Dinkoism is a new religion that sarcastically worships flying spaghetti mouse. It has gained several thousand followers in the past 2 years and it seems like religion of the 21st century. Can it convey the idea of atheism more efficiently and elegantly with an element of fun?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If you like that kind of thing.
There is no reason for atheists to join any of the mock religions.
As a secularist, an advocate of human rights or an anti-theist on the other hand, such parody religions serve a good purpose when they can be used to invoke religious privilege. It's an effective tool to show how stupid it is to enforce laws that grant religion special rights, and in some cases the laws that the religious have put in place can be used against themselves.
I get the impression that Dinkoism is just another variant, like for example The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
In Sweden, someone started a religion called Kopimism (Kopiera = Copy). Where the purpose wasn't so noble as equal rights or humanism: It seems to be an attempt at using religious freedom laws against the copyright laws (The act of copying is considered sacred). It seems it has spread to a few other countries as well, and a marriage has been conducted.
If an atheist wishes to participate in religion, while maintaining their atheistic views, why not then join an atheistic religion such as Buddhism, as opposed to a mock religion?
Thats because THE MOCK RELIGION IS FAR MORE FUN THAN THE STANDARDISE ONES.
Dinkoism is as the satanic temple is in america. Just to try and level the playing field for atheists all the while maintaining a good sense of humour.
And can those goals not be achieved by forming a simple like-minded group, such as an atheist club or free-thinking group, as opposed to forming a mock religion?
The mock religions (especially if you include Satanism) are effective at getting government programs that endorse one flavor of religion shut down.
For example when I lived in central Texas, there was a program where the kids were allowed to leave school half way through the Friday schedule to attend a local churches "religious studies" class. Sure seemed like a violation of separation of church and state, but what exactly should be done to stop the process?
Could file a lawsuit but that takes a long time, meanwhile the kids keep going to the church for years. Also the program will just be re-branded and started again under some new guise; starting the process all over again.
The local satanic church had a better idea. They just demanded that the school allow students to leave school and attend their church for "religious studies", and to let each kid pick which church they wanted to go to on Friday. The program was stopped immediately by the school. The instant these theists think their kids might be exposed to a competing religion, they transform into the biggest supporters of the separation of church and state; but until then, they violate it every chance they get.
Valid point. However, I would point out that the success of this group in achieving its goals, is due to specifically identifying itself as the church of Satan; the direct opponent of Christianity and something feared by Christians unlike other mock religious groups. I would doubt that other mock religions, such as the church of the flying spaghetti monster, would have achieved the same level of success. So while I think going about promoting change via the vessel of mock religions does have its merits, I think there is some strategy involved in which mock religion to use to promote that change. Will Dinkoism achieve that, or will it simply be a social group for atheists (which isn't a bad thing)?
I think the crucial point is the fact that while the mock religions are parody, they are actually registered as real religions in the eyes of the law. In that way they can be used to the same extent as other religions do, trying to push their agenda into education, holding official prayers, etc.
Buddhism isn't as repulsive as Satanism or as ridiculous as worship of a flying spaghetti monster, so it doesn't make the point as clearly as the mock religions do.
I agree...If the point of joining the religion is to promote change or enforce the separation of church and state. Keep in mind though, Atheism is classified as a religion in the US as well, but I would hate to combat separation of church and state under that precedent, as we don't need others starting in with the whole "Atheism is a religion" (in practice) garbage. I think you are correct; mock religions best serve that purpose.
"Atheism is classified as a religion in the US as well,"
How so? I really interested to find out. It's always been my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has said atheism must have the same legal protections as a religion but not that it IS one.
"Atheism is classified as a religion in the US as well"
If that were the case, I would move to the US and start a tax exempt web based church. Well, unless Trump wins and the US is swallowed into a maelstrom of chaos.
There actually already are atheist churches in the US LOL.
It's classified as a religion so that non-religious individuals can enjoy the same rights and privileges that the religious do. The supreme court basically took the view that Atheism is classified as a religion for the sole legal purpose of extending first amendment rights to the non-religious. For example, if a prison allows inmates to form religious study groups, they have to allow atheists to form a study group as well under that same rule, since atheism would be classified as a religion under federal law. So any policy, rule, or law that involves religion is thus extended to include atheism.
"The supreme court basically took the view that Atheism is classified as a religion for the sole legal purpose of extending first amendment rights to the non-religious."
I am unable to find any cases that document this view. Will you supply the case name?
Numerous cases have ruled this way in federal court and the supreme court. For example, Kaufman v McCoughtry, Torcaso v Watkins, Reed v The Great Lakes Companies.
From the ruling in Kaufman v McCoughtry for example:
"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):
At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one's own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680. Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680. "
I'm sure further research on my/your part could locate all those cases.
Hmm, interesting. But I'll remain in sceptic mode until I start seeing some of this being used successfully.
Oh I agree; I'm not saying it is a better tactic to use than groups like the church of satan to drive home points, I'm just pointing out the technical legal standing of atheism.
Do you have any church names, links to articles or links to any Atheist churches?
Define "Atheist Church". Are you talking about an organization that specifically calls themselves an atheist church, or are you including any religious church that includes Atheism (e.g. secular humanist, Christian atheist, atheistic Jesuism, ,...)?
Organisations registered as tax exempt atheist churches, with no other religious affiliation.
I just assumed that you knew of any, since you said that there already are atheist churches in the US.
Honestly I feel mocking people's views is a poor way to get a point across. Men divide themselves all the time, then fight over the divisions. Just be what one is and not insult another. If you believe in the existence of a diety that resembles flying spaghetti then worship it, if you are doing this to mock the idea of religion then you're no better than those who mock you
I disagree, Brian. Satire is often an effective teaching tool.
I disagree. We aren't mocking people just their beliefs. Specifically when they use it for oppression or coercion.
Finally a place where people disagree without destroying one another.
A good example of the purpose of a mock religion:
"After School Satan Clubs Take on Religion in Schools"
http://www.progressive.org/pss/after-school-satan-clubs-take-religion-sc...
When the Satanic Temple shows up, they will most likely shut down the "Good News Club" as well to get rid of the "After School Satan Clubs". (The Good News Club is the invention of the "CEF - Child Evangelism Fellowship".)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Can't disprove it, but I lean towards the Giant, Green Spider of Jupiter! It didn't create anything and promises nothing, so I wouldn't call it a religion. The idea is to show that certain lines of reasoning are no good, to show it in a dramatic way, not to unjustly make fun of people. The point here is that the mere inability to disprove something doesn't give it credibility.
Is the flying spaghetti mouse something else? If a mock religion, then it is a dramatic way of pointing out certain flaws inherent in religious belief. It would not be a pointless attempt to make fun of believers.