Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo 535
An anonymous reader writes "Eddie Castillo is the first American to successfully have his government-issued photo identification taken while wearing a colander, though DPS officials are reportedly planning to follow up with Castillo in order to 'rectify' the situation. Others have tried unsuccessfully, and Castillo told KLBK that he was surprised at his victory, which he called a 'political and religious milestone for all atheists everywhere.'" Two years ago Niko Alm won the right to wear a pasta strainer on his head although Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.
Hey (Score:5, Funny)
Can't think of a better symbol for atheism than someone wearing a bowl on their head.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must understand the whole idea is to show theists what they look like in the mirror.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, the Atheists are identical to the theists. 2 groups of people obsessed with the nature of the afterlife to the point that they identify their entire existence by it. Christian, Muslim, Atheist. It's all the same damn thing.
There's 3 points of view on this:
Christian: I believe! It's a fact!
Atheist: I don't believe! It's a fact!
Normal Person: I don't know, don't care and don't think it's possible to prove a damned thing leave me alone... why do the two people above me have weird shit on their he
Re:Hey (Score:5, Informative)
Minor point, your Atheist POV is that of a Gnostic Atheist which has all the same burden of proof as the Theist.
Most Atheists seem to be more on the Agnostic side of things; in that they acknowledge there might be, or there might not be a god. There is no solid proof either way though it's looking less and less likely given the claims of the Theists.
Re: (Score:3)
> Gnostic Atheist
That is total oxymoron of terms. Either you have knowledge or you don't. There is no inbetween.
A gnostic atheist has the knowledge that there is no god. (they do have knowledge, or at least think they do)
An agnostic atheist does not have faith in a god but understands that he/she doesn't know for sure. (they understand that they do not have the knowledge, hence being agnostic)
Re:Hey (Score:5, Interesting)
THIS! A MILLION TIMES THIS!
Earlier this month I explained to the admin of an evangelical atheist FB page that I didn't want to see his sponsored posts. He accused me of being an overly sensitive Christian and of being afraid that my faith couldn't stand a little self-examination. I explained to him that I'm not a Christian and merely found him to be as annoying as any other evangelical with the audacity to intrude upon my day with his proclamations of good news. He was, in essence, acting like a non-believing Jehova's witness.
LK
Re:Hey (Score:5, Informative)
That last one would be an atheist as well. In fact almost all atheists are like that.
The default when you don't know if something exists is to assume it does not. This is why I am not worried about the invisible dragon in my garage.
Re:Hey (Score:4, Informative)
There aren't just three options, though.
There is the "I've experienced some unexplainable events in my life, and so I'm open to the possibility of God," group.
There is the "I've had bad experiences with religion, and so I'm not interested in any of it..."
There is the "I just want to party, be sarcastic, and mock anything that's an easy target" group.
There is the "I feel threatened by these people that don't share my personal beliefs, philosophy or antireligious sentiments" group.
There is the "I couldn't live by X religion's basic tenets, and so now I try to define discredit it" group.
There is the "I just want to be accepted by a group so I follow X religion" group.
There is the "I just want to be accepted by a group so I follow X philosophy or nonreligion or antireligious" group.
There is the "I was raised X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), so I'm X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious)"
There is the "I was raised X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), and now I'm X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious) because I've found personal evidence of it."
There are those who claim to have experienced direct and divine personal revelation regarding their religion, have tested it, and live it.
There are those who are naturally skeptical who never found any evidence convincing enough to enable them to commit to religious affiliation, all with varying degrees reaction to this failed search...
In reality, there are thousands of other ideas floating around out there, and we weakly associate one with another to form religious, nonreligious or antireligious groups... religions do have a powerful sway, they convey commonalities that many people feel are truth in their lives, and can be used to affect remarkable compassion and human decency. When threatened humans can also join as a group (religious, nonreligious or antireligious) and do terrible things...
The collander thing is clearly a faux religion, intended to make a mockery of human tendencies by ironically embracing the very thing it mocks.
A religious parody based upon the mockery of other religions, imo, is small-minded, and does nothing. One does not make one's own beliefs more true by mocking or tearing down the beliefs of others. Even if you were to completely and utterly disprove a body of religious thought, it would do not prove your own.
But in the same sense, if they wish to embrace a fabricated tasty cthonic diety my personal response is, "Meh."
Truth is personal. Most of us are in a constant state of flux, trying and learning and exploring different ideas and ideaologies as we age and wizen and mature. I've come to the conclusion that religious freedom is one of the most fundamentally sound and civil ideas that humanity has embraced. It is the ultimate freedom and for those who wish to control others, or must belong to the one and only true group of humans (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), the most threatening.
Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
The collander thing is clearly a faux religion, intended to make a mockery of human tendencies by ironically embracing the very thing it mocks. A religious parody based upon the mockery of other religions, imo, is small-minded, and does nothing.
If you think Pastafarianism is just small-minded mockery, you're missing the point. It's not intended to be.
The reality is that the US government offers preferential treatment to individuals based on religious beliefs. The DMV has an official "no hats" policy that prohibits headwear of any kind in official drivers license photographs. Naturally, this would mean that Jews have to remove their yarmulkes/kippas, Sikhs have to remove their turbans, and so on. However, that's not what actually happens. Individuals that claim belief in one of the mainstream religions are allowed to break this "no hats" policy on the grounds of religious freedom. Note, professed belief is sufficient; despite being an atheist, I can walk into a DMV and get my license photo taken with a yarmulke with no questions asked. Nobody will grill me about whether or not I'm a legitimate Jew, or if Judaism is a legitimate faith. If the DMV takes the religion-friendly stance of allowing exceptions to the "no hats" policy on the grounds of religious expression, then it legally cannot discriminate between different faiths. If you allow someone to wear a turban in their license photo solely because they claim to be a Sikh, then legally you have no grounds to deny a self-described Pastafarian the right to wear a colander.
If this seems silly or pedantic to you, then I would argue that it is you who are suffering from small-mindedness. Discrimination against atheists is very real, and very widely accepted. Atheists are tired of being second class citizens, and this colander issue is a great way of raising awareness about the issue without "offending" the theists among us (to whatever extent that is possible, since many theists find the very idea of atheism offensive).
Re:Hey (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. And an atheist is a normal person, who has learned how to learn. When faced with an "I don't know" situation where there is no shred of evidence to make them even suspect that a very strange possibility even might be true, he uses Occam's Razor. This is how people figured out there aren't any unicorns, for example, instead of going around, hilariously saying, "I don't know if there are unicorns." Indeed, it's how we know there exists gravity and light, instead of thinking "I don't know for sure that I'm not in The Matrix, where those phenomena are simulated." The atheist thinks in terms of evidence, rather than mathematical proofs.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually atheists don't (by their very nature) worry about the afterlife. That's like saying dog's are worried about books, because they don't read them.
Many atheists these days are more vocal because of the growing attacks on science. If people want to believe that we can be healed from the sin of an ancient relative (who was talked into eating an apple by a talking snake), by a human sacrifice, where god had his own son (who is himself) killed. That's fine. Just stop trying to force it on everyone el
Re:Hey (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
It all comes down to definitions... I regard myself as both as I regard them two answers on two different (but related) questions.
When someone asks me wether god (pick your favorit) exists I answer 'I don't know' since I have no proof either way. This is the agnostic part.
When someone asks me wether I believe in god (pick any flavour), I answer 'No' since I don't see any reason to blindly put my faith in any of the various religions. This is the atheist part.
Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
But Charliemopps is belittling a serious problem - many Christians, Muslims, Mormons, and members of other religions are trying to inject their religious beliefs into civil law. You want to live your own life based on selective interpretation of the Bible? Fine. You want me to follow the same rules? No. That is why atheists and agnostics need to have a public presence in our modern time - to keep the people who think the creator of the universe is intensely concerned with whether they eat shellfish or what days of the week they pray from writing the laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Mormons were instrumental in getting Prop 8 passed in California, so your argument falls at least partially flat.
Re: Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, (a)gnosticism is entirely separate from (a)theism. A gnostic atheist believes he knows there is no god. A gnostic theist believes he knows there is a god. An agnostic atheist believes there is no god but that it isn't possible to know for sure. An agnostic theist believes there is a god but that it isn't possible to know for sure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Hey (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also apatheism [wikipedia.org], in which one simply doesn't care whether gods exist or not and doesn't think the question whether this can or cannot be known is important. Buddhists tend to be apatheists: some think gods exist (but meh) while others think they don't (but whatever).
Re: (Score:3)
Then there's ignosticism [wikipedia.org], which is basically the belief that the question of whether God exists doesn't even make sense since no one has provided a coherent definition of God. From the link:
A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '."
Blind Faith (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not require blind faith to have a general policy of rejecting unfalsifiable things as false.
Going from "there is no evidence of any gods" to "there are no gods" isn't any different than going from "there's no evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun" to "there is no teapot orbiting the sun." It's not blind faith; it's common sense.
Blind faith is when you go from "there is no evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun" to the amazing fantastical "there is a teapot orbiting the sun."
The two different conclusions stemming from the initial unknown condition aren't equivalent, because one takes a falsifiable position and one does not.
The guy who believes in the orbiting teapot and the gods, is no longer able to learn anything, because no new evidence can ever possibly change his estimate of how correct his belief is. Evidence plays no role at all; he has ceased to be able to obtain information. He doesn't have a theory and nothing ever happens to increase or decrease his estimate of his belief's truth. His "knowledge" is a pure fantasy with no connection to truth (except perhaps accidental).
The guy who says there are no orbiting teapots and no gods, has a falsifiable theory. Discovery of an orbiting teapot or a god will invalidate it, and continued absence of contrary evidence (especially after deliberate searches) will confirm the theory. His position contains knowledge. You can build on that kind of knowledge, as you might have noticed with all the rocket ships and cellphones and medicines.
Re:Hey (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no faith needed to state that "There is no god", because there's no fucking evidence to suggest that there might be.
Other faithless statements
- I do not own a billion dollars
- There is no flying armadillo that shits raw diamonds
- Religious people lack basic reasoning skills
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever wish to progress past simply hurling words at one another you must first define terms.
The US is so strongly monotheistic that here, when someone says "I am an atheist" it's very clear tha
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Agnostics are not aware of any evidence that there are gods but opine that there might be some gods somewhere that they don't know about. Atheists are pretty sure there's no such thing and would regard any suggested evidence with great skepticism. That's the difference. Atheists may or may not be interested in telling you what they think of your gods.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't for get the deists, who (from my understanding) believe there is some kind of higher power but nothing more specific than that. Kind of like agnostic-lite.
Some may consider this lazy or shallow - but I reply with this question: don't you think it's a little presumptuous of you to claim to have any kind of understanding of a power that is, by definition, beyond your comprehension?
Re: (Score:3)
To steal from Bertrand Russel (and then from Dawkins). I am a "Teapot Agnostic".
That is to say, if you postulate that there is a magical china teapot in orbit around Jupiter, I will deny that either of us have the capability of verifying this claim, but I will believe, with some moderate conviction, that it probably isn't true.
If you start legislating society based on this belief (for example, giving your teapot manufacturing companies tax-exempt status), I will subsequently be inclined to mock you, perhap
Re: Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no sect of Christianity that counts the devil as a god.
Christian Gnosticism and Mormonism spring to mind immediately. I'm sure there are more examples. Of course, the "True Christians" mostly exterminated the former and claim the latter aren't Christian as long as there isn't a federal election going on. The differences seemed to evaporate pretty quickly when political expediency entered into the picture.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They all do; you just don't know Christianity as well as you think. Who the hell (excuse the pun) do you think is being referenced by the line Thou shalt have no other gods before me ? Even good ole' God "himself" openly states that there are other gods whom one might hold before "him".
Re: Canon (Score:3)
Han shot first!
Wait... what forum is this again?
Re: (Score:3)
No. One does not encourage a change in behavior by openly mocking the behavior of others. That method only works if the others respect the opinion of the one doing the mocking. If my friends or family make fun of me for doing something, I feel shame because I care about and respect what they think. If some stranger does it, I just think he's an asshole. If I don't respect what a stranger thinks, it merely serves to encourage division if he makes fun of me.
More to the point, the offensive and destructiv
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hey (Score:5, Funny)
"Atheism is the most retarded and violent religion on this planet"
You forgot that not playing tennis is our sport while not collecting stamps is our hobby, both evil.
In God We Trust - NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate getting into definitions - Agnostic, Athiest, Theist, and all the middle crap is annoying. That said: I'm very annoyed by true Athiests and here's why.
...waiting with baited breath...
In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise.
Then perhaps your mind should read a dictionary?
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
I don't see anywhere there that requires preaching or coercion, which tells me that you're pissed off at Atheists because you want to use your own definition of "Atheist". That's like being pissed off at catfish because of all of their fur and incessant barking.
These people are on the exact same level as the theists who believe in god and attack and mock anyone who says otherwise.
Some are, yes, but that's like equating WBC with Christianity. (neither of which I support, I'm just illustrating a similar comparison)
This is why I equate Atheism with Theism.
Well, as long as you realize that you equating one with the other makes you "wrong". Words have definitions, dictionaries enumerate them. If you don't like the definition then act to get it changed, but you don't suddenly get to decide for the rest of the world what words mean.
The truth is, it's not religion or lack thereof that's the problem. It's the people who feel the need to jam their opinion on the subject down other peoples throats.
I agree, despite your hypocrisy.
This is the true reason that Athiests believe religion is the source of all evil, and it's the real reason Theists roll their eyes at athiest arguments on the matter: they're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Based on the content I assume that you're not an Atheist, yet you'll deem to speak for us? Let me simplify this for you. I can't speak for all Atheists, obviously, but I can speak for myself.
Why do I believe that religion is "evil"? It's because spiritual leaders rely on various forms of deception to identify the "truth", even if (as you did above) it means re-defining words to mean what they WANT them to mean. In a nutshell: I respect honesty too much to be a supporter of religion. Find me an honest religion and then we can talk about my potential conversion from Atheism.
That said, the regular old Athiests - just like the regular old Theists and regular old Agnostics - are in no way a problem. These are the people who have their own opinion and allow others to have a separate opinion.
Then you have allowed the real definition of "Atheist" become altered in your head. Re-read your dictionary...people that try to force their beliefs on other people already have a perfectly good name: Douchbags.
Re: (Score:3)
In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god[1] and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise[2]
See, the problem there is the "in your mind" part. Only "[1]" has anything to do with atheism. "[2]" is commonly found across every ideology, belief system, and just about every other subset that people can split themselves into. All your screed is based on premise [2] and a "no true scotsman" fallacy, resulting in a thinly veiled attempt at sounding erudite while actually emitting nothing more than a hypocritical, butthurt whine.
Re: (Score:3)
for the artistic impact that it
may have
on the reader
If Obama had a son (Score:2, Funny)
He'd look just like Eddie Castillo.
What a victory for Noodly Rights! (Score:5, Informative)
Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all His Noodly Appendages!
Re: (Score:3)
The divine pasta has spoken. The true god is wining.
Well, a nice Chianti is best with most pastas...
It's a government cover up! (Score:5, Funny)
What would you say on that, cold fjord, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
"It's all just an attempt from NSA and CIA to create more news, driving attention from Snowden's leaks"
Riiiight, THIS is the story they created for that.
*coff* twerp *coff*
"What would you say on that, cold fjord, eh?"
Do you mean fnord?
Fit to drive? (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, so what about the women who INSIST that their religion says they MUST wear a full-face Burka in public? NO SUCH DEMAND EXISTS IN THE QURAN!
Surely, then, these people should have to have a phsychologists' report to see if they are fit to drive.
Re:Fit to drive? (Score:5, Informative)
Even a religion with a book does not need to have everything in that book. "Sola scriptura" is a part of protestant Christianity, but there are many book based religions without such a rule.
Re:Fit to drive? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Sola scriptura" is a part of protestant Christianity, but there are many book based religions without such a rule.
"Sola scriptura" came out of protestant theology, but that doesn't mean all protestants believe that. Calvinists and Lutherans tend to, but In fact, most others don't. The Methodists, for instance, base their faith on what they call a "quadrialteral", only one vertex of which is scripture.
The confusion comes in because the protestants that do believe it also tend to be quite vocal (that's part of being "evangelical" after all), and tend to insist everyone else isn't a real Christian [wikipedia.org]. It serves the purpose of a lot of vocal atheists to agree with them (as absolutists philosophies are far easier to refute). So an appalling amount of discussion about Christianity gets carried out with an implicit assumption that the majority of professed Christians don't actually exist.
Re: Fit to drive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a simple solution for that. And it works.
My dog sure got a lot more docile after the procedure.
Re: (Score:3)
Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Most rules are about preferences. For example, most people do not wear a head covering except if it is part of their religion. Requiring photos without headgear makes identification easier. In this case religion trumps preference. "I want to" is not a similar reason.
By the way "not allowed" is not the same as "illegal". Illegal means against the law and there are consequences for breaking the law. Not allowed means they won't take the picture with the headgear on. The prohibition of headgear is
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the difference between 'religion' and 'preference'? Why should we treat them differently?
Why should the religious get special privilege when all they are doing, essentially, is making a series of choices they prefer to make over other choices? How is that different to how everybody else makes decisions?
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the difference between 'religion' and 'preference'? Why should we treat them differently?
Why should the religious get special privilege when all they are doing, essentially, is making a series of choices they prefer to make over other choices? How is that different to how everybody else makes decisions?
Special consideration for disability. If you've been brought up to believe that you are required to hide your face, whether you want to or not, because an invisible unprovable deity says so (do any religious texts actually say such things?), then your brain has been well and truly washed. You've been brainwashed probably since birth by people who want to control you. It's not your fault, and your disability should be given some respect like any other disability.
As far as I can see the guy in TFA believes no
Re: (Score:2)
I find the whole thing a bit distasteful. I see being allowed to wear a colander on your head in an official photo as more a "milestone for fail.
It's a milestone for not getting special priviledges because you believe in the *correct* magical sky fairy.
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
You find me a pastafarian who actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster and isn't just "holding a mirror up to the other religions" or whatever other things are cool at the moment and then we'll talk.
I have absoloutely no idea what your point is. You seem to misunderstand mine. Let me rephrase:
1. You're not allowed headgear in government ID photos.
2. People beleiving in certain magical sky faries get cross because the voices in their head from the faries tell them to wear hats.
3. People with voices in their head get to wear hats because of the voices.
4. Non religious people object on the grounds that people with weird irrational beliefs and voices in their head are more free in that they have special exemptions under the law.
5. Man fights for freedom of religion (and non religion) in order to be allowed the same special exemptions without having the requirement of having voices in your head telling you that you need to be exempt.
This is therefore a milestone for freedom because freedom no longer requires you to have voices in your head.
Yes, I have intentionally used very inflammatory language about religion because you persist in believing that religious beliefs are somehow special. They are not. For the record, I do not believe that all religious people are mad loonies with voices in their head.
You find me a pastafarian who actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster and isn't just "holding a mirror up to the other religions"
You have managed to miss the point *completely*. Finding such a person would indeed completely destroy the point of this man's actions. The WHOLE POINT is that you shouldn't get more freedoms simply by believing in the right kind of deity.
or whatever other things are cool at the moment and then we'll talk.
It's kind of naive that believe that religious beliefs and trends are not also subject to fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that if you had a medical condition that required you to wear some form of headgear (a helmet for epilepsy, a head scarf for agoraphobia/social anxiety, etc) then I have no objection to that. And I believe that anyone who is brainwashed into believing that their personal "sky fairy" tells them that they also need to wear some form of headgear is similarly disabled and should also be allowed some concessions. I think you and I disagree on that point, and that's fine because it's only opinion anyw
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to believe they merit especially vicious attack.
Re: (Score:2)
So you can prove what others believe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Their delusions are not my problem. Nor should the state attempt to make them so.
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
To many people religion is the core of their very being.
So?
I, and very many others, including the subject of TFA feverently believe in equality under the law.
For most people removing a hat is not an issue. For some religious people it is."I prefer to keep my hat on as taking it off will imperil my soul" is very different than "I prefer to keep my hat on because I want to".
And allowing some people to not remove their head imperils those ideas of equality under the law and freedom of religious (or lack of) expression.
Due to the right to freedom of religion, religion is a good reason.
By freedom of religion, you mean of course: "you get special freedoms only if you have the correct religion".
Where the hell does that end?
Re: (Score:2)
"I prefer to keep my hat on as taking it off will imperil my soul"
If anyone truly believes that then *they* are the ones who need psychological testing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If headgear can be allowed for an ID document under a specific circunstance then it should be allowed under every circunstance. It's either valid for identification or it isn't.
Psychological Fitness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That is by design. The holes are a temporal testament to the access of His noodly appendages.
I wear a pasta strainer on my health card (Score:5, Interesting)
I submitted a photo where I wear a pasta strainer for my official electronic health insurance card in Germany -- and it got accepted, no questions asked! Always good to get some laughs when I have to go to a doctor.
Head coverings were not allowed, but religious ones were exempt. Oddly enough however, a friend of mine got a photo accepted where he poses with a beer mug (Maßkrug, you know, the typtical bavarian 1l mugs). Maybe because that's a religious symbol as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough however, a friend of mine got a photo accepted where he poses with a beer mug (Maßkrug, you know, the typtical bavarian 1l mugs). Maybe because that's a religious symbol as well?
No that's just good old fashioned German patriotism.
Re: (Score:2)
Those crazy Bavarians are hardly Germans, they're like Texans.
You mean, there are other kinds of Germans out there? And they're not like Texans? The horror.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and the comparison to Texans is pretty good.
Bavarians are what non-Germans think of as German and Texans is what non-Americans think of as American. The only difference is the guns and that Bavarians can make beer. Shiner Bock is a classic example, its not a damn bock.
Outrageous (Score:2, Informative)
It is ridiculous that people are allowed to hide their face on ID photos by wearing headgear. No kind of headgear should be allowed on ID photos for any reason whatsoever, no exception allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
And thus achieving a more perfect Bureaucracy for all. Amen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps you mean, "Ramen".
To think... (Score:2)
Showbiz Pizza was a front for the Pastafarian movement.
My religious practice says I must (Score:2)
give the middle finger to any camera that can or is taking a picture of me.
And no, I don't have a current I.D. card. So when someone asks me for my I.D., i just show them what it would of looked like. Needless to say, this gets me in trouble.
Religions seems to be nothing but trouble...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Saying communism and capitalism are "atheistic religions" is a comment so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin. How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism? They are completely disconnected in just about every way.
As for your other assertion, yes, billions of people still think of religions in terms of sky-fairies as opposed to philosophies and systems of ethics. Perhaps not those who study these systems, but for your average religious person, of course that still applies.
You
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe I'm having to actually debate such stupid points on /., but here we go.
Economic systems are not religions.
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god(s).
The two have no connection to each other. Nada. In fact, here's a link to help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism
I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Sorry, logical argument doesn't work that way. The original sentence was "...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?". Given the prevalence of God(s) in just about every major religion still practised in this day and age, there needs to be evidence to back up this claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person calling it into question.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Economic systems are not religions.
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
I'm not going to argue about Capitalism here. But Communism is not just an economic system. Its most famous version, the Marxist–Leninist version, but also the maoist version, provide a full-fledged philosophical world view. They have unverifiable dogmas, their own version of heaven. (On Earth, after the communist revolution is completed) They have rituals that mirror Christians Rituals. They sing songs in groups to the honor of the party, just like Christian sing songs to honor god. They claim superhuman status for their leaders. So these versions of Communism are religions, at least under functional definitions of religion.
And these versions are also atheistic, because a important part of their world view is also atheism.
Re: (Score:2)
All the definitions of religion that I have looked up include not only cultural factors, but also involve supernatural beliefs
For communism the classic supernatural belief is that someone has a permanent claim to ownership of something merely because they handled the object during its creation, and they can't get rid of this claim of ownership even if they want to.
Re: (Score:3)
There are many definitions of religion that do not involve supernatural beliefs, e.g.:
Clifford Geertz: "Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, persuasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in [people] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
Schmidt, et al.: "Religions, then, are systems of meaning embodied in a pattern of life, a community of faith, and a worldview that articulate a view of the sacred and of what ultimately matters."
J. Miltion Yinger: "Religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggle with the ultimate problem of human life."
Durkheim: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
Re: (Score:2)
"Economic systems are not religions."
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
From Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]
Given the way many on Wall St approach Capitalism, it could be argued that they are very religious. Similar on the Communist side where actions are taken to the extreme and no other viewpoint is accepted. When one begins to worship an economic system, it gets more and more like religious Dogma, not free will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?
Re: (Score:2)
Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?
Yes. But I have also seen many physics textbooks, but I'm quite sure that most Physicists do not imagine electrons as middle sized dots or colorful bubbles. Humans are able of abstract thought. Just like you can not illustrate electrons exactly how they really look like, you can not illustrate god. The ban of images of god that exists in many religions is clear sign that people always have been aware of this. Banning images of god is way to deal with this problem, symbolic images like the ones in the sixtin
Re: (Score:2)
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?
I was raised catholic. I'm an atheist now, but when i was in school, i was taught that all the imagery was not intended to be a factual illustration of heaven and god. As they liked to put it, all that stuff is unfathomable to our human minds. People draw pictures of god as a grandfatherly old guy with a beard because it's familiar and looks pretty.
I'm sure there are old people in the church, probably my grandmother's generation, who expect to meet that guy when they die. I'm pretty sure my parents only s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the general point of movements like this is to remind people that they can *have* their "philosophy or systems of ethics" - they're welcome to them - but there's no need to have the group-rituals and sky-fairy baggage that go along with it. And once you stop doing that then there's no need to call what you're involved with a "religion" any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Either there is a good reason for the demand that you shouldn't wear anything on your head on official photos, or there isn't.
In the first case, why are we allowing people to forgo it because of their religion?
In the second case, why is the rule there?
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Pastafarians make fun of the archaic aspects primarily.
They also attack special prvileges given out to religions.
This attack is against religions requiring you to always wear some type of hat and thus people of that religion are allowed to take their photo with this hat.
They find this to be wrong since other poeple are not allowed to use hats on the photo.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
Yes, they do, that's the entire reason for pastafarianism existing. To push back against people demanding that we teach things about sky fairies in science classes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes.
Cultural behaviour is almost entirely driven by self-identity. Most first world, western (I'm assuming this is what you meant by "in 2013" - otherwise your statement is farcical) people self-identify with their neighbours rather than with their "religion". Behaviour differences due to religion barely register when we all watch the same TV, go to the same schools / shops / workplaces, etc.
Religion comes down to the particular brand of irrational to which you subscribe. This usually manifests itself as od
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Informative)
And the primarty atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism
Such ignorance I've only seen from A.C.s.
atheism n. - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
That's it. It's not a religion. It's not about ethics. It's not about economics. Fuck right off you simple minded slanderous twit.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that makes me...multireligious! woot!
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have a religion with no gods. That is like saying non-fruit apple. It makes no sense.
Soviet communism was a political and economic system, not a religion. You might be able to say its supporters had a set of common beliefs, but still those are not a religion.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
Yes. Because you can have a system of ethics without religion, and therefore religion is just about the magic sky-fairies. Or, you know, about controlling a bunch of sheep into doing stupid shit like giving you money in exchange for lies.
Re: (Score:3)
>>>about controlling a bunch of sheep into doing stupid shit like giving you money in exchange for lies.
Not only "stupid shit", and not only "exchange for lies". Religions, like any other set of arbitrary values and believes, can impose benevolent or harmful world view. You have to evaluate its effects as a whole, and by only focusing on negatives you are not being objective.
For example, "Do not kill" part of Christianity can be credited with sufficiently stabilizing society that scient
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and? He did not claim otherwise,
Yes, and? I did not claim otherwise.
and your statement has nothing to do with the argument that religions include a code of ethics.
That is not the argument.
Need a car analogy?
I cannot wait, since I know of no one on slashdot who is better at them than I am, he said modestly.
If someone describes their car as wheels and an engine to drive the wheels, you don't say that your truck has wheels and an engine, therefore a car is just so much painted fiberglass.
Nobody said that. What was said was that a car is not a spoiler, aftermarket bumper cover, or underbody neon, because none of those things are necessary to have a car. If your car includes those things, it's not because it's not a car without them. It's because they make you feel better. Ethics doesn't become not-ethics because religion is not assoc
Re: (Score:2)
Logically speaking, yes: I have philosophical ideals and believe strongly in holding myself to a system of ethics I feel is right -- those have been true since I was 11-12 years old, yet I'm no longer a member of any religion (including the one that I grew up with) because I'm also agnostic.
For that matter, the primary gap between the different religions is which god(s) they believe in, and what rules they feel their god(s) want them to follow. The main difference between all of them and an atheist is that
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Lord. As I recall this was a contraction of `hlaf` (bread) and `weard` (ward, guardian). Keeper of the Bread.
Food certainly is an important thing to guard, but it kind of ruins the luster of the term "lord" duddinit?
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me think of when a religious person posts an opinion on Slashdot.
Having people comment - even very caustically - because someone has paraded their superstition on a web site frequently mostly by rational people who aren't still stuck in a primitive time warp isn't the same as being shot. You get that, right?
Re:A more accurate title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)