Pastafarians Remind the Real Motivation of the Modern Atheistic Movement

errr ... no

I distinguish between satire and that which it is satirizing .... which plays a big part in helping me discern what is and isn't characterizing/intrinsic/high end value behaviour of an individual
.
Apparently in your saner moments, you do too

If by "serious" you mean those that don't exist purely as tools of satire, then yes, I do.

For the same reason I also think that its only the "serious" examples of asylum seekers that deserve to be treated under inter/national guidelines for seeking amnesty

On the contrary, I can't see how it is possible to discuss it bereft of ideology

sure

with quotes like "religion is poison" by key figures and national capital revenue employed to enforce the hardline state atheism, it would be impossible for the afflicted theists or even social commentators that come within 10ft of the facts not to
:shrug:

One could say the same thing about believing in god .....

which then presents problems unique (or at least attributable) to atheism when you have heads of state with an agenda to undermine religion in a severe manner

more substance to indicate its simply a charade for you to talk about "secular ideals".

Militant socio-political atheism brands religion an enemy - not secularism
:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So silliness is OK as long as it's old?

I'm sure there's a copy on the coffee table of every member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Why do you think we became atheists?

Would you prefer state recognized religions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where is that happening in the world? Nowhere. Where is the state enforcing religion? Everywhere. The difference is that atheism doesn't even pretend to be a moral system, so there is no comparison. People that attack religion don't like either the political influence of the church or they don't like religious ideas, both of which are legitimate concerns. When that is combined with a disdain for religious freedom, you get persecution of religious people. I happen to think religious freedom is important too. Many religious people believe in a religion which doesn't allow freedom of thought for other people, which is usually why atheists become political activists. I can't defend every ideology that happens to be atheistic, it's really not my problem. Not being religious is not a fundamental problem, it's really devoid of politics until politics intrudes on it.

Nothing different than how some religions treated other religions throughout history. Freedom of thought is the important thing, and we didn't get that until religion lost it's political power and secularism took over.

That's my right to consider religion an enemy of reason, because it is. I would still defend religious freedom, because in it is also freedom from religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see the problem in demanding for oneself what is granted others, regardless of one's agreement with the granting in general.

And as far as open mockery of billions of people by someone not in power over them - as the poets remind us, tyranny falls to derision. The fact that it is billions of people, with their own armies and everything, rather excuses than blames him: he's not exactly picking on the vulnerable, eh?

 

Tiassa,

So as long as atheists are absolutely hardcore about their rationality, to the extent of refusing to name their car or take part in superstitious sports rituals, atheism is not bigotry? But as long as they single out religion for their focus, they become bigots? How is this not a civil rights issue? Religions get special treatment from the state. Even if the FSM thing is a joke, there is a very real civil rights issue behind it, churches get tax exempt status, even though they violate IRS rules against political activism, members of some churches get to take hallucinogens that would be illegal if I possessed them, and yes, some get special privileges regarding headgear. Well, we demand that either everyone gets the same freedom, or none of us does. It's a basic issue of fairness.

 

so you feel that this somehow illegitimatizes the horror stories survivors recount of such eras?

when was the last time you faced legal difficulties on account of being atheist?

if that was true you would have no grounds for discussing anything on this thread

aka : atheistic ideology

far from seeing evidence in your posts that you think religious freedom is important, we see ideas aimed at curbing and restricting it

The problem is that you can't launch into extensive criticisms of religion and calls for it to be disbanded in various social and political ways and then try and about face and say your values encompass nothing more than "not being religious".

first you say that the state enforces religion everywhere and now you say that we have freedom of thought since religion has lost its political power.

This is indicative of the double standards of thinking you employ when you try to discuss these topics -

quite frankly you can't rant about religion being an enemy and then about face to try and pretend its merely social freedom and secularism in a vain effort not to violate liberal ideals you hold as dear.
:shrug:

 

Concerning the ungrammatical subject line ('Pastafarians Remind the Real Motivation of the Modern Atheistic Movement'), Tiassa says:

Read literally, it seems to be saying that "the Real Motivation" was reminded of "the Modern Atheistic Movement" by the "Pastafarians". That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What real motivation? How can a motivation be reminded of something? Had the motivation forgotten the modern atheist movement?

But ok, we can agree that it was merely bad poetry.

What phenomenon is that?

At least when philosophers were expressing their ideas. I doubt if religiously skeptical members of the general public expressed their ideas as well.

Ah, the germ of a thesis. Are you arguing that atheists are sometimes so zealous to protect themselves from what you call "religious supremacism" that they end up overreacting and promoting what we might call 'atheist supremacism' instead?

I agree that can occasionally happen. But I don't perceive any 'atheist supremacism' here in this Czech 'sieve-head' case.

Maybe, maybe not. If this 'pastafarianism' only insists on an individual's right to do seemingly arbitrary and absurd things in the name of religion if that individual wants to, then I don't see your contradiction. But there's also a more philosophical point to make about this:

There are those (your billion Muslims among them) who think that the Christian trinity is a clear contradiction of Christianity's stated monotheism. In light of problems like that, should perception of what one thinks is a contradiction in somebody else's religious doctrine justify the state refusing adherents of that doctrine the right to practice their professed religion?

I really doubt if any of the hypothetical atheist-supremacists would object to that kind of policy. It would serve their religious-suppression purposes quite well.

What wrong is there in what he did?

How has Nový done any harm to anyone else's religious freedom? Muslim women can still wear their headscarves. Jewish men can wear their yarmulkas. Buddhist monks can wear robes and have shaven heads. Catholic priests can wear clerical dress. Nobody else's rights have been interfered with in the least. Nový simply asserted a similar right for himself.

Here in the United States, we call that 'free speech'. I'm very pleased to see that the Czech Republic recognizes it too.

When a Muslim woman wears a headscarf, it suggests to me that she takes adherence to Islamic Shariah law more seriously than other Muslim women. And Shariah law includes provisions that I consider absolutely and unequivocably evil. Killing daughters that have premarital sex. Killing Muslims that convert to a different religion. Whenever I see a Muslim woman in a headscarf, I instinctively find myself not liking her and consider her a potential threat to the modern secular way of life that I love.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge her right to wear the thing if whe wants to, even if I don't like it. It's her right of expression, even if she chooses to express a position that I strongly oppose. (Of course, if Islamists actually perform some of the actions that their faith seemingly demands of them, such as honor killings, then I believe that our Western law should come down very hard on them. But merely expressing an idea seems to me to be protected.)

Your opposition to Nový's head-sieve appears to be the same kind of situation in reverse. By insisting on wearing the thing in his photo, he appears to you to be insulting a billion Muslims. That violates your ethical sensibilities, much as Muslim women's headscarves violate mine.

The thing is, anyone can champion free-speech and free-expression when the speech expresses something that we like and agree with. That's the easy and self-serving case, when championing free-speech is just a celebration of our own freedom and power. The real test comes when we find ourselves in a position of defending another person's expression of ideas that we profoundly and viscerally oppose. That's where free-speech is most needed and where it's most at risk.

 

If you think that I do not realize that real change comes with a price you are mistaken (history tells me this) you need not.

Of course, I did not say I stay away from politics it is part of my everyday life, I said I stay away from political persuasions, which admittedly is bad wording. What I should have said is that other's political beliefs have not deterred or in any way affected the work I do. In fact in the work I do I find an individual's political beliefs are often thrown into a tailspin.

No where did I say this could be done without conflict/persecution, it would be my hope, but again, there is that little thing called history


false dichotomy.

My ilk and I do not see many of the changes religious, economic or political happening in our lifetime, but yeah, we work and build towards it anyway. We are not exclusive proprietors of wanting to make this a better planet, but we do think we have the right analysis and are moving forward on that analysis.

I do not care about your's or any one person's spiritual beliefs or lack thereof, it is that simple. Too much work to be done! Hell, we might have a discussion and find we are in agreement about some spiritual concepts, but just like contemplating the color of lint in my belly button it gets me nowhere closer to any goal.:shrug:

:shrug:[/QUOTE]

No LG, unique is not what I would use to describe my views or work but struggle is. Care to get your hands dirty? Because like you said LG, the possibility of conflict and even persecution seems to be a prerequisite when change is made (especially economic).

 

Notes Around

Well, generally, your have a point. But, in particular, if a Christian or a Muslim does this sort of theological contortion, we call it hypocrisy.

Can we have a little ethical consistency here, or are atheists excused?

Two points here:

(1) By your argument, racism against white people is acceptable insofar as, compared to nonwhites, they're not exactly vulnerable, eh? I mean, sure, there are some who think they are, but there's a difference between, say, land reallocation policies in South Africa and, well, living in the Czech Republic.

(2) Furthermore, by your argument, I could make the following argument and expect the Czech government to accept it:

• The only dogma of my religion is to reject all dogma.

• By church dogma, I am obliged to wear a t-shirt that says, "Niggers Should Hang" on the front, and recites the Sandbox Joke on the back, wherever I go.

• I refuse to abide by the tenets of my faith and reject this dogmatic demand that is violative of my religion.

∴ Therefore I demand government endorsement of this dogmatic obligation that actually violates my religious faith, in the name of my religious freedom.​

There is no reason for the Czech government to refuse.

See also my response to Gmilam below.

• • •​

I know this sounds a little harsh, but can you tell the difference between silliness that results from diverse and sometimes contradictory societal histories and traditions to the one, and shit pulled out of your ass to the other?

That's the difference. It's not that the silliness is necessarily okay, but, rather, that it can be traced through history, and is not simply pulled out of some random idiot's ass.

See, if you actually studied, you would know why that statement is so laughable.

And this is part of the problem. When it comes to inherent corruption of religious principles, atheists are generally setting the bar low. Treating the whole of a religion as if its adherents are all the sort of idiotic fundamentalists most commonly engaged is rather quite the revealing general behavior.

To wit, religious scholars like Russell, Armstrong, and Pagels can provide you with the tools necessary to comprehend what, other than offending an atheist's delicate sensibilities, so many Christians are getting wrong.

If you had actually studied, you would know this.

Out of curiosity, would you be willing to take a one-question pop-quiz?

Well, there are many reasons why people become atheists, but generally speaking, in the evangelical atheistic movement, the underlying motivation seems to be jealousy. Take Mr. Nový as an example. He quite clearly has no clue what he's protesting against. Sure, it might have a general shape that he can describe, but he is quite clueless about religion, at least according to his argument.

Quite irrelevant for the fact of being utterly fallacious.

• • •​

Really? That's what you got out of that?

As I noted to Iceaura, these contradictions between dogma and behavior, when committed by a non-atheist, are considered hypocrisy.

Does atheism also demand that it be excused from ethics?

Why am I obliged to respect hypocrisy in the name of atheism if I reject hypocrisy in the name of Christianity, Islam, America, the Republican Party, or anything else?

It is, in the end, a complete lack of integrity about atheism in practice. And it is pervasive.

Unlike our neighbor LG, I am very much sympathetic to atheism as a general idea. But I refuse to single out one abstraction in the world for unique principle. That is, if I am to apply the principle against "religion", I ought to apply it consistently.

Objectivity? Skepticism? Apparently these ideas should only be applied in negative criticism of religion. And that's not just Mr. Nový, or the most part of Sciforums' atheistic representation, or these atheistic organizations. It was there the day I assumed the atheistic outlook for myself, was present among my atheistic cohort, and has persisted since I left religion behind. I am neither atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic—I don't care if God exists because it doesn't matter.

Unlike Mr. Nový, however, this isn't an assertion pulled out of my ass. Depending on how many pages you want to sit through, I can certainly try to explain it. The simple way of expressing it, though, is that even the redemptive monotheists think God is a dolt.

If we say, generally, and even limit that to merely for the purposes of argument, that atheists set a low bar by engaging the most ignorant religionists and then projecting that image over the whole of religion, it would seem that, at some point over the last twenty-plus years, then I should have, statistically speaking, encountered at least one atheist who is capable of examining those larger issues.

Still, though, one among millions is not an encouraging figure.

There is a difference between having religious freedom and destroying it.

Tell you what ... put on abaya and veil, then walk around even in the Seattle summer, and then tell me it's a special privilege.

In the United States, at least, religion isn't a privilege, it's a right.

Same question to you: Would you be willing to take a one-question pop-quiz?

• • •​

Just out of curiosity, would you be able to describe what would happen to that agnosticism if you transformed it into apathy?

I'll even offer a starting point:

• Sola fide.

• Walking in the steps of Christ.

• God knows what is in a person's heart.​

All three points are relatively common across diverse sectors American Christianity. But it leads to a paradox.

If, as such, you can identify and apply the paradox, the resulting effect is that it doesn't really matter whether or not God exists.

And, in truth, I find it a lot easier to slog through religious history once I'm in that apathetic mode. It's kind of like the difference between reading Dawkins and Armstrong; one is trying to prove a political point, the other is simply examining the historical record.

 

Why? Religion is too often the enemy of secularism. If it weren't, I would have no complaint.

 

Such eras represent the horror of religion more than anything, as Stalinism, Leninism, or Maoism were religions. They just sought, as many religions do, to destroy their rivals. It had nothing to do with the secular or humanistic values that typify modern atheist activism.

 

It's not about me so much as I explained I live in a progressive secular society. However, there have been cases in my county that I might have been a juror for, where children were allowed to die because their parents believed in faith healing. So, the dangers of faith exist even here.

 

Sure. Silliness that you like or tolerate comes from diverse and sometimes contradictory societal histories; things you do not like are called "shit pulled out of your ass."

I suspect you consider the Westboro Baptists "idiotic fundamentalists." And you have every right to do so. You even have the right to speak out against them, even if other people think you are silly.
Or do you think that any ridicule of the Westboro Baptist means you are a bigot who pulls shit out of his ass?

Hmm. You seem to be ridiculing the idea of "offending an atheist's delicate sensibilities" as if they were making mountains of molehlills - yet you staunchly support not offending the delicate sensibilities of the religious?

How do you know this? Perhaps he could produce as many pages of text as you could describing the absurdity of religion and why his preferred hat is no more or less absurd than a bishop's miter.

You are not obliged to respect anything. Neither is Mr. Novy (apparently to your chagrin.)

It is a RIGHT not a REQUIREMENT. You have the freedom to do so; you do not have the requirement to do so.

 

I remember reading Christopher Hitchens book God is not Great some years back and feeling outraged and wanting to become an outright atheist. But much has changed in these few years and I am exactly at the point of the result you mentioned (that it does not matter whether God exists) as an ex American Christian. When I think back on when I realized my change from believer to an agnostic, it can be directly connected to my view on Jesus i.e., who he was and what he was telling us. No doubt, how I perceived, comprehended and applied his teachings were vastly different than most of my then fellow Christian.

When turned into apathy the above three points become a way of life, as an ex American Christian these ideals were imprinted and reinforced on me at a young age and are always with me, whether a God exists or not. Can only speak for myself though, for this is exactly the place I am in so far in my journey for inner peace and a little bit of truth.

 

Sure I can - but old shit, new shit - it's still shit and it's still laughable.

I don't care if someone has rationalized why they do stupid shit.

Maybe.

Don't know why Mr Novy became an atheist - and I bet neither do you. I only know why I became an atheist

No, that is the point. All he's asking for is the same rights anyone else has. And you're saying he shouldn't have them because Pastafarianism isn't a "real" religion - and you expect the state to be the arbitrator over what constitutes a "true" religion.

 

Tiassa,

I'm still not really sure what hypocrisy you are talking about. Why do you think atheists are not skeptical? Why do you think they don't debate the leading figures of religious institutions?

What does that mean? That liberal Christianity isn't that bad? If anything they are worse than fundamentalists, at least the fundies are honest about where they are coming from.

Forgive me if I'm not sympathetic to your apathy. Meanwhile people of faith are whitewashing history textbooks, disqualifying people for public office because they don't believe, siphoning off tax money for creation museums, undermining established science, letting their children die of treatable diseases...

I don't have an issue with funny clothing. But try to watch your daughter's swim class in Canada where there are daughters of Muslim parents and tell me religion doesn't demand special privileges.

 

Mulberry Notes

Here's an example:

• Bob and Jane are married. Jane files for divorce because she caught Bob cheating on her. At trial, Bob argues that Jane cannot divorce him for adultery, because theirs is a Christian marriage, and as a Christian he is doctrinally obligated to have sex with other women; in filing for divorce, she is violating his First Amendment rights to free religion.​

Would you buy that argument?

Take a look at Gmilam, for instance: "but old shit, new shit - it's still shit and it's still laughable".

The lack of human sympathy about the argument is hardly unique. Indeed, it's one of the reasons why, while I support equal protection under the law, I would very much disdain being included among the rising atheistic sociopolitical movement in the United States.

Here's an old proposition:

• There is a saying among religious folk that without God there is no morality. We can certainly chuckle at the proposition, but for the religious individual, God becomes the linchpin for proper conduct in society. Very well. Convert the religious person away from their faith. The question remains: How does one organize their moral and ethical outlook for proper conduct in society?​

It's not so much that atheistic answers are unsatisfactory. Ten years later, I still have yet to encounter an atheist who will admit to understanding the question.

Anyone who comprehends the most basic psychology of neurosis and dysfunction can see just how deeply conflicts 'twixt self and psyche. Atheism, however, as a rising collective voice, and for the most part individual atheists, seem to have absolutely no regard for that reality. To them, as Gmilam expressed, all of the morality, anxiety, neurosis, and challenge of comprehending one's place in the Universe—an allegedly human attribute that transcends religion—is just shit.

So think about that for a moment. Do you have an opinion? Is it based on something you've experienced and thought about? Doesn't matter. That opinion, that effort to consider, explore, and resolve the conflict, is just shit.

Did your wife betray you? Did it hurt? Who cares? Your feelings are shit.

Were you ever fired unjustly? Did it upset you? Who cares? Your feelings, experiences, and very living existence are shit.

Now, admittedly, adopting our neighbor's outlook on shit would be very convenient, because then we don't need to worry about inequality in society, because the hurt and deprivation it causes are nothing more than shit.

This sort of intellectual sloth is neither subtle, admirable, nor useful. Well, okay, it might be useful for trying to convince yourself that your shit doesn't stink.

When the question is civil rights and equal protection, there are issues to resolve. But the movement that has arisen in recent years is intellectually and psychologically weak. Messrs. Nový and Alm are examples.

It's called connecting the dots.

At its heart, we see a basic theological conundrum:

(1) The only dogma of my religion is the rejection of dogma.
(2) Under this religion, I am dogmatically obliged to wear a sieve on my head wherever I go.
(3) Therefore, please allow my dogmatic obligation which I will refuse to reject as instructed by the tenets of my faith, so that I might mock, and show state-endorsed hatred toward, billions of my human neighbors for being religious.​

Watch Yazata and yourself address the conundrum only to duck it.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Thus, why are you wasting time? It's not like you have anything substantive to say. Stop trolling.

I just don't really have much respect for dishonesty. I mean, if it's really creative and innovative dishonesty, yeah, I might note the artistry. But Nový's argument is balbutive, so his fundamental dishonesty doesn't win him any credit.

You can say the same about breathing.

Your argument comes down to an official establishment of religion, which I suppose we should expect from atheists. After all, the modern atheistic movment isn't about any question pertaining to God, but, rather, self-empowerment through bigotry.

• • •​

Nihilism.

At the heart of my own separation from the atheistic movement is the nihilism. Many atheists I've known are happy enough to apply the nihilism, but don't want to admit that it actually exists.

If morality, ethics, their foundations, and the basic human psyche are all shit, well, that makes it a lot easier to be human, the human endeavor will run to extinction.

C'mon. It's a chance to show off your knowledge and insight, and take a serious chunk out of the proposition that atheists don't sincerely study the object of their concern.

I mean, you've studied, right?

Do you really think you're helping your argument by retreating into fallacy?

Demonstrate that his self-contradicting argument is not arbitrary.

And that is, technically, a negative you can prove.

See, whether or not I agree with Islamic or Christian rules about headdress, the laws regarding them came about long after these religions existed. Even in the case of those that didn't, such as Mormonism, there is an historical tradition from which we can glean insight.

In the religious history, you will find a long record of calculated arguments that disagree with each other about how any given religion is defined. This is in stark contrast to a fake religion invented to denigrate religion that pulls whatever justification it can think of out of its ass.

What separates Pastafarianism and Nový's case from that historical corpus is that it is utterly arbitrary and self-contradictory.

To reiterate my point to Iceaura:

• The only dogma of my religion is to reject all dogma.

• By church dogma, I am obliged to wear a t-shirt that says, "Niggers Should Hang" on the front, and recites the Sandbox Joke on the back, wherever I go.

• I refuse to abide by the tenets of my faith and reject this dogmatic demand that is violative of my religion.

∴ Therefore I demand government endorsement of this dogmatic obligation that actually violates my religious faith, in the name of my religious freedom.​

I'll even recite the Sandbox Joke in public, so you know what text to put on the back of the t-shirt. And then wear it in public, and when some black person invokes "fighting words" to justify his or her outrage, make the argument detailed above in support of dogmatically-required racism.

• • •​

Because the skepticism they show religion is arbitrary, and not consistently applied. It's not a general principle as much as it is a specific argument against the object of one's loathing. You might as well say you hate French people for smelling like body odor, and then wonder why people think it's funny that you're not offended by the same smells coming from people who aren't French.

And like I noted to Gmilam, the problem is nihilism. If you apply that kind of cynical skepticism consistently, you arrive at nihilism.

The problem, of course, is that the exclusions from that skepticism are sentimental, not rational.

Well, of course you're not sympathetic. To make progress toward solutions to the problems of religion would undermine your justification for hating religious people.

You'll need to explain that one.
____________________

Notes:

Wing, Nick. "Air Force Offers Secular Oath To Trainees After Atheist Group Challenges 'So Help Me God'". The Huffington Post. August 6, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. August 6, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/air-force-secular-oath_n_3712926.html

 

@ Tiassa,

If atheists became detached and unemotional regarding the religious, how will this benefit them? I look at the situation as people are at different levels of development and having a personal god for their own edification and sense of morality is just fine. But, as spidergoat pointed out it does become a problem when it infringes and spills out upon society in a negative way i.e. , education, medicine, participation in politics.

 

religion has no requirement to be an enemy of secularism
secularism has no requirement to be an enemy of religion

militant socio-political atheism certainly does however have a requirement to be an enemy of religion.

Its plainly obvious where you stand on the issue.

:shrug:

err ... no they were not
They were political ideologies that by and large persecuted any form of religion

You are also seeking to destroy/persecute your enemies so you too are (apparently) "religious".

Your ideas also don't have much to do with secularism either., since you insist on defining religion as "the enemy".

 

Nope. The argument is invalid; Jane does not need a reason to file for divorce, and any justification that Bob comes up for why he is doing _anything_ is invalid. He could say he is cheating because the government planted a chip in his brain, or that he was an atheist and could not stand having sex with a Christian; same result.

And to you, his disagreement is "pulling stuff out of his ass." At least you seem to have an equal level of respect for each other's opinions.

Did a priest try to molest you when you were a child, and result in you thinking the Catholic Church is immoral? To Tiassa, you are just pulling your opinion out of your ass.

See how easy that is?

It's interesting that you think Pastafarianism is a "movement." Reminds me of a song from long ago:

================
Now if you're in a situation like that, there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into the shrink's office and just say "Shrink, You can get Anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out.
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him.
And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in, singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an Organization.
And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a MOVEMENT.
===============

I'm not an atheist. But feel free to make up your own person to argue with; you do that well.

So you are saying that breathing is just like religious freedom; you can do it if you want but it's not required?

Your troll-fu is getting a little weak. That's not even as good a troll as Jive-a-billion can pull off.