Pastafarian not allowed to wear her religious hat:

Originally posted by Suzianne
I guess my question is why on earth would an atheist be concerned with that?

Stop guessing.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yeah, and I'm saying the principle is hogwash.

... but you are allowed your principles because .. ?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm pretty sure the fundamentalists (of any religion) are pretty much right of center. But I guess to the atheists, we're ALL fundamentalists. Maybe we look the same to them.

No. I have sane theist friends.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Look, I don't care *where* you're from.

Wearing a freaking colander on your head is NOT "normal".

in the Church of the FSM it is.

So evidently you do care.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So is Tracy Chapman normal? Is Elvis normal? Is GW Bush Jr. normal? What criteria do YOU use to establish a normal person? Do they have to work in Detroit on auto manufacturing? Do they have to be a short order cook at the local diner? Was Einstein normal? Loretta Lynn? Who are these Normal's you talk about?

I myself have played music on nationally syndi ...[text shortened]... ent to school in Anchorage Alaska, played folk music at dozens of folk festivals, am I 'normal'?

"What criteria do YOU use to establish a normal person?"

The criteria of common sense. When it has to do with public expression. When it has to do with what is efficient when it has to do with healthy development of mind, body and spirit.

And more importantly, when it has to do with how what we do effects others.

I would have to say that the practice of the golden rule is the criteria by which we can gage the effects of our actions on others. If what we do, whether we believe it's "normal" or not, causes others to stumble, then we're not obeying the rule.

In a larger sense, the criteria for human conduct and behavior is established by God, our creator, and is the absolute norm.

Wearing a colander on one's head isn't normal. It may be funny, but who does that? Generally speaking I'd say a person with psychological issues.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
except that i never advocated letting criminals go free. i never advocated breaking the laws as you do when you misrepresent my position to absurd proportion so that would be easier for you to attack.

I didn't say you advocated breaking the law. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"What criteria do YOU use to establish a normal person?"

The criteria of common sense. When it has to do with public expression. When it has to do with what is efficient when it has to do with healthy development of mind, body and spirit.

And more importantly, when it has to do with how what we do effects others.

I would have to say that the ...[text shortened]... may be funny, but who does that? Generally speaking I'd say a person with psychological issues.[/b]

Your god is a man made construct and all the morality engendered therein is also man made so there is no absolute, it is what we make it.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"What criteria do YOU use to establish a normal person?"

The criteria of common sense. When it has to do with public expression. When it has to do with what is efficient when it has to do with healthy development of mind, body and spirit.

And more importantly, when it has to do with how what we do effects others.

I would have to say that the ...[text shortened]... may be funny, but who does that? Generally speaking I'd say a person with psychological issues.[/b]

I don't think the issue is whether they are normal or not. But whether they would normally wear a colander while driving. Clearly not, if only for safety reasons, so they shouldn't have it on while posing for their driving licence photograph. What about passports? Are they really going to go through customs with a metal object on their head?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Since you asked, I'll answer.

Episcopalian. It's the US version of Anglican, although from what I've been able to ascertain, it's a little more liberal than Anglicanism.

Yeah, fundamentalist. No, I don't think so. I'm actually to the left of center. I'm pretty sure the fundamentalists (of any religion) are pretty much right of center. But I guess to the atheists, we're ALL fundamentalists. Maybe we look the same to them.

I suspected as such from the comment you'd made in the thread about them finally ordaining women bishops. I don't know enough about the Episcopalians to make a judgement about who is more liberal. I'd just point out that the Church of England contains a lot of variation: there's Low Church, typically in the North, with High Church and Anglo-Catholics more frequent in the South of England all lumped in together in one Church. So issues like women priests tend to be difficult as they worry they'll lose Anglo-Catholics to the Roman Church if they do it, and may lose Low Church congregations to other reformed churches if they don't.

I think it depends on the atheist whether they can distinguish between actual fundamentalists and non-fundamentalist theists. The more fundamentalist ones tend not to distinguish.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Since you asked, I'll answer.

Episcopalian. It's the US version of Anglican, although from what I've been able to ascertain, it's a little more liberal than Anglicanism.

Yeah, fundamentalist. No, I don't think so. I'm actually to the left of center. I'm pretty sure the fundamentalists (of any religion) are pretty much right of center. But I guess to the atheists, we're ALL fundamentalists. Maybe we look the same to them.

You believe in some great big apocalyptic battle that will be fought in our life-times between the demons of hell and the angels of light on the plains of Megido (or however you phrase it), this is pretty damned right of centre to me. Further, you are more inclined to defend the god of the OT than you are to assert that the writings about this entity might not have been wholly accurate.

You are certainly right of centre - and whilst I acknowledge you subscribe to the old earth account of our origin, this does not force me or others to consider you a moderate ... you still believe in full-fat crazy, just a bit less salt.

Originally posted by josephw

Wearing a colander on one's head isn't normal. It may be funny,
but who does that? Generally speaking I'd say a person with
psychological issues.

Believing in imaginary beings, talking to someone in your head,
believing the world is 6,000 years old, thinking that a crucified
man came back to life. It may be funny, but who does that?
Generally speaking I'd say a person with psychological issues

Originally posted by Agerg
You believe in some great big apocalyptic battle that will be fought in our life-times between the demons of hell and the angels of light on the plains of Megido (or however you phrase it), this is pretty damned right of centre to me. Further, you are more inclined to defend the god of the OT than you are to assert that the writings about this entity might not ...[text shortened]... others to consider you a moderate ... you still believe in full-fat crazy, just a bit less salt.

I'm pretty sure that is not part of Anglican theology.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Are they really going to go through customs with a metal object on their head?

Depends whether or not they are fundamentalists.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
... but [b]you are allowed your principles because .. ?[/b]

Well, for a start, because I actually believe them, that's why.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No. I have sane theist friends.

In other words, they're the "wishy-washy" types we were talking about in another thread. You know, those who say they believe something, but when the rubber meets the road, they really couldn't be held actually responsible for their beliefs. You mean "sane" like that?