Mulberry Notes
Billvon said:
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."
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You are not obliged to respect anything.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Thus, why are you wasting time? It's not like you have anything substantive to say. Stop trolling.
Neither is Mr. Novy (apparently to your chagrin.)
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.
It is a RIGHT not a REQUIREMENT. You have the freedom to do so; you do not have the requirement to do so.
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.
• • •
Gmilam said:
Sure I can - but old shit, new shit - it's still shit and it's still laughable.
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?
Don't know why Mr Novy became an atheist - and I bet neither do you. I only know why I became an atheist.
Do you really think you're helping your argument by retreating into fallacy?
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.
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.
• • •
Spidergoat said:
Why do you think atheists are not skeptical?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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