Pastafarians Remind the Real Motivation of the Modern Atheistic Movement

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Aug 4, 2013.

?

Which most appropriately reflects your outlook? (choose all that apply)

  1. The atheistic movement has no obligation toward intellectual honesty.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. The atheistic movement has no obligation toward basic human dignity.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. The atheistic movement has no obligation toward anything or anyone.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Other (???)

    100.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,217
    (Insert Title Here)

    Do you agree with the following statement:

    The point is that some guy wearing a "Niggers Should Hang" t-shirt with the Sandbox Joke printed on the back doesn't threaten the significance of the skin colors one does respect.​

    Yes? No?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Such a T-Shirt should be illegal to wear in public.
    Could you wear such a thing and not be arrested?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,217
    Arrest Is Probably a Secondary Concern

    In truth, I think arrest would be a secondary concern.

    But the point of the "Niggers Should Hang" t-shirt proposal is that it can be justified according to Mr. Nový's argument. See Iceaura's post at #29 for the origin of this point; in other posts I have asked a few times for our Defenders of the Sieve to consider this point, and it seems none of them really want to.

    Thus, if one survives the expected beatdown received while walking down Magazine Street in New Orleans, or through various neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Chicago, or pretty much any big city in the U.S., they'll have the opportunity to put that argument before whatever court. These are fighting words, which are not expressly covered by free speech, just as I don't believe practical jokes are expressly covered by any reasonable semblance of free religion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    The point here, though, would surely be that if they are willing to let people wear headgear for religious purposes (that doesn't hide the face) then they should let anyone wear headgear - not just religious people.
    Why should one need to remonstrate through the vehicle of a parody religion to make such a point which both highlights the absurd rule - yet not the actual point one should necessarily be making - but also offers up "genuine" religions to ridicule? There are surely better ways to do the former that might also avoid the latter - unless, of course, one's intent is (also) the latter.
    I.e. the argument should surely be: "if it is okay for religious people, it should be okay for everyone".
    Not: "if it is okay for religious people, it should be okay for those professing to follow a parody religion. Oh, look, aren't religions funny for making people wear certain headgear!".

    But then maybe I'm missing something?
     
  8. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621

    The same way the Bible disrespects you as a human being you are being quite disrespectful in your response to taking a simple one-question pop quiz. You have made some valid points before this last post so do not get frustrated. I mean you do raise issues that are more than just a little bothersome, so let us trudge on with cooler heads!
     
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Good question. This gets to the heart of the matter. I don't understand how his actions could be interpreted as intolerance. Even if one expresses the thought that religious texts are stupid or evil, this isn't judgement against anyone personally. It isn't saying they are stupid or evil for believing them, only misguided. I've never been intolerant of religious people on this forum, some of them I have quite liked in spite of their beliefs. But I can't help thinking the religious texts they like often condone genocide, slavery, rape, death for apostasy, and many other atrocious things. The hypocrisy of the religious who ignore these things is commendable. Without it, this wouldn't be a society I could tolerate. It seems to me Tiassa is incapable of distinguishing between an attack on a person, and an attack on an ideology. Bigotry is irrational, since it is judging people based on incomplete evidence, i.e. only their religion and not who they are. This is not to say that atheists can't be bigoted, just that I don't see it here.
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Tiassa disrespected me first by calling me a bigot. This drives me crazy since new atheism as a movement is dedicated, among other things, to eradicating it.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,217
    A matter of definitions

    Just like Rand Paul would like to eradicate racism by allowing business owners to refuse service to people based on skin color.
     
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Rand Paul wants to allow exceptions to equality, which is exactly what religious exceptions are. You are like Rand Paul in that you think religious freedom, like economic freedom, includes the freedom to treat some people differently from others under the law.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,323
    I don't have any objection to that at all. I agree that's what they should do.

    I think that the principle in this Czech case is that given the way that the law is currently written, whether to (a) take the applicant's word on whether or not his or her headgear is religious in nature, or (b) to have the government making its own determinations of what is and isn't a legitimate expression of a legitimate religion.

    But sure, I agree that a simple way to avoid that problem would be to rewrite the law to allow anyone (religious or not) to wear headgear if they want to, provided that their faces aren't obscured.
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,217
    As the World Turns

    The unfortunate proposition that one's rights are only fulfilled when another's are violated is one that, usually, I find myself criticizing religious people for.

    I am very disappointed to hear it from atheists.

    You want the right to have the state honor your religious beliefs and obligations? Get religion.

    And by that, I mean try something more than calling religion a practical joke.

    Meanwhile, please stop reinforcing the stupid religious argument that there is no morality without God.
     
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    How much more? What's the difference between a belief and a religion? I believe I have the right to use peyote, but legally I can't. For some reason some Native Americans can because their religion includes it. Why is it OK that my rights are being violated and theirs are respected? What constitutes a religion and why isn't that freedom available to everyone? Is it right that a secular government gets to decide this?
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,217
    The Obvious Point

    Sincerity would be a good start.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    And then what?
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,109
    And why is this directed at sieve-head rather than hijab wearers?

    The enforced, religion-mandated hijab is not a skin color, not an attribute of someone's irrevocable human nature. It is an emblem and embodiment of sociologically constructed and prejudicially (even violently) enforced female oppression. And if you think that wearing it implies no denigration of others, I invite you to listen to the defenders of the mandated wearing of it talk about the women who don't, and the cultures that do not enforce it.

    That is not an "atheist movement" position, whatever sieve-head's alliances may be. It's a bad taste, crude, and quite accurately pointed mockery of something that badly needs to be mocked.

    The thing about tyranny falling to derision, is that it doesn't often fall without it.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,217
    So much for being rational?

    Well, in the first place, it's a response to a justification of Sieveheading.

    And, secondly, as I noted to Sarkus:

    The Islamic headscarf, for instance, while we can certainly argue it denigrates Muslim women, was never intended as a specific denigration of any other religion. Sieveheads? Denigration of billions of people, deliberate and calculated insult, is their purpose.​

    Quite certainly you can understand that difference.

    In truth, I'm rather surprised by your question. Or is it just a matter of being "equal" and "fair" by criticizing both groups for something only one does?

    You know, kind of like how American news media likes to pretend that the behavior of the Republican caucuses in Congress is equally the fault of Democrats.

    Perhaps, then, you might hop over to Politics and help me understand how the parties are the same?

    No, really. If I criticize Republicans in Arizona for that racist outburst, do I also have to blame and criticize Democrats?

    Oh, and by the way: If you find a weed in your garden, do you pull the weed, or slashburn the garden and replace everything?

    I mean, we know what people have made of their faith. But there is a significant difference between the march of history and a calculated sleight of rhetoric. And, frankly, I would have believed you capable of figuring that out.
     
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Another assertion you can't support. Please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, explain how insult equates to bigotry. But before you even do that, please explain how these two acts were an attempt to denigrate a religion rather than mock the governmental practices in relation to those religions. That takes a deal more effort than just crying "hate speech," but it's well worth it. That is, if you actually intend to make a point, which I'm not entirely convinced of here. This all might just be about making noise

    There is no actual theology to the CFSM. It's a parody, a satire. The object of getting themselves photographed on official government identification cards was to demonstrate the absurdity of government when it comes to religious concessions. They weren't demanding religious freedom because they really believe a blob of pasta created them, in other words. I hope you can see the difference here...

    By that logic, any impediment of religion by state-established standards would be the death of free religion. But we both know you aren't saying that, because that would be ridiculous. Yet your argument mandates it.

    Hmm...

    As you well know, the above is not an explanation of what makes their practice bigoted, but yet another assertion that it is.

    Two things:

    (1) Are you actually suggesting that the denigration of women is a more noble practice than the denigration of religious people?

    (2) That was not the purpose. Their purpose was, as I and other have said before, to mock governmental practices as they relate to religion.

    Of course, even if it were meant as an insult, it wouldn't be directed at religious people, but a particular practice. Whether people are insulted by this should be of no consequence, let alone a disqualifier. But I'm not stupid; I'm aware that we live in a politically-correct and overly-sensitive society, and attitudes such as this are precisely the reason the CFSM exists: We can't have a legitimate discussion about religion when criticism is involved, because all someone has to do is say they're offended--or, as is the case here, be offended on someone else's behalf--and out come the accusations of bigotry, hate speech, and, ultimately, the cessation of any meaningful discourse.

    There really isn't. I mean, sure, if you want to argue that there may be some theoretical difference between people who employ bigotry and actual bigots, feel free, but it's not worth my time since it amounts to the same thing.



    It isn't intended to make a right, it's intended to make a point.

    It's not a religion. It's a parody. Why is that so hard to understand?

    And therein lies the problem. Because you construe the comments as being insulting to Muslims, Sikhs, or whoever, you've immediately disregarded the point. Perhaps you should abandon the facile mantra of wrongs and rights and start paying attention to what people are trying to say.

    That's not accurate. He isn't demanding it for himself while rejecting it for others. He's saying "If you're going to give it to them, you better give it to me." You see the difference? I'm sure you do.

    The Czech government was simply doing what it was supposed to do. Pastafarianism is a professed religion. You're moving in the right direction here, however, by referring to it as "open mockery" rather than "open bigotry." It's not mockery of religious people, of course, and that's the last hurdle you need to jump before you finally get the point.

    What history have I disregarded, exactly?



    What isn't true in this case?

    Again, the insult (if you want to call it that) was directed at the government. And even if it was directed at religion, it would be at a religious practice not religious people. You seem to think that just because a person feels insulted that (A) the insult was intended, and (B) anyone should give a shit. Oh, and you also think that it's automatically bigotry. Sure, you say you don't think that, but here we are.

    No, we prohibit religious sacrifice because it's murder. The inflicting of religion on another never enters the discussion. And it's irrelevant, since it's also illegal in cases where the person being sacrificed is of the same religion and a willing participant.

    You'll have to enlighten me: Of what value are the historical debates and cultural differences between peoples within a religion to this subject?

    This assumes that it makes a whit of difference as to what scriptural or ecumenical reasons why Muslims wear headscarves, or why the ID movement insists upon their lies being taught in public schools. Unfortunately, no one has provided a valid argument as to why it should.

    I was referring to the OP, though I admit it was a bit premature considering there were 3 more pages of text to read through. And yet, here were are, on Page Four, without being any closer to an explanation...

    To call it a "thesis" would be like calling what the IDers do "science." There's no meat on them bones, T. In other words, you aren't the first one who couldn't connect the dots between insult and bigotry, nor the first to rely on misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

    All I see is rambling nonsense. No, really, what am I supposed to take from that post?

    Again, only if you assume that irrelevant things matter, which I don't.

    I agree.

    I have no idea what you mean by "superior grasp of religion," or what that has to do with any of this. But okay, what the hell.​
     
  21. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,603
    Maybe that's because you haven't been on the other side reading your posts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I don't think you're a bigot. Lol
    But, sometimes you generalize. I think it's a human thing to ...judge.
    We judge without intention even, at times.
    We assess too quickly too, sometimes.
    I say "we" for I'm guilty of it, too.

    Just food for thought, for what it's worth.
     
  22. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    I suppose I should defend myself. Admittedly, I am not an adept debater so please be patient with me. Balerion, maybe in the context of the actual point Tiassa is making regarding Pastafanarianism what I said may seem like word salad to you. So now that I have prefaced what I am about to say, be nice

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I was in reality responding to the direction that Tiassa, Spidergoat and myself had taken the discussion. We had talked about the atheist movement and how they were tackling the problem of religion, how an apathetic approach is better than the one Spidergoat employs or the ridiculing Sievehead employed. Lastly, I asserted that in reality that religion is not what anyone including atheists should tackle first because it is a side issue to the real problem of economics.

    As Tiassa pointed out I offered no solutions mainly because this is not a political thread and that is where I was taking the discussion and I did not want to digress anymore than I already had. That is not entirely true, I did try a couple more times.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As a low-income community organizer everything I discuss tends to take that direction, so if I get too far off course, please redirect me.
     
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I don't see how apathy is a better approach than activism. I'm hard-pressed to think of it being better in any situation, but certainly I can't see it here. Anyway, the atheist movement is simply pushing back against intrusive religion and the government that allows it to be intrusive. I can't be apathetic at the concept of evangelicals lying to my children about evolution, or about women being dehumanized by Islam.

    For whatever it's worth, Tiassa hasn't been able to support his own claims, so he's a bit out of line criticising you for not offering solutions.
     

Share This Page