Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russian Church of Kopimizma Rallies For Battle Against New Piracy Laws

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the that's-one-plan dept.

Piracy 77

colinneagle writes "File-sharing advocates are seeking to spread the Missionary Church of Kopimism, a religion steeped in file sharing as a philosophical concept, to Russia in an effort to overturn the country's controversial new anti-piracy law. Activists in several parts of Russia — Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and Khabarovsk — are applying to form an officially recognized church of Kopimism, which they hope will enable them to challenge the anti-piracy law. ... Activists are reportedly planning to file lawsuits challenging the law as soon as the applications are filed. However, Russian lawyers and lawmakers told a Russian news site that the country's separation of church and state will make it difficult to make any progress through this approach. Kopimism was legally recognized by Sweden's government, where the religion was first founded, in January 2012."

cancel ×

77 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Religion? (4, Insightful)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#44483883)

Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"? Unless religion means more than just any arbitrary belief, the word is meaningless to describe actual religions. (I say this as an atheist. Religious people do this too. "Atheism is just a religion", "evolution is a religion", "environmentalism is a religion". No it isn't.)

Re:Religion? (2)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about a year ago | (#44483917)

Any "stuff I believe in" isn't religion, but religion is purely "stuff I believe in" - without proof that is, I should add. One is a subset of the other.

(This aside, I haven't a clue what you're talking about...)

Re:Religion? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44483999)

So are Apple zealots who believe the iPhone is still a market leader religious or not?

Android has 80% of the smartphone market and Apple has 14%

Global smartphone shipments grew 47 percent to hit 230 million devices in the second quarter of 2013, according to a new report from research firm Strategy Analytics. And Android captured record market share of 80 percent. Apple iOS reached 14 percent global smartphone share in the quarter.

Microsoft has 4%.

In China, Apple overtaken by Xiaomi in smartphone rankings

And it's only going to get worse for Apple, as the company just announced the Red Rice smartphone, a pretty decently spec'd model priced at a mere 799 yuan ($130). For that pittance, Chinese buyers will get quite a bit: a quad-core MediaTek CPU, 4.7-inch 720p screen (312 ppi) with Gorilla Glass 2, 1GB RAM, 4GB storage, China Mobile's TD-SCDMA 3G, dual-sim / dual standby capability, an 8-megapixel rear camera and Xiaomi's MIUI-flavored Android.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/31/xiaomi-unveils-the-red-rice-smartphone/ [engadget.com]
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2046019/in-china-apple-overtaken-by-xiaomi-in-smartphone-rankings.html [pcworld.com]

Oddly enough, Slashdot does not consider this to be news.

Re:Religion? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44483927)

but for the belief that everything should be copyable what else do you have than belief? but a religion implies some organization, instead of belief which can exist by itself.

Re:Religion? (1)

aXis100 (690904) | about a year ago | (#44483961)

but a religion implies some organization

No.... organised religion implies some organisation. Plenty of people have beliefs and dont follow an organised religion.

Regardless, the fact that they are registering churches implies it is an organised religion anyway.

Re:Religion? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#44483983)

but a religion implies some organization, instead of belief which can exist by itself.

No, religion isn't just organisation. It's the nature of the belief. People can have religious beliefs without belonging to a church, distinct from their non-religious beliefs.

If all beliefs, all philosophies, all personal preferences are "religion", then the word "religion" doesn't mean anything. If you redefine everything as a "hat", what do you call actual hats? How do you talk about hats when you've defined "hat" so broadly that not owning a hat is itself a type of hat?

Re:Religion? (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year ago | (#44485171)

How do you talk about hats when you've defined "hat" so broadly that not owning a hat is itself a type of hat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM4okRvCg2g [youtube.com]

Thank God I'm an atheist.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44486845)

Well, there's clear evidence that if a god exists, he wants information to be copied. Or else why would he have made copying of information the very basis of life? One could say that life ultimately exists only for one purpose: Copying of information.

Re:Religion? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44483935)

Define religion.

Re:Religion? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44483957)

Define religion.

My definition before looking for it online: "set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity, feelings of veneration and fear of it, moral rules for the individual and social conduct and ritual practices in its homage."

A found definition that I might agree with: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Re:Religion? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#44484011)

By your definition, politics seems quite religious.

Re:Religion? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44484029)

Either you live somewhere where politics are "about divinity", or we don't share the same definition of "divinity".

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484209)

The definition you "might agree with" didn't mention divinity and didn't require "superhuman agency", only considered it a plus.

The problem with definitions requiring gods is that buddhism is generally regarded as a religion and obviously doesn't involve gods, "divinity" or "superhuman agency".

Re:Religion? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44484533)

The problem with definitions requiring gods is that buddhism is generally regarded as a religion and obviously doesn't involve gods, "divinity" or "superhuman agency".

No. The problem is that some people believe that all forms of Buddhism are generally regarded as a religion, which is false.

Re:Religion? (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | about a year ago | (#44484959)

But American politics already have several "superhuman agencies". Most of them have as many letters in their name as "God". Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484017)

Okay, now let's apply absurd things to your definition. Let's use.... science.
---

set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity

The universe was created in the big bang. There is no higher being, and if there is, it cannot and does not interact with this universe and is undetectable and unprovable to the point that it doesn't exist.

feelings of veneration and fear of it

Look out at the stars, isn't humbling how tiny and in significant we are in the grand scheme of things? There is so much we don't know, but we must never stop trying to understand it.

moral rules for the individual and social conduct and

Try to do things ethically, otherwise the ethics committee might pull your funding! Don't do things like plagiarize or try to forge results. If you do, we will fucking ostracize your ass. Try to be honest and not exaggerate results.

ritual practices in its homage

Follow the scientific method and apply the best statistical methods in your analysis.
---
Does it fit? Could science be a religion based on this definition? If science is not a religion, and by this definition it is, does that mean that this definition is wrong?

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484047)

Retarded post is retarded.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484079)

Thank you for your enlightening rebuttal, but I was trying to attack the definition given by showing an absurd case in which it fails. By showing that practically anything can be defined as a religion unless religion is defined in arbitrarily constraining terms, I had hoped to contribute an actual argument. I thought that it would be appropriate in a thread discussing what a religion is.

Please forgive me if I was wrong.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44486063)

Disregard that, I suck cock.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484135)

There is no higher being, and if there is, it cannot and does not interact with this universe and is undetectable and unprovable to the point that it doesn't exist.

Science doesn't say that. It only says that it doesn't work on things which are undetectable and unprovable. It is the religions that define their gods in a way that makes them undetectable and unprovable, the moment they place something in the material universe it becomes amenable to science. If you do define a material god (or the material aspects or interactions of your favourite god) and make predictions that are scientifically testable, then science can be happily applied.

Re:Religion? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44484201)

Ok, let's play your game. But let's play it correctly.

set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity

The universe was created in the big bang. There is no higher being, and if there is, it cannot and does not interact with this universe and is undetectable and unprovable to the point that it doesn't exist.

Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.

feelings of veneration and fear of it

Look out at the stars, isn't humbling how tiny and in significant we are in the grand scheme of things? There is so much we don't know, but we must never stop trying to understand it.

Wrong. In "and fear of it", "it = divinity". You established that the belief is that there is no divinity. Therefore, there are no feelings of veneration and fear of what isn't.

moral rules for the individual and social conduct and

Try to do things ethically, otherwise the ethics committee might pull your funding! Don't do things like plagiarize or try to forge results. If you do, we will fucking ostracize your ass. Try to be honest and not exaggerate results.

Right (2/4). Science is similar to religion in the fact that it establishes a set of moral rules for the individual.

ritual practices in its homage

Follow the scientific method and apply the best statistical methods in your analysis.

Wrong. In "in its homage", the it is still equal to "divinity" which you established as null. Therefore following the scientific method does not pay homage to "it".

Does it fit?

No. Only 2/4 conditions are fulfilled.

Could science be a religion based on this definition?

No. It couldn't and it isn't.

If science is not a religion, and by this definition it is, does that mean that this definition is wrong?

The premise of the question is false. By the definition, science is not a religion, as it only fulfills two of the four conditions.

However, that doesn't mean that the definition is correct, only that your path of reasoning doesn't prove it wrong.

Re:Religion? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484257)

Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.

Wrong. Science makes no statement one way or the other about the existence of a divinity. Indeed, you'll find both religious and atheist scientists. It is true that a scientific explanation cannot invoke a deity as argument, but it cannot invoke the non-existence of a deity as argument either.

Re:Religion? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44484495)

Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.

Wrong. Science makes no statement one way or the other about the existence of a divinity. Indeed, you'll find both religious and atheist scientists. It is true that a scientific explanation cannot invoke a deity as argument, but it cannot invoke the non-existence of a deity as argument either.

I was criticizing his methodology, not his beliefs.

Science does not make any statement one way or the other, but the act of assuming it does still agrees with the first criterion; unlike two of the other three statements.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484213)

The universe was created in the big bang.

That is no dogma, that's the current best theory. Indeed, newer theories seem to indicate that there was no big bang, but rather a big bounce. However none of those theories are yet established (read: experimentally tested).

There is no higher being, and if there is, it cannot and does not interact with this universe and is undetectable and unprovable to the point that it doesn't exist.

That's not at all a scientific statement.

Since the definition was an "and" definition, this already is sufficient to counter your argument.

Having said that, his definition is not appropriate anyway because it declares certain forms of Buddhism as non-religion (because there's no divinity there).

And no, a definition cannot be wrong (even if the definition is inconsistent, it just means there's nothing matching this definition; it makes the definition useless, but not wrong.

But let me try my own definition of religion:

A religion is a set of believes based on the assumptions that there exists an immaterial world, that humans have an immaterial part that survives the death of the body, and that the human fate after death depends on the moral conductance during life.

Re: Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484271)

Incorrect. The Christian faith teaches that our fates after death rely entirely in accepting the grace offered by God through Jesus's sacrifice. While living a moral life is admirable and is one of the goals of Christianity through Jesus's teaching, most Christians admit that living an entirely moral life is impossible and simply rely on God's grace.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484299)

But let me try my own definition of religion: A religion is a set of believes based on the assumptions that there exists an immaterial world, that humans have an immaterial part that survives the death of the body, and that the human fate after death depends on the moral conductance during life.

You are drawing a distinction between belief in the supernatural and religion? Where the former is, presumably, any "belief in an immaterial world and that humans have an immaterial part", while the latter specifically requires, "an immaterial part that survives the death of the body, and that the human fate after death depends on the moral conductance during life."

So the sets are: Beliefs, which contains Supernatural Beliefs, which contains Religious Beliefs?

Re:Religion? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44484521)

Having said that, his definition is not appropriate anyway because it declares certain forms of Buddhism as non-religion (because there's no divinity there).

That doesn't make my definition wrong. It declared certain forms of Buddhism as not religions because they are most certainly not a religion; as declared by themselves, by theologians and by philosophers. The Buddha is not a divinity and in Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. Additionally. Even though strictly The Buddha is honored, those forms of Buddhism do not imply nor require (and I'd go as far as saying, accept) worship of The Buddha.

Re:Religion? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#44484253)

Your definition just relies on that of divinity.
The divine is whatever is transcendental and greater than oneself.

Therefore any set of beliefs concerned about things greater than oneself is a religion.

Re:Religion? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44484559)

Your definition just relies on that of divinity.

I agree.

The divine is whatever is transcendental and greater than oneself.

I disagree. I understand "supernatural" as one of the characteristics of "divine".

Therefore any set of beliefs concerned about things greater than oneself is a religion.

I disagree with the premise.

Re:Religion? (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | about a year ago | (#44484801)

"I disagree. I understand "supernatural" as one of the characteristics of "divine"."

So, no budhists (Well certain varieties, nothing did it), unitarians (Make no real claims either way, whoever you think did it), sikhs (The universe did it, and its reallly trippy guys), scientologists (Aliens did it) , raelians (Aliens did it) , Animists (The earth did it) then?

Re:Religion? (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44484037)

It's like madness, but spread out over a whole bunch of people.

Re:Religion? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#44484005)

If your belief has no base in reality, then yes, it's a religion.

I know that by this definition a lot of political views are religious in nature. Well, try to discuss it with someone who is a devout $political_stance, and you'll see how religious it gets!

Re:Religion? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#44484095)

While I know what you mean, I still feel that even there a distinction needs to be drawn between "like religion" and "religion". Ie, between "dogmatic belief" and "religious belief", because religious beliefs can be dogmatic or they can be fuzzy and soft, so clearly the two terms are not synonymous.

(My objection to the original story is creating a phony "religion" based on file sharing. While I'm happy to mock dogmatic religions with "pastafarianism" and the like, I cringe when people claim a "religion" around stuff they happen to like/want/believe. It reinforces the claim by those same dogmatic religious types and their apologists that atheism (or science, or anything they don't like) is "just a religion too". It also makes discussing actual religion impossible.)

Re:Religion? (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44486329)

So, as an outsider, how would someone distinguish a "real" religion from a "manufactured" religion? Is it just down to how long the religion has been around?

legal meaning (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#44484077)

"Stuff you believe in" is about spiritualism. As soon as you organize that formally with multiple people, it's about religion. If you want any legal benefits from it, you register it as a "religion". This is why a bunch of people want to formally register their spiritual beliefs, to make sure that they are protected by law.

Re:Religion? (1)

mjwx (966435) | about a year ago | (#44484113)

Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?

Religion is just "stuff people believe in".

(I say this as an atheist. Religious people do this too. "Atheism is just a religion", "evolution is a religion", "environmentalism is a religion". No it isn't.)

These aren't religions as they have a basis in fact (or in the case of atheism, the complete absence of belief).

With things like Evolution, it doesn't require your belief, evolution wont grind to a halt just because no-one believes in it. That's the difference between a religion and a science.

Re: Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484313)

It's funny how atheists bring up evolution like it's some sort of magic pill that proves religion is false, when no religious texts say that evolution did not happen. Creationism and evolution are not opposing views. One simply states that God created things and the other says that things change over time. It is entirely possible for both to have happened.

In fact, if you look at Genesis 3, you'll find a great little gem hidden in there. As punishment for his treachery, the serpent is to spend eternity slithering along the ground. Meaning that BEFORE this, he didn't. Before the fall of man, the serpent would have had legs.

This was written 4,000-6,000 years ago. Long before Darwin. Long before any sort of scientific thought. And yet, if you look at the skeleton of a snake, there are still hips and fingernails. Only the legs are gone.

Evolution happens. That's a fact that nobody here will disagree with. But saying that because evolution happens, that God cannot exist is simply narrow-minded.

Re: Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44485127)

It's funny how some atheists bring up evolution like it's some sort of magic pill that proves religion is false

Fixed that for you.

Re:Religion? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44484157)

In this case, it's a non-religion deliberately 'faking' being a religion in order to benefit from legal protections or benefits granted to religious organisations and practices.

A lot like the 'church' of Scientology, to give a familiar example.

Or medi-share, a 'religious organisation' which, in exchange for a monthly contribution, promises to try to help with unexpected medical costs. A lot like a health insurance company - but by being legally a church, they can also be tax exempt.

Religious organisations get so many legal advantages, it's no great surprise some organisations would adopt religious appearance in order to take advantage.

Re:Religion? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#44484177)

Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

That said, there are other definitions for the word, since English is a living language.

Speaking as a Christian, I'll add that the way most people I know are using the word these days, myself included but not merely limited to my Christian circle of friends, is in a derogatory manner. We use it to describe the organizations created by people who go through the motions without actually ever grokking the beliefs. To them, it's a set of rituals and rules they claim to believe but never fully own. By this definition, I'd argue that neither Christianity nor atheism are necessarily "religions" in and of themselves, but that both easily can be.

I've seen my share of "Christians" who go through the motions on Sunday, make hypocrites of themselves during the week, but will defend what they claim to believe until the cows come home, even if they're presented with quotes directly from the Bible that irrefutably demonstrate that they are most certainly not true believers in what it teaches. By that same token, we've all likely seen our share of "atheists" who quote Dawkins as if he were a prophet and will, without a hint of irony, use "because science says" as a full justification for something they claim, even if they're presented with valid scientific evidence that upsets their outdated beliefs regarding what is true. Both can and do engage in dogmatism, with replies oftentimes boiling down to "nah uh!" rather than being a rational discourse.

When people are like that, I'd say it's fair to refer to the structures they erect as "religions".

Alternatively, "religion" is oftentimes used to refer to beliefs that are taken on faith. In that light, some may refer to atheism as a religion since atheists do have to take it on faith that there is no supernatural being, given that it's impossible to prove a negative (I'm well aware of the idea of evidence of absence vs. absence of evidence, but since we're not dealing with a theoretical, frictionless vacuum, I think it's safe to say that there will never be absolutely conclusive evidence of absence, which means there will still be some faith involved, though there will obviously be sufficient evidence to convince many rational people). In fact, when taken far enough, any line of questioning will eventually result in us taking things on faith, whether through our lack of understanding, our lack of discovery, or our inability to discover, so in that light, nearly anything could be taken to be a religion. but, at least to me, that seems to be a rather weak notion and a poor way to define religion, even though I've heard it used that way.

Re:Religion? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#44484335)

since English is a living language.

Not for long if you keep beating it like that.

But thank you for illustrating my point. What you did is exactly what I hate, you made the definition of "religion" so broad as to be worthless, twice.

Re:Religion? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#44485541)

since English is a living language.

Not for long if you keep beating it like that.

Actually, I was merely reporting usages of the word of which I'm aware but with which you were seemingly unfamiliar. You do realize that the way that dictionaries function is by identifying these sorts of new usages for existing words and then adding them if they achieve wide acceptance and use, right? I hate to break it to you, but that first way of defining it that I provided is in fairly wide use across a wide collection of people from varied backgrounds. You yourself attested to the fact that you're hearing the word being used in more ways nowadays.

But thank you for illustrating my point. What you did is exactly what I hate, you made the definition of "religion" so broad as to be worthless, twice.

I'll take your slight aimed my direction as an indication that you skimmed or else didn't bother to read what I said, since I already pointed out just how poor the second definition was. I do think the first definition is valid, and you're obviously aware of alternative definitions entering wider use, so you should probably get used to seeing it around. That said, I know I'd consider it sloppy to say that "atheism is a religion" based on that first definition. Maybe "atheism is his religion", referring to someone of the sort I described in my last post, but I wouldn't use it to describe the whole shebang, by any means.

Re:Religion? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | about a year ago | (#44485603)

> But thank you for illustrating my point. What you did is exactly what I hate, you made the definition of "religion" so broad as to be worthless, twice.

Actually, most of the words you just used in that sentence have definitions which are just as broad, so I fail to see what peeves you so.

Natural languages are not designed to be exact, and neither Anubis IV nor you are going to somehow miraculously cause the English language to become either useless or unused.

Re:Religion? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44484503)

I've seen some Christians who refuse to accept the label, because they believe the term has lost all meaning due to the vast number of people who call themselves Christians but pay minimal heed to the religion.

They instead insist on being called 'Christ-followers' to distinguish themselves from all the casual Christians-by-tradition who won't really follow the religion at all.

There's also a rich history of various Christian denominations declaring another denomination aren't really Christian at all because they disagree on some aspect of the religion.

Re:Religion? (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44486661)

I almost feel sorry for posting this, but your post really reminded me of this:

ARTHUR: He has given us a sign!
FOLLOWER: Oh!
SHOE FOLLOWER: He has given us... His shoe!
ARTHUR: The shoe is the sign. Let us follow His example.
SPIKE: What?
ARTHUR: Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.
EDDIE: Yes.
SHOE FOLLOWER: No, no, no. The shoe is...
YOUTH: No.
SHOE FOLLOWER: ...a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance.
GIRL: Cast off...
SPIKE: Aye. What?
GIRL: ...the shoes! Follow the Gourd!
SHOE FOLLOWER: No! Let us gather shoes together!
FRANK: Yes.
SHOE FOLLOWER: Let me!
ELSIE: Oh, get off!
YOUTH: No, no! It is a sign that, like Him, we must think not of the things of the body, but of the face and head!
SHOE FOLLOWER: Give me your shoe!
YOUTH: Get off!
GIRL: Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!
FOLLOWER: The Gourd!
HARRY: Hold up the sandal, as He has commanded us!
ARTHUR: It is a shoe! It is a shoe!
HARRY: It's a sandal!
ARTHUR: No, it isn't!
GIRL: Cast it away!
ARTHUR: Put it on!
YOUTH: And clear off!
SHOE FOLLOWER: Take the shoes and follow Him!
GIRL: Come,...
FRANK: Yes!
GIRL: ...all ye who call yourself Gourdenes!

Re:Religion? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#44485485)

even if they're presented with quotes directly from the Bible that irrefutably demonstrate that they are most certainly not true believers in what it teaches.

By that definition, nobody is a true Christian (whatever that means) because the bible is filled with contradictory, cruel, ambiguous and nonsensical teachings. Literally hundreds of things which make little sense and which nobody however earnest could follow let alone interpret in the same way as the person sat next to them.

By that same token, we've all likely seen our share of "atheists" who quote Dawkins as if he were a prophet and will, without a hint of irony, use "because science says" as a full justification for something they claim, even if they're presented with valid scientific evidence that upsets their outdated beliefs regarding what is true. Both can and do engage in dogmatism, with replies oftentimes boiling down to "nah uh!" rather than being a rational discourse.

Except of course Dawkins has the facts and evidence on his side and qualifies remarks or opinion as appropriate, e.g. when uncertainty exists. And if you looked up the definition of dogma you would recognize how absurd it is to accuse him, or science of dogmatism. Science changes over time as ideas are tested. It's not inerrant. About the only thing that remotely approaches "dogma" in science are the natural laws of the universe, without are taken for granted simply because they're observable and testable.

In that light, some may refer to atheism as a religion since atheists do have to take it on faith that there is no supernatural being, given that it's impossible to prove a negative

It's also impossible to prove there isn't a monster sitting on my head, or that there is a spaceship in the middle of the moon or that my deceased Aunt Maude was psychic. So it's not a matter of faith to assume there is no supernatural being so much as the default position. There is no reason to suppose a supernatural being (let alone one claimed to be the creator of all things and to have handed down the one true set of religious teachings to a bronze age people).

Re:Religion? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#44485845)

And if you looked up the definition of dogma you would recognize how absurd it is to accuse him, or science of dogmatism.

Clearly you misunderstood, since I made no such accusations. In fact, I made a concerted effort to ensure that it would not be taken that way, since I was well aware of the fact that the Slashdot crowd was likely to read it that way. I accused everyday people of being dogmatic, fallacious creatures who fail to be rational at times. I did not make nor intend to make any such statement about science, nor about Dawkins.

Science changes over time as ideas are tested. It's not inerrant.

I completely agree. What I was describing to you are people who claim to agree to that as well but are actually closed minded, responding to new discoveries that undermine their currently-held beliefs, not with an honest intent to appraise their veracity with an open mind, but rather with a bias or with statements of dogma about what they claim that science says is true. They're bad scientists. They're the people that make real scientists look bad. They usually come around eventually, but it's more because peer pressure forced their hand and less because of their making an informed decision.

Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are slow to switch to a new way of thinking because they, despite keeping an open mind, remain unconvinced by the new evidence. I'm talking about the ones who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge new evidence if it challenges their beliefs, while claiming that they adhere to the scientific method and logic. They're frighteningly common, as we see time and again whenever a new school of thought displaces an old one in the scientific fields and ill-informed people on the Internet argue from their preconceived ideas using absolute statements about what must be true.

It's also impossible to prove [...]

I was just providing the definition and an explanation for it. I didn't say I liked it. In fact, I said I didn't.

Re:Religion? (4, Informative)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44484183)

Religion means special protections under law and in many countries tax breaks. So let's first get rid of those.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484363)

Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?

LOL. Do you realize how hilarious this statement is to us Europeans?

Belief is holding a view despite conflicting evidence or lack thereof. Otherwise it would be called a /fact/.
And that kind of ignorance and delusion, in favor of the detached but comforting inner mental model, is *exactly* the hallmark and key property of the illness known as (religious) schizophrenia in all its different levels of severity.

You're probably one of those American "atheists" that hang around on Reddit's /r/atheism, and still behave *exactly* like religious people in every single damn aspect, but with their thing now being to not believe in a "God".

I mean the whole term "atheism" already is absurd to us. That's like saying "healthyitis". It pre-assumes that sanity is "just another -ism". You don't need a word for that! It's the /normal default state/!

So you still do exactly what you bitch about. That is what I mean: You're so deep inside that fucked-up world of religiousness, that you can't even tell you're not out yet but still deeply interwoven with it.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484415)

Unless religion means more than just any arbitrary belief, the word is meaningless to describe actual religions.

What's an actual religion? Does it have to be over a thousand years old?

Re:Religion? (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44485565)

Can we stop deliberately confusing "religion" with "the legal definition of religion"? The two are vastly different things, with vastly different purposes and roles.

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44486461)

Members of the Church of Kopimism have shared beliefs. If you happen to feel truth in them, consider joining your local chapter of the Church. ^C/^V!

Re:Religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44488399)

Excuse me, I happen to follow M-w C-y. Please don't classify me with heretics.

Re:Religion? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44486733)

Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?

Sure. Just tell me where the line is and why it isn't a completely arbitrary line. Because I think religion is just an extension of the tendency most people have to be convinced of things without sufficient proof. It seems to me that the things we call religion are just "I REALLLLLY think this, and other people do too, and no I can't prove it."

Then tell me why the benefits that state-approved religions should be exclusive to big organized religions that have been around for a long time. Seems to me that a religion of file-sharing has a cleaner slate than, say, a religion which has endorsed killing people because they're the wrong religion.

I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there: if Russia replaced all it's orthodox gay-hating citizens with citizens who liked sharing MP3s, Russia would substantially improve in a lot of ways. Furthermore, Russia should be encouraging kopism with tax incentives, since a marketplace of ideas contributes to society, and discouraging useless beliefs which have historically done little besides get countries into pointless wars and divided society.

The orthodox church should be looked upon as a hazard, if not a dangerous cult, while kopism should be looked on as a religion.

You might be interested in the religion of "word meanings should never change-ism"

This will be about as effective... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44483889)

As the riots after Zimmerman's not guilty verdict. It's a shame that the African-American community was all bark and no bite. ...Just like Trayvon.

BS vs BS (5, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about a year ago | (#44483891)

are applying to form an officially recognized church of Kopimism, which they hope will enable them to challenge the anti-piracy law.

I love it when clever individuals hijack stupid laws to fight other stupid laws.

Re:BS vs BS (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#44483941)

good luck with that ask pussy riot what they got for disrespecting the Orthodox church and I suspect that Nashi boot boys might turn up at some meetings.

Re:BS vs BS (1)

Arrepiadd (688829) | about a year ago | (#44485935)

good luck with that ask pussy riot what they got for disrespecting the Orthodox church and I suspect that Nashi boot boys might turn up at some meetings.

If you think Pussy Riot had all to do with the Orthodox Church and nothing to do with political activism against Putin, you got your story as wrong as Kremlin wanted you to.

Re:BS vs BS (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about a year ago | (#44484125)

Well, even *if* they'd have their church registered there are many laws and regulations to silence unfavorable organizations. They can be accused of extremism, fraud, bribing officials, tax evasion, vandalism and many, many more truly phantasmagorical "crimes". Oh, and all that not counting hordes of brain-washed putinists, who would be happy to show this "sectants" some real orthodox christian love and compassion. Probably with metal pipes and bike chains.

So yeah, it seems like a funny way to speak your mind, but if they somehow manage to get real attention - they are surely going to regret it. Which is sad, but this is how government runs everything here now.

Re:BS vs BS (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44484505)

Don't forget copyright infringement.

I'm sure someone in the Russian government would consider that amusingly appropriate.

Re:BS vs BS (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about a year ago | (#44484569)

Oh, absolutely. "Criminal masterminds caused untold damages to national music and filming industry by sharing three songs and one movie on vk.com". Damn, it's even better than planting heroin on them.

Re:BS vs BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484187)

> clever individuals

You have some low standards for "clever" then.

"country's separation of church and state" (2)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about a year ago | (#44484003)

Now that was a good one.
Orthodox church is basically a huge part of the state.
Here [en.rian.ru] is the last example of that theocratic craze.

Re:"country's separation of church and state" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484059)

The only difference between that and the US is that the US isn't ruled by a specific church, but by "coalition" of them by way of the far right hate\war mongers.

Re:"country's separation of church and state" (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about a year ago | (#44484217)

Oh, that's still mild by their standards. Considering their slow cancer-like growth through all aspects of our country's life that's just child play. Now teaching their dogmas to kids in every state school, poisoning army and fleet with their "spiritual guidance", even creating theological faculties in nuclear physics research institutes - that's some truly fucked up shit.

Target Promo Codes (0)

supertechnologies (2957781) | about a year ago | (#44484067)

It’s a fashionable Store to all kind of Accessories Target Promo Codes [couponsqueens.com]

Who to Kopimismists worship (1)

Davo Batty (2855025) | about a year ago | (#44484081)

now that Steve Jobs is dead? Surely not Bill Gates.

Re:Who to Kopimismists worship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484171)

RMS, of course.

Jobs and Gates were merely aspects of The DRM, the Lord of Cowards, the anti-Stallman.

use proper inflexion (3, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#44484379)

What's that "church of Kopimizma"? You use either English or Russian grammar. Please write either " kopimizma" or " of kopimism".

Re:use proper inflexion and another round of vodka (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484469)

enough vodka and even english sounds like russian.

or the other way, a sober russian sounds like an englishman, in theory, since there are no sober russuans.

Kopimisimists unite (2)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year ago | (#44484463)


Please feel free to copy and share this with everyone you know in any and all methods possible.

May the Kopimism be with you.

Self contradiction in kopimism (1)

janap (451953) | about a year ago | (#44484507)

The holiest act of kopimism is the sacrament of copying and spreading information.
Then there is the kopimist sacrament of the confession, which entails, indeed obligates, the holy secrecy of the confession

How is this seemingly unreconcilable contradiction between two of the holiest of their sacraments explained by kopimists?

Just curious.

Learn what copyright means. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484813)

When I tell you "Hi", you do not copy this down. You can, but you definitely don't have to and you will almost definitely not do so.

And the act of saying "Hi" to you does not get copyright, so I cannot accuse you of copyright infringement if you use the same words back at me.

And you would not bother saying to someone else later "He said "hi" to me".

Therefore, this very minor confession (I have acknowledged your existence) is kept secret because there is nothing to know from it.

But if I were to write down the story of creation and believed this was entirely true and correct, what is served by claiming copyright infringement if someone copies this and tells other people? Surely to make the world a better place, the word MUST get out as widely as possible.

And extend that to the rest of human knowledge.

You yourself can be cited as being self contradictory: you want to keep information secret, yet here you are freely copying and insisting that others copy (slashdot itself) your words, despite copyright being the demand to restrict the copying of anything recorded.

How is this seemingly unreconcilable contradiction of the control of copying and the demand to make others copy explained by you?

Re:Learn what copyright means. (1)

janap (451953) | about a year ago | (#44485977)

How is this seemingly unreconcilable contradiction of the control of copying and the demand to make others copy explained by you?

I think you fail to understand what constitutes sacraments in a religion. The act of greeting someone is not a holy sacrament in kopimism, nor in any other religion that I'm aware of. Sacraments are well defined ritualistic acts that hold a significant meaning and are at the core of a religion. Like for example baptism, communion, confession and marriage in catholicism.

The claims from the lawyers do not hold up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44484703)

"Russian lawyers and lawmakers told a Russian news site that the country's separation of church and state will make it difficult to make any progress through this approach."

Sory, that's merely a claim, there is nothing indicating how this causation happens.

Because if it's a religious mandate, then passing a law that makes it wrong is binding a contract between church and state. State interference in church is NOT separating church and state.

Moreover, the separation of church and state is that the state should not promote (never mind mandate) that one religioun should be followed.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THESE PEOPLE WANT.

They don't want the state to make them the official religion of Russia.

So how the hell can the separation of church and state have ANY bearing on this???

Tipster utterly destroys own credibility (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | about a year ago | (#44485757)

....by referring to the "Missionary Church of Kopimism" as "a religion steeped in file sharing as a philosophical concept" -- instead of what it really is: "a group formed to attempt to invoke the protection of religious-freedom laws as a supposedly clever way of avoiding liability for violations of copyright law"

Believers' right (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#44493301)

The idea that there could be special rights (that is, privileges) for believers of some particular religion, sounds crazy to me.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>