Pastafarians Remind the Real Motivation of the Modern Atheistic Movement

[Tiassa]

Thank you for making the point

There is no actual theology to the CFSM. It's a parody, a satire.

Thank you.

No, really.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

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...

Yes, I do. I don't hold that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an acutal religion. For some reason, some people do.

But I do, genuinely, legitimately appreciate your acknowledgment of the bullshit that is Pastafarianism.

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.

Actually, given that I've acknowledged certain limits to religious freedom, your quasi-anarchistic straw man doesn't have much value.

 

[Balerion]

But I do, genuinely, legitimately appreciate your acknowledgment of the bullshit that is Pastafarianism.

I didn't say it was bullshit. I said it was a parody. A very good one, at that. They've done a better job of lampooning the idiocy of government than Bill Maher ever has.

Actually, given that I've acknowledged certain limits to religious freedom, your quasi-anarchistic straw man doesn't have much value.

The only limit you've acknowledged is when one's religion impinges on another's rights, and even then it was in the context of murder, which you incorrectly claimed was prohibited for that reason. So, okay, you draw the line at religion getting in the way of another person's rights. So why aren't you decrying the legality of polygamy?

And you've still failed to explain how insult amounts to bigotry.

 

[Tiassa]

(Something, Something, Burt Ward)

I didn't say it was bullshit. I said it was a parody. A very good one, at that. They've done a better job of lampooning the idiocy of government than Bill Maher ever has.

I've called it brilliant, you know. Or is that one of the posts you failed to read?

However, I thank you for acknowledging that Pastafarianism isn't a religion.

The only limit you've acknowledged is when one's religion impinges on another's rights, and even then it was in the context of murder, which you incorrectly claimed was prohibited for that reason.

So ... why should human sacrifice be illegal?

So, okay, you draw the line at religion getting in the way of another person's rights. So why aren't you decrying the legality of polygamy?

The legality of polygamy? Where? I mean, you do realize that Utah nearly went to war with the United States government over polygamy, and lost?

And you've still failed to explain how insult amounts to bigotry.

There comes a point where your failure to read through the thread doesn't justify your pathetic arguments.

It's fine if you disagree with my argument, but if you're going to say it doesn't exist?

I admit, I'm amused that someone might complain that I raise the point too much, and then Balerion waltzes in and says the point isn't on the record.

 

[Balerion]

I've called it brilliant, you know. Or is that one of the posts you failed to read?

Could be.

However, I thank you for acknowledging that Pastafarianism isn't a religion.

Don't know why you think that's some boon.

So ... why should human sacrifice be illegal?

Because it's murder.

The legality of polygamy? Where? I mean, you do realize that Utah nearly went to war with the United States government over polygamy, and lost?

I meant the legal status of polygamy. By rights, you should be infuriated by our government's forcing a religion to modify itself to state-outlined standards.

There comes a point where your failure to read through the thread doesn't justify your pathetic arguments.

It's fine if you disagree with my argument, but if you're going to say it doesn't exist?

I admit, I'm amused that someone might complain that I raise the point too much, and then Balerion waltzes in and says the point isn't on the record.

I didn't say the point wasn't raised, I said you haven't supported it. And you haven't .

 

[Tiassa]

4f01

Don't know why you think that's some boon.

Well, if you had paid closer attention to the thread, you would find that some folks you're siding with are insisting that Pastafarianism is, in fact, a genuine religion. It's kind of a sticking point of the discussion.

To the other, I suppose we could accept their argument and then point out the hypocrisy of complaining about organized religion having some sort of special privilege in not being stamped out by government force while celebrating a new religion's acquisition of those alleged special privileges.

Because it's murder.

Okay, here I'm going to need to ask your help before I can actually assess your point:

• The only limit you've acknowledged is when one's religion impinges on another's rights, and even then it was in the context of murder, which you incorrectly claimed was prohibited for that reason.

• Because it's murder.​

Now, there is an appearance of conflict, but as we've been through this sort of dispute before, I can only presume there's something about your context that isn't connecting in my mind.

What am I missing?

I meant the legal status of polygamy. By rights, you should be infuriated by our government's forcing a religion to modify itself to state-outlined standards.

Utah became a state in January, 1896. I can only apologize to you that I wasn't alive to defend a bunch of perverts who belong to a religion that was literally pulled out of a hat.

I didn't say the point wasn't raised, I said you haven't supported it. And you haven't .

It's an interesting claim, since you won't actually explain the problem with the point.

Of course, given that you're deliberately trying to manipulate the point to be something it isn't, I don't have high expectations for that explanation.

So, to be clear, once again:

I would suggest that undertaking the effort to earn a state endorsement of a practical joke intended to denigrate billions—i.e., hate speech—is the problematic element.​

What about that confuses you? I mean, despite having attempted to respond to the above statement once before, you come to the idea that an "insult amounts to bigotry"?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Just like Rand Paul would like to eradicate racism by allowing business owners to refuse service to people based on skin color.

Hitler had a similar but more radical solution for antisemitism.

Have you got a link to this?
Surely no-one is that crass and stupid.

 

[quinnsong]

Here you go Captain.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/rand_paul_may_not_be_a_racist.html

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Jaw dropping.
Was he transported from the 1950s in a time machine?
He's the Democratic Party dream candidate.

I kind of admire his honesty though.
He avoided the question as far as he could, but didn't lie about his opinion.
Or is it political naivety?
He has made himself unelectable.

What do you think of Maddow?
I think she did an excellent job in this interview.

Remember the Good Old Days? Vote PAUL.

 

[quinnsong]

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.

Do not think that the actions of institutionalized religions do not make me wince and grieve to my very core, they do. The approach is to remain apathetic (unemotional, detached) when tackling the problem of religion. When do ridiculing, personal attacks or hatred work?

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

From my take on it, he did.

How is the atheistic movement going to abolish religion? How do you suppress human spirituality? How do you legislate this? Do you think it will happen merely through evolution, science and technological advances.

I have some ideas legislatively speaking but there is the separation of Church and State, so not sure how to get around that.

 

[quinnsong]

I personally think Rachel is a great commentator and interviewer, especially when commentating on government policy and law.

 

[spidergoat]

Hitler had a similar but more radical solution for antisemitism.

So did god, for he so loved the world that he had one poor Jew tortured and killed, and no one had to be Jewish anymore.

 

[Yazata]

Was it intended to denigrate billions 9i.e. the person wanting to show how ridiculous he thought other religions to be) or was it intended to show up the government for having to allow seemingly anything under the guise of being religious?

Good question. This gets to the heart of the matter. I don't understand how his actions could be interpreted as intolerance.

I see its immediate proximate effect as challenging the idea that the government can establish boundaries around what is and isn't a legitimate religion. Novy basically pushed them into agreeing that if an applicant says that X is the applicant's religion, the government needs to accept that X is the applicant's religion. The government can't be adding additional requirements such as 'do we believe that this religion's theology is consistent?'

That's why I think that many sincerely religious people, even those who might want to wear their own religious headgear, will approve of what Mr. Novy did. Religious people don't want the government taking upon itself the authority to make determinations of religious legitimacy. That's why religious people generally support the 'separation of church and state' principle here in the United States. It protects them.

What Novy did didn't lead to any additional restriction on religious Czechs' right to wear their own religious headgear in photos. If anything, he helped to broaden that right by making the government back away from any idea of restricting it to a few recognized kinds of headgear from a small set of religions recognized by the government as legitimate.

Of course I do agree very strongly with Sarkus that everyone should be allowed to wear their choice of headgear in their ID photos, provided of course that it doesn't obscure their faces. That freedom shouldn't be restricted only to individuals who assert in their application that their headgear has a religious purpose, even if that religious exemption has become so broad as to include religions that are purposefully and intentionally absurd, like pastafarianism.

In fact, I expect that was Mr. Novy's larger motive in doing this. He may or may not have his own views about Islamic hijabs or Jewish yarmulkes, I don't know. But what he seems to have been challenging when he asserted his right to wear a sieve on his head in the name of pastafarianism, was the idea that religious people are granted the right to wear headgear in photos, while non-religious people are denied the same right. He was basically saying, 'if I have to assert a religious purpose in order to be granted this civil right that religious people are given but non-religious people like myself are denied, then I'll choose the most absurd and ridiculous religion that I can possibly think of'.

In other words, I think that his actions were intended as a reductio-ad-absurdem of the existing Czech law.

 

[spidergoat]

I see its immediate proximate effect as challenging the idea that the government can establish boundaries around what is and isn't a legitimate religion.

Maybe it was intended to make a political point. Maybe not though. There is a place for activist outreach, and there is a place for rallying the troops. The intended audience could have simply been other atheists, to break through their apathy or just show them that they aren't alone.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

As recent World President, we've had a:

Warmonger
Philanderer
War Monger Jnr. and Nitwit
Disappointment

Could it be the turn of the Fanatic?
Vote Rand Paul

 

[Balerion]

I'm bored, and I just found this post I never responded to. Forgive me for dragging up an old thread.

Well, if you had paid closer attention to the thread, you would find that some folks you're siding with are insisting that Pastafarianism is, in fact, a genuine religion. It's kind of a sticking point of the discussion.

If you had paid closer attention to my posts, you would have noted me making this point in my very first offering to the thread:

To put it succinctly, there is no theological conundrum, because there is no theology. Pastafarianism is a satirical movement founded on the simple premise that the concessions made by our government for religion are absurd.​

--Balerion H Christ, August 8, 2013

To the other, I suppose we could accept their argument and then point out the hypocrisy of complaining about organized religion having some sort of special privilege in not being stamped out by government force while celebrating a new religion's acquisition of those alleged special privileges.

You could only make the hypocrisy argument if you forget that the CFSM is a parody--a point you just profusely thanked me for "conceding," so I don't know how you could go there with a straight face.

Okay, here I'm going to need to ask your help before I can actually assess your point:

The only limit you've acknowledged is when one's religion impinges on another's rights, and even then it was in the context of murder, which you incorrectly claimed was prohibited for that reason.​

Your claim was that religious sacrifice is illegal because it is an inflicting of religion upon a person. This is incorrect. Ritual killings are legally classified as murder, not First Amendment violations.

Now, there is an appearance of conflict, but as we've been through this sort of dispute before, I can only presume there's something about your context that isn't connecting in my mind.

What am I missing?

Besides an understanding of federal law, I'm honestly not sure.

Utah became a state in January, 1896. I can only apologize to you that I wasn't alive to defend a bunch of perverts who belong to a religion that was literally pulled out of a hat.

Not sure what any of that has to do with anything. There are still polygamists in Utah, and people lobbying to make polygamy legal again. Why aren't you on their side? After all, your opinion of their practices should be of absolutely no relevance to their legality, right?

It's an interesting claim, since you won't actually explain the problem with the point.

I'm sorry, I assumed the problems with equating insult to bigotry (let alone mischaracterizing a mockery of state law to a spiteful mockery of Islam) were self-evident. At the very least, you should be able to see that you're making claims that are unrelated to the acts in question, and as a man of integrity should have jumped at the first opportunity to close the gaps in understanding of the readership. Especially when one of those readers asks you for clarification.

Though I don't know why I bother going through this, since your dodging of the question is essentially a concession of the point itself. (The unspoken "I won't answer this because I can't answer this")

Of course, given that you're deliberately trying to manipulate the point to be something it isn't, I don't have high expectations for that explanation.

I'm sorry, were you writing yourself a letter? I don't know how on earth that could possibly apply to me, or my posts here. You, knowing full well that Pastafarianism is a parody of organized religion borne from the state's obscene acquiescence of scientific education in favor of mythology-as-biology, decided to say that wearing a sieve on one's head for an official government photo 1) Amounted to an insult against religious people, 2) Amounted to bigotry (sans the explanation of how insult necessarily equates to bigotry), 3) Represented a desire to have religious rights for oneself but not for others (again, not explained), and 4) Was hypocritical.

So, to be clear, once again:

I would suggest that undertaking the effort to earn a state endorsement of a practical joke intended to denigrate billions—i.e., hate speech—is the problematic element.​

What about that confuses you? I mean, despite having attempted to respond to the above statement once before, you come to the idea that an "insult amounts to bigotry"?

Let's start with the main claim you make: That this is a joke intended to denigrate billions. What makes this necessarily so? So far, you've attempted to construe this a half-dozen different ways, but none of these attempts have come with an explanation of how or why, exactly, they are intended to denigrate anyone. You leave that part out, as if it's so obvious that there's no point in explaining.

Also, why do you keep bringing up the number "billions?" Is that supposed to be a threat? I can't think of any logical continuation of that thought besides "...so you'd better watch out."​

 

[Tiassa]

I'm So Embarrassed: I Almost Missed the Joke of Your Pretend Excremental Stupidity

Also, why do you keep bringing up the number "billions?" Is that supposed to be a threat? I can't think of any logical continuation of that thought besides "...so you'd better watch out."

What, seriously?

Try this:

• My daughter's maternal grandparents are nuts. They are Seventh-Day Adventists who are happy to deviate from doctrine while criticizing other people's deviations from doctrine. They are supremacists. They are idiots. They are two individuals.

• Christianity comprises well over a billion people. I cannot extend my indictment of those two individuals to all people identifying as "Christian".

—What is so difficult about that difference to comprehend?​

No, really, Balerion: How the hell am I supposed to take you seriously if this simple point escapes your faculties?

What the fuck do you want me to say, here?

Oh, hey, I got it.

I know what to say:

• I'm sorry, dude, I completely missed the joke at first. And, actually, that's pretty fucking funny. Absolutely genius brilliant in both its structural subversion and counterintuitive subtlety. Since it's your joke, though, I must defer to your authority and invite you to explain your magnanimous intellectual triumph to our neighbors.​

Have at it, dude.

 

[Balerion]

What, seriously?

Try this:

• My daughter's maternal grandparents are nuts. They are Seventh-Day Adventists who are happy to deviate from doctrine while criticizing other people's deviations from doctrine. They are supremacists. They are idiots. They are two individuals.

• Christianity comprises well over a billion people. I cannot extend my indictment of those two individuals to all people identifying as "Christian".

—What is so difficult about that difference to comprehend?​

The failure to comprehend is quite apparently on your end, T. Let's start by establishing how the sievehead was making a blanket condemnation of all headdress-wearing religious people. Let's start there, because this is something you haven't even attempted to establish yet. I offered you the opportunity several times in my latest post, but you once again failed to support your irresponsible claims. So, again, let's start at the beginning: What about their actions was a sweeping condemnation of "billions of people?"

What the fuck do you want me to say, here?

I've answered that question a half-dozen times over the course of this interrupted conversation. Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to? For appearances? Seems to be.

• I'm sorry, dude, I completely missed the joke at first. And, actually, that's pretty fucking funny. Absolutely genius brilliant in both its structural subversion and counterintuitive subtlety. Since it's your joke, though, I must defer to your authority and invite you to explain your magnanimous intellectual triumph to our neighbors.​

Have at it, dude.

Again, this is something that has already been covered. What about two guys with kitchen utensils on their heads in government-issued photo IDs don't you get? Does this speak to an ignorance of (or perhaps an agreement with) the way governments bend over backwards to facilitate absurd requests made in the name of religious belief?

 

[Tiassa]

Laughably, or Tragically, Pathetic?

The failure to comprehend is quite apparently on your end, T. Let's start by establishing how the sievehead was making a blanket condemnation of all headdress-wearing religious people.

Nice try, but you really do need to answer for your paranoid, idiotic post above:

"Also, why do you keep bringing up the number 'billions?' Is that supposed to be a threat? I can't think of any logical continuation of that thought besides '...so you'd better watch out.'"​

That you can only perceive a threat, instead of consider the problematic aspects of generalizing about billions of people in a condemning, bigoted way, is pretty much indicative.

No, really, this is the intellectual valence of Pastafarians and their supporters?

Let's start by establishing how the sievehead was making a blanket condemnation of all headdress-wearing religious people. Let's start there, because this is something you haven't even attempted to establish yet.

It's actually kind of inherent in the defense of Sieveheads:

• "When you live in a world where religious groups are being allowed to argue that if we don't grant them special rights they are being oppressed (ie if we have marriage equality we are oppressing Christians) and we have groups which think its ok to completely insult one religion (by making insulting cartoons of there prophet) while at the same time screaming THEY should be protected from insults, while we have unrestrained groups like the Baptist church which screams nothing but hatred and groups claiming to be Christian bombing doctors and young scared girls and couples." (Asguard)

• "I'm guessing that Nový's idea was that if the more Islamist sort of Muslim women are allowed to wear their headscarves on official identity photographs, then others should have the right to wear equally ridiculous gear on their photos, if they say that their religious faith demands it." (Yazata)

• "He's not obligated to wear a sieve, it's a form of expression that demands equal ridiculousness for all. If the religious get to wear headgear as part of their identity, then we should also be able to do the same. Just for fun." (Spidergoat)

• "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?" (Iceaura)

• "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." (Yazata)​

The problem is that the religious headgear is defined solely in these arguments by the hostile perspective. If they get to do something stupid and silly, so do I. Okay, fine. That part we get. But inherent there is your condemnation of their psychiatric state as stupid and silly, your denigration of their humanity.

Think of it this way: I sincerely disdain the manner in which atheists at Sciforums have represented themselves. Big deal, right? But what happens if I go forth and treat the rest of the world's atheists as if the pathetic examples our community have provided somehow represent every atheist in the world?

Seriously, are all atheists as intellectually stunted and dysfunctional as the defense of Sieveheads suggests?

See, if I take the Sievehead approach, the answer is yes, and any discussion about what's wrong with that approach is just delusional bigotry.

And while such self-reinforcing circles are often comforting, they don't really accomplish much.

So perhaps you might come around and explain how the fuck you can only perceive the question of how many people you denigrate as a threat?

No, seriously, dude, that was so damnably stupid, you've pretty much disqualified yourself from any sense of credibility on this subject.

Sadder still is that to judge by your response, you're not even capable of understanding the difference.

So tell us, Balerion: Do you have anything useful to say on this subject, or are you just going to continue babbling like a retarded bonobo on crystal meth?

I can't tell if your diddling on this one is laughable or tragic. To the one, it seems hilarious at first glance. To the other, it also suggests some deeper malady, and one ought not laugh at human sickness.

 

[Mazulu]

Pastafarians delineate what is wrong with atheism. Nothing is sacred to an atheist. Nothing is valuable to an atheist. Nothing goes down to the soul of an atheist because an atheist has no depth and no soul. Atheists are at best hollow human beings who fill their emptiness with alcohol. I am glad I am not an atheist.

 

[James R]

Pastafarians delineate what is wrong with atheism. Nothing is sacred to an atheist.

Depends what you mean by "sacred". If you mean deserving of respect because of some religious connection, then you're right. But if you mean worthy of respect, then you're wrong. Atheists respect lots of stuff. Some even respect the right of other people to believe whatever nonsense they want to.

Nothing is valuable to an atheist.

There, you're dead wrong.

Atheists value all sorts of things. Some like car racing. Some like spending time with their kids. Some like eating good food. Some value science. Some value democracy. Some value expeditions to the South Pole.

Saying that atheists don't value anything is just constructing some kind of caricature.

Nothing goes down to the soul of an atheist because an atheist has no depth and no soul.

You're right about the second part. Atheists mostly don't believe in souls. As for depth, though, again you're quite wrong. There are many famous atheist writers who have written profound things, for example.

Atheists are at best hollow human beings who fill their emptiness with alcohol. I am glad I am not an atheist.

I'm not sure why you equate atheists with drunks. Do you have any evidence that atheists drink more than religious people?

Oh, and I'm sure there are plenty of atheists out there who are also glad you're not an atheist.