we have from so many different fields such as mathematics, astromony and physics.

Remember the burden of proof always rests with the person making the claim.

If you believe in God and preach it, then prove it!

[Johnny Kerosene]

Errr, things like technology, medicine and all the knowledge we have from so many different fields such as mathematics, astromony and physics.

Remember the burden of proof always rests with the person making the claim.

If you believe in God and preach it, then prove it!

That's not always the best argument because there's no way to objectively prove or disprove the existence of a God. Even if every nook and cranny of the universe had been explored and every natural phenomenon were explained there's no way to prove that something metaphysical does or does not exist. Especially when said metaphysical object does not physically interact with the physical. I'm not saying religion is right or anything, I'm just saying it's not something that can ever be proved or disproved. Unless of course Jesus comes down from the sky and starts doing a bunch of miracles. It which case every Christian on the planet would have an I told you so moment.

[cogar66]

So many people on here are so fucking afraid to offend anyone. It's ridiculous.

[Zanthorus]

mathematics

Mathematics is not based on empirical evidence, but on proof, and a proof can be wrong in a way which empirical evidence cannot be, by failing to follow correctly a particular rule. In fact, it is one of the most obvious counter-example's to the idea that we acquire knowledge through hard evidence.


If you believe in God

I don't, however it is not necessary for someone who does to 'prove it', because a belief in God's existence or non-existence is not a belief about what is the case, and it is utterly innapropriate to apply the methods of the natural sciences to what is, in essence, a philosophical dispute.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So, would you like to present us with the hard empirical evidence that substantiates your belief that the only form of knowledge possible is knowledge gained through 'scientific means' (Whatever that actually is supposed to mean anyway)?

It's one thing to claim to have knowledge, like theologians do, but it's quite another to demonstrate that knowledge.

The knowledge of science is demonstrated every second of every day by technology.

What do theologians have? Fuck all!


That's not always the best argument because there's no way to objectively prove or disprove the existence of a God. Even if every nook and cranny of the universe had been explored and every natural phenomenon were explained there's no way to prove that something metaphysical does or does not exist.

It is not necessary to search the entire universe in order to dismiss the God Hypothesis. All that is necessary is a lack of evidence in favour of it.


Especially when said metaphysical object does not physically interact with the physical.

If it doesn't physically interact with anything in any meaningful way, how could we possibly know that it exists in the first place?


I'm not saying religion is right or anything, I'm just saying it's not something that can ever be proved or disproved. Unless of course Jesus comes down from the sky and starts doing a bunch of miracles. It which case every Christian on the planet would have an I told you so moment.

Wrong. The notion that religious beliefs are not subject to the same methods of confirmation or disconfirmation as any other belief does not hold up to logical scrutiny, and merely forms part of religion's social privilege.


Mathematics is not based on empirical evidence, but on proof, and a proof can be wrong in a way which empirical evidence cannot be, by failing to follow correctly a particular rule. In fact, it is one of the most obvious counter-example's to the idea that we acquire knowledge through hard evidence.

Mathematical knowledge can be demonstrated with a pen and paper. What's the corresponding demonstration for theology?


I don't, however it is not necessary for someone who does to 'prove it', because a belief in God's existence or non-existence is not a belief about what is the case, and it is utterly innapropriate to apply the methods of the natural sciences to what is, in essence, a philosophical dispute.

You are doing philosophy a disservice, but that's OK, since plenty of other philosophers do the same. Evidence is not irrelevant to philosophy. Philosophers and scientists are talking about the same reality (at least, they should be). When someone asks of a philosopher, "OK, prove it!" what do you imagine their response should be?

[Queercommie Girl]

Mathematics is not based on empirical evidence, but on proof, and a proof can be wrong in a way which empirical evidence cannot be, by failing to follow correctly a particular rule. In fact, it is one of the most obvious counter-example's to the idea that we acquire knowledge through hard evidence.


There are 2 general ways to acquire knowledge: deduction and induction.

Mathematical knowledge comes from deduction.

Empirical scientific knowledge comes from induction.

Theological "knowledge" comes from neither deduction nor induction.

You are right in that mathematics and empirical science aren't quite the same kind of thing, but you fail to realise that theology is like neither mathematics nor science. Mathematics isn't just some kind of "philosophical argument" in a hand-waving general sense.

[Steve_j]

FFS sake, it stimulates debate, and a private chuckle. Its a win in my book. :)

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't, however it is not necessary for someone who does to 'prove it', because a belief in God's existence or non-existence is not a belief about what is the case, and it is utterly innapropriate to apply the methods of the natural sciences to what is, in essence, a philosophical dispute.


But any existing religion (e.g. Christianity) is much more than just "belief in the existence of God". What you are referring to here is merely abstract Deism, not actual concrete historical religions.

While you could argue that Deism vs. non-Deism (i.e. existence of God in the purely abstract sense) is a "philosophical" rather than empirical debate, actual existing religions cannot be simply reduced to this at all. Religions like Christianity also make many historical claims which can indeed be empirically verified, one way or another. (E.g. Did Jesus actually exist? Is there any historical evidence for the Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead?)

The general methods of the natural sciences are indeed very much applicable to history, because history, in the last analysis, is also an empirical, inductive science.

One may not need to prove the existence of God in the purely abstract sense empirically, but religions are much more than just the belief in a purely abstract God. Religions also make many other claims which can actually be empirically tested, at least potentially.

[Bardo]

I find it hilarious that this has generated so much serious and passionate discussion.

Let's throw some fits over a cute kitty video tomorrow.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Mocking millions for their religious beliefs? Why, that's just the thing for leftists to be cheerleading!

Hmm... how do you reconcile religious dogma with materialism? Seems as if socialism would be much more difficult to implement with religion in the way dumbing everyone down.

[Chambered Word]

sounds like an idiot trying to be clever.

[Zanthorus]

It's one thing to claim to have knowledge, like theologians do, but it's quite another to demonstrate that knowledge.

[...]

Mathematical knowledge can be demonstrated with a pen and paper. What's the corresponding demonstration for theology?

You are falling into linguistic confusion here by collapsing all forms of proof under the rubric of 'demonstration' and then conflating 'demonstration' with the presentation of empirical evidence. The sense in which the solution to a mathematical problem is 'demonstrated' is not the same as the way in which the truth or falsity of a physical theory is demonstrated. For example, if someone purported to 'demonstrate' that one add one was in fact equal to five, we should not even think about asking them for evidence, because from our knowledge of the rules and practices which constitute the discipline of mathematics we know that such a proof would violate those rules before they've even attempted it. The way in which we know the answer to a problem in mathematics is more akin to how we know what words mean in language than to how we know that if we dropped a pen it would fall to the ground.


Evidence is not irrelevant to philosophy.

Yes it is. If I showed a determinist a person who I purported to be engaged in voluntary action, do you think that the determinist would be convinced by this evidence? More than likely they would respond with various suggestions such as that the action was not really voluntary but encouraged by such and such a causal chain of physical events, and continuing to show him such things would be a futile endeavour. The only answer I can give to him is to show that the way in which he uses his terms violates the conditions for sense, but this is not showing evidence in the traditional sense, but showing that he does not understand the rules and practices by which language operates. It has reference to reality, but not in the same way that the demonstration of an empirical proposition does. Similarly, the answer to someone who claims the existence of God is not to point to him what is and is not the case, because this will not sway him in his beliefs which do have reference to anything being the case. The answer is to show that the proposition does not have a sense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are falling into linguistic confusion here by collapsing all forms of proof under the rubric of 'demonstration' and then conflating 'demonstration' with the presentation of empirical evidence.

The point is that a mathematician's work can be independantly verified, like that of a scientist. Theology lacks any mechanism for verification.


The sense in which the solution to a mathematical problem is 'demonstrated' is not the same as the way in which the truth or falsity of a physical theory is demonstrated. For example, if someone purported to 'demonstrate' that one add one was in fact equal to five, we should not even think about asking them for evidence, because from our knowledge of the rules and practices which constitute the discipline of mathematics we know that such a proof would violate those rules before they've even attempted it.

The error in 1+1=5 is so obvious one can do it one's head, but it can be demonstrated. Other times in mathematics the answers aren't so obvious. But simple or obvious, mathematical problems have a demonstrable solution that can be rigorously tested by others.


The way in which we know the answer to a problem in mathematics is more akin to how we know what words mean in language than to how we know that if we dropped a pen it would fall to the ground.

So if you put one apple on a table with one apple already on it, how many apples would there then be on the table? Two or five?

It wouldn't matter what language you're using, there would still be two apples on the table.


Yes it is.

All the worse for philosophy, then.


If I showed a determinist a person who I purported to be engaged in voluntary action, do you think that the determinist would be convinced by this evidence? More than likely they would respond with various suggestions such as that the action was not really voluntary but encouraged by such and such a causal chain of physical events, and continuing to show him such things would be a futile endeavour.

The problem here is that you seem to be looking for exceptions in a hypothesis that doesn't grant them. You need to present evidence that undermines the hypothesis as a whole, rather than nitpickicking with singular cases.

What you need to do is provide conclusive evidence that "free will" (whatever that is) is something that all humans possess.


The only answer I can give to him is to show that the way in which he uses his terms violates the conditions for sense, but this is not showing evidence in the traditional sense, but showing that he does not understand the rules and practices by which language operates. It has reference to reality, but not in the same way that the demonstration of an empirical proposition does.

Whether or not we have free will is a matter of evidence, not linguistic chicanery. Of course, believers in free will need to provide a rigorous definition of the term first, which I haven't seen them do yet.


Similarly, the answer to someone who claims the existence of God is not to point to him what is and is not the case, because this will not sway him in his beliefs which do have reference to anything being the case. The answer is to show that the proposition does not have a sense.

If someone isn't swayed by evidence (or a resounding lack thereof), what the fuck makes you think a bunch of philosobabble is going to be any more effective? (Not to mention it stinks of the bullshit word games that philosophers love to play instead of actually doing their damn jobs) Especially since a lot of religious concepts are incoherent or contradictory in the first place.

In any case, religious believers make testable claims all the time, and we should be rubbing the more obnoxious ones' faces in their own failures.

[Jose Gracchus]

I do find the "New Atheists" fixation on "empirical" challenges to the question of the "existence of God" to be quite beside the point, and philosophically sloppy.

Yes, the existence of a God is not something provable or disprovable in the empirical sense. But extant religion does not stop as God's "existence"; rather, there is the claim that you know his name, are familiar with his identification with real historical natural persons, can communicate to Him, He will intercede in your behalf in matters temporal as well as spiritual--these claims are much more difficult to sustain. It is quite obvious that, for instance, prayer does not do anything more than placebo, and God fails to ever cure an illness which could not have improve on its own (perhaps God has, like Man, failed to figure out neural regeneration in paraplegics?). Still less tenable is the assertion that God knows and cares about what sexual habits you indulge, what type of land mammals whose flesh you enjoy consuming, ad nauseum. People focus on the academic God question as if they are arguing against 18th c. philosophical Deists; that is certainly not what the average evangelical Christian or fundamentalist Muslim asserts today.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do find the "New Atheists" fixation on "empirical" challenges to the question of the "existence of God" to be quite beside the point, and philosophically sloppy.

Yes, the existence of a God is not something provable or disprovable in the empirical sense. But extant religion does not stop as God's "existence"; rather, there is the claim that you know his name, are familiar with his identification with real historical natural persons, can communicate to Him, He will intercede in your behalf in matters temporal as well as spiritual--these claims are much more difficult to sustain. It is quite obvious that, for instance, prayer does not do anything more than placebo, and God fails to ever cure an illness which could not have improve on its own (perhaps God has, like Man, failed to figure out neural regeneration in paraplegics?). Still less tenable is the assertion that God knows and cares about what sexual habits you indulge, what type of land mammals whose flesh you enjoy consuming, ad nauseum. People focus on the academic God question as if they are arguing against 18th c. philosophical Deists; that is certainly not what the average evangelical Christian or fundamentalist Muslim asserts today.

Have you actually read anything that so-called "New Atheists" have written? Because they've mentioned all the things you have and more.

Seriously, how many of you actually have ever actually hung around a community of atheists and skeptics? Speaking from personal experience, they argue with each other almost as much as they argue against religion.

[Jose Gracchus]

I own The Atheist Reader by Hitchens, Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Dawkins' The God Delusion, and Harris' End of Faith. I still think religion and theism is just as preposterous as before, but I don't think its any more privileged a delusion than the entire corpus of bourgeois ideology that drives people to do pointless things, like worship of sports franchises, consumerism, nationalism, a belief in voting, etc. I also do think there's a good ingredient among the New Athiests of trying to justify, from the "left," the War on Terror.

[wunderbar]

I don't feel strongly one way or the other except that the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster meme has really been driven into the ground.

[bots]

Every time a demiurge worshipping fool opens their pathetic mouth my anti-cosmic Satanic Gnosticism truth is blasphemed. I long for the day my Dark Lords consume this illusion and usher in everlasting chaos so your words become like pestilent rats that chew your throats apart. Deal with it.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think this is relevant to this thread... Basically all things boil down to competing reigious views. :)


http://mthruf.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/job-fails-competing-worldviews.jpg

[Queercommie Girl]

I own The Atheist Reader by Hitchens, Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Dawkins' The God Delusion, and Harris' End of Faith. I still think religion and theism is just as preposterous as before, but I don't think its any more privileged a delusion than the entire corpus of bourgeois ideology that drives people to do pointless things, like worship of sports franchises, consumerism, nationalism, a belief in voting, etc. I also do think there's a good ingredient among the New Athiests of trying to justify, from the "left," the War on Terror.

Well, not to apologise for nationalism, but national consciousness is indeed more advanced than religious consciousness. National consciousness is a product of capitalism, while religious consciousness is a product of slavery and feudalism. Marxism believes capitalism, and the ideological superstructure associated with capitalism, is generally speaking more advanced than feudalism and slavery and their corresponding ideological superstructures. It doesn't mean nationalism is always more progressive than religious belief, in many situations it's not, but it is more advanced, like capitalist industry is more advanced than feudal agriculture.

Also, from a socialist perspective there is nothing wrong with moderate consumerism. Communism is not a return to a medieval style frugal peasant egalitarian society.

[Agent Blazkowicz]

I don't feel strongly one way or the other except that the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster meme has really been driven into the ground.

Agreed, I mean granted, I do think this is funny but it's really old.