The Flying Spaghetti monster.

[cuddly_tomato]

Religion is a choice?

Ok - I am going to assume you are an atheist. Now... believe completely in god for 15 minutes. Go on. Your heart has to truly accept that there is a god up there or down there or Buddha or whatever watching over you, otherwise you are just saying you are religious and not actually being religious.

To play the devil's advocate for a minute, isn't the idea that faith is fundamentally a choice one makes, a central idea in a lot of religions? I mean, if that wasn't the case then having a god sending people to hell for not being religious would be outright cruel (because then people would be damned without having made a choice to be damned for).

Damn straight it would. That's why I don't appreciate religions that use coercive techniques based upon fear of the consequences of non-belief in their particular diety. If there is a god (and I don't personally roll with that idea) then he is considerably less than people believe him to be if his divine mercy only extends as far as those with "club membership".

On the topic of religion being a choice, here is an interesting article linking neurochemistry with religion and spirituality [http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html]. If this link is proved to be accurate then that does put prejudice against religious people on par with prejudice against gays or against ethnic people.

 

[ThreeWords]

I acknowledge the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but just know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the one and only true Creator!

Finally, someone who isn't a heathen. It's good to know the One Truth is still alive, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn( pbuhh) is still rightfully acknowledged as the Creator She is![/quote]

Invisible and pink?
(sorry if I seem dumb, but I think I'm a little too sane for this level of metaphysical insight)

 

[bjj hero]

Damn straight it would. That's why I don't appreciate religions that use coercive techniques based upon fear of the consequences of non-belief in their particular diety. If there is a god (and I don't personally roll with that idea) then he is considerably less than people believe him to be if his divine mercy only extends as far as those with "club membership".

On the topic of religion being a choice, here is an interesting article linking neurochemistry with religion and spirituality [http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html]. If this link is proved to be accurate then that does put prejudice against religious people on par with prejudice against gays or against ethnic people.

 

[jdnoth]

It's old, it isn't funny, it's outlived its purpose. People need to stop talking about it.

 

[AgentNein]

Religion is a choice?

Ok - I am going to assume you are an atheist. Now... believe completely in god for 15 minutes. Go on. Your heart has to truly accept that there is a god up there or down there or Buddha or whatever watching over you, otherwise you are just saying you are religious and not actually being religious.

To play the devil's advocate for a minute, isn't the idea that faith is fundamentally a choice one makes, a central idea in a lot of religions? I mean, if that wasn't the case then having a god sending people to hell for not being religious would be outright cruel (because then people would be damned without having made a choice to be damned for).

Damn straight it would. That's why I don't appreciate religions that use coercive techniques based upon fear of the consequences of non-belief in their particular diety. If there is a god (and I don't personally roll with that idea) then he is considerably less than people believe him to be if his divine mercy only extends as far as those with "club membership".

On the topic of religion being a choice, here is an interesting article linking neurochemistry with religion and spirituality [http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html]. If this link is proved to be accurate then that does put prejudice against religious people on par with prejudice against gays or against ethnic people.

That's actually a really interesting read. Thanks for that.

 

[bjj hero]

On the topic of religion being a choice, here is an interesting article linking neurochemistry with religion and spirituality [http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html]. If this link is proved to be accurate then that does put prejudice against religious people on par with prejudice against gays or against ethnic people.

Interesting article but if I read it right it puts spirituality on par with paranoia, delusions or bi polar.

So you agree its a choice; unliike gender or race. So its not the same as racism or sexism.

I am an athiest due to the evidence Ive seen, read and experience. Im not trying to change your mind, its just my view. Feel free to have a laugh, make a joke or two, Ill be fine with it.

What I do struggle with is the idea that religeon is too serious for criticism or mirth. Its an ideology and belief similar to conservativism, communism, hippy/free love etc. Not above Jokes and humour.

Infact the bigger an establishment, such as the Catholic church, the more open it is to ridicule, similar to the government and other organisations.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

On the topic of religion being a choice, here is an interesting article linking neurochemistry with religion and spirituality [http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html]. If this link is proved to be accurate then that does put prejudice against religious people on par with prejudice against gays or against ethnic people.

Interesting article but if I read it right it puts spirituality on par with paranoia, delusions or bi polar.

So you agree its a choice; unliike gender or race. So its not the same as racism or sexism.

So they once said about gay people. When it wasn't a disease it was a choice. You also should remember that finding such an function in the brain is hardly suprising (religiousity had to spring from somewhere), and does not say either way about the existance of god. On the one hand it may be that this is evidence of god, as your brain has areas dedicated to vision, hearing etc. Light and sound are real. On the other hand this might be a part of the brain that acts as an emergency back-up to deal with highly stressful situations in the wild, and may have a function in justifying actions against other "tribe" members in times of crisis. No food to go around? Early man would have needed a good reason to defy his own emotions and kill and eat his own brethren.

I am an athiest due to the evidence Ive seen, read and experience. Im not trying to change your mind, its just my view. Feel free to have a laugh, make a joke or two, Ill be fine with it.

What I do struggle with is the idea that religeon is too serious for criticism or mirth. Its an ideology and belief similar to conservativism, communism, hippy/free love etc. Not above Jokes and humour.

Infact the bigger an establishment, such as the Catholic church, the more open it is to ridicule, similar to the government and other organisations.

Ohh no no no. I didn't mean that at all. I am sorry I was unclear. Religion, religious concepts, god, etc are all perfectly viable targets for humour and mirth. It isn't that which I have issue with. The problem is the small hard-core group of people who seem determined to tear down religion at every turn, and to this end go on to attack religious people. Associating them with the Crusades and blaming them for every "evil" commited in the world etc.

For example - South Park sketches about Mr Garrisons gayness are perfectly acceptable. Fred Phelps hate speeches against gay people are not. By the exact same token - The Life of Brian is perfectly acceptable, Christopher Hitchens hate speeches against religious people are not.

Incidentally dude I don't believe in god at all. I am merely defending the rights of other people to believe what they wish without abuse, ridicule, or scorn, as long as they allow others to do the same.

 

[Cowabungaa]

So they once said about gay people. When it wasn't a disease it was a choice. You also should remember that finding such an function in the brain is hardly suprising (religiousity had to spring from somewhere), and does not say either way about the existance of god. On the one hand it may be that this is evidence of god, as your brain has areas dedicated to vision, hearing etc. Light and sound are real. On the other hand this might be a part of the brain that acts as an emergency back-up to deal with highly stressful situations in the wild, and may have a function in justifying actions against other "tribe" members in times of crisis. No food to go around? Early man would have needed a good reason to defy his own emotions and kill and eat his own brethren.

Remember that you can fool your senses very easely. Think of optical illusions, you "see" things that aren't there, aren't real, your brain makes them up. But yes it makes sense that humans have such a function in the brain, that humans are 'hard wired' for being religious.

Ohh no no no. I didn't mean that at all. I am sorry I was unclear. Religion, religious concepts, god, etc are all perfectly viable targets for humour and mirth. It isn't that which I have issue with. The problem is the small hard-core group of people who seem determined to tear down religion at every turn, and to this end go on to attack religious people. Associating them with the Crusades and blaming them for every "evil" commited in the world etc.

For example - South Park sketches about Mr Garrisons gayness are perfectly acceptable. Fred Phelps hate speeches against gay people are not. By the exact same token - The Life of Brian is perfectly acceptable, Christopher Hitchens hate speeches against religious people are not.

Incidentally dude I don't believe in god at all. I am merely defending the rights of other people to believe what they wish without abuse, ridicule, or scorn, as long as they allow others to do the same.

Aaa but things like The Life of Brian is mocking, hate speeches aren't mocking, that's insulting. But the FSM isn't just mocking, it's also a statement and reaction against various (logical) problems with religion.

 

[Dele]

I disagree. There is no reason to mock. And religion isn't simply a dogma or doctrine, it is also a way of life and a state of being for many people.
*snip
Mocking the likes of the creationist museum or someone like Falwell, yes. But they hardly represent religion these days. They are on the lunatic fringe and should be treated as such.

How is this different from mocking communists and fascists? Amusingly you mentioned that creationist museum is allowed to be mocked, yet we are supposed to leave organized religion alone. I hardly see any difference in any of these and readily mock all of them and their ridiculousness.

 

[AgentNein]

On the topic of religion being a choice, here is an interesting article linking neurochemistry with religion and spirituality [http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html]. If this link is proved to be accurate then that does put prejudice against religious people on par with prejudice against gays or against ethnic people.

Interesting article but if I read it right it puts spirituality on par with paranoia, delusions or bi polar.

So you agree its a choice; unliike gender or race. So its not the same as racism or sexism.

So they once said about gay people. When it wasn't a disease it was a choice. You also should remember that finding such an function in the brain is hardly suprising (religiousity had to spring from somewhere), and does not say either way about the existance of god. On the one hand it may be that this is evidence of god, as your brain has areas dedicated to vision, hearing etc. Light and sound are real. On the other hand this might be a part of the brain that acts as an emergency back-up to deal with highly stressful situations in the wild, and may have a function in justifying actions against other "tribe" members in times of crisis. No food to go around? Early man would have needed a good reason to defy his own emotions and kill and eat his own brethren.

Why would a spiritual mind as an evolutionary trait flourish? Easy. Those that would naturally lean towards spiritualism might stave off the apathy and the depression that might come from such scary thoughts that first touched man when man began 'thinking' in language, such as the idea of the 'self', the idea of 'existence' and the idea of no longer 'being' one day, and back to what I was saying earlier, the idea of meaninglessness.

As someone who's not of a faith, I've always found it very interesting how oddly true the story of adam and eve is on a metaphorical level:

Man kind is one with the animals. One day mankind eats from the tree of knowledge (could be read as developing language, which was our first major leap in to what we know as human intelligence), suddenly man kind has cut himself off from the rest of the animal kingdom (which we have done, seperated ourselves both physically and in terms of 'class' from the animal kingdom), and mankind enters a life of misery as punishment (back to that apathy and depression I mentioned earlier). The only thing leading mankind back to happyness (according to the bible) is faith and spirituality. Very odd.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Aaa but things like The Life of Brian is mocking, hate speeches aren't mocking, that's insulting. But the FSM isn't just mocking, it's also a statement and reaction against various (logical) problems with religion.

Hmmm... not quite sure how I feel about it. See it simply isn't very funny. Life of Brian was a complete parody of the entire life of Jesus, but could get away with it simply because it was very funny. The FSM comes across as a simple stinging attack against all that is religious simply because it can't be proven to the satisfaction of the creator of the FSM (and we all know which idiot that is). I agree with the principle of keeping the notion of intelligent design out of the school curriculum. I mean, it's something someone just made up and therefore really doesn't have a place in the school classroom. But why was it necessary to attack religion in this manner in order to achieve that end?

What I want is true secularism. Complete and total freedom of religion and freedom of non-religion too for those that run that way. A few people (Bobby Henderson, Dawkins, C. Hitchens, completely retarded dumbarses like this [http://www.atheists.net/]) don't want that. They want state sponsored atheism. As we have seen in the past, such states are no better than theocracies. If a person is religious they should have no fear about stating that. I don't care if they are Christian, Buddhist, Satanist, Hindu, Demonaltrist, or any of the above.

Arguments like FSM destroy any possibility of doing that. It doesn't appeal to people to be reasonable and try to see your point of view. It simply states that your point of view must be right because theirs has a weakness, thus they must back down and declare you the winner. How are all sides supposed to come to an agreement that nobody really knows the answers and that such things are best left up to individuals to decide when shite like that goes on?

Why would a spiritual mind as an evolutionary trait flourish? Easy. Those that would naturally lean towards spiritualism might stave off the apathy and the depression that might come from such scary thoughts that first touched man when man began 'thinking' in language, such as the idea of the 'self', the idea of 'existence' and the idea of no longer 'being' one day, and back to what I was saying earlier, the idea of meaninglessness.

There are countless other possibilities. Perhaps religiosity is merely a symptom of abstract thought? Perhaps for larger societies to grow culture would be needed, and people with religious genes were the most successful early humans in adapting and forming large groups? Far more research is needed and even then I don't think a satisfactory answer will ever be reached. It is not possible to prove one way or the other about god, we should simply go with what we feel ourselves.

As someone who's not of a faith, I've always found it very interesting how oddly true the story of adam and eve is on a metaphorical level:

Man kind is one with the animals. One day mankind eats from the tree of knowledge (could be read as developing language, which was our first major leap in to what we know as human intelligence), suddenly man kind has cut himself off from the rest of the animal kingdom (which we have done, seperated ourselves both physically and in terms of 'class' from the animal kingdom), and mankind enters a life of misery as punishment (back to that apathy and depression I mentioned earlier). The only thing leading mankind back to happyness (according to the bible) is faith and spirituality. Very odd.

Yep. This is how I interpreted the story of Adam and Eve. The earth was a paradise before humans arrived on the scene and wanted to take it all. Animals all adapted to the world around them. Humans just moved on from area to area to area, consuming everything, and leaving a concrete wasteland behind in the process (if not a minefield). Ok it wasn't quite that grim but you get my point. The inability of humans to resist temptation and using up every little resource that is available could eventually lead to us even loosing what we have now.

But that's a digression. Whoops.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I disagree. There is no reason to mock. And religion isn't simply a dogma or doctrine, it is also a way of life and a state of being for many people. People frown on racism, homophobia, and mysogony. It wasn't so long back that these things were not only considered acceptable but were in some way expected of you. By the exact same token Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and all others I missed should not be mocked or abused because of what they are.

Mocking the likes of the creationist museum or someone like Falwell, yes. But they hardly represent religion these days. They are on the lunatic fringe and should be treated as such.

So where do I draw the line? Me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to mock the idea that chanting special words over a special biscuit will turn it into human flesh ready for human consumption. It's absurd on its face... when taken literally. (And yes, there are people who take Transubstantiation literally.)

The book of Genesis, and the Norse and Greek and Huron creation myths for that matter, makes for stirring metaphor. I have no quarrel with that. I do, however, reserve the right to point out the absurdities that arise when someone insists that everyone grant special privilege to it merely on the basis that it is sacrosanct and cannot be mocked.

I saw the movie based on Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose; I dearly would have loved to read the book in that library that the somber faction of monks was so determined not be seen, the one that defended the concept of laughter.

-- Steve

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I disagree. There is no reason to mock. And religion isn't simply a dogma or doctrine, it is also a way of life and a state of being for many people. People frown on racism, homophobia, and mysogony. It wasn't so long back that these things were not only considered acceptable but were in some way expected of you. By the exact same token Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and all others I missed should not be mocked or abused because of what they are.

Mocking the likes of the creationist museum or someone like Falwell, yes. But they hardly represent religion these days. They are on the lunatic fringe and should be treated as such.

So where do I draw the line? Me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to mock the idea that chanting special words over a special biscuit will turn it into human flesh ready for human consumption. It's absurd on its face... when taken literally. (And yes, there are people who take Transubstantiation literally.)

You should mock it whenever you feel it is necessary. The line you draw is entirely dependant on how you, as a human being, value the human being on the other side of the table where you are seated. Generally speaking I go for the DNFUFO rule (Do Not Fire Unless Fired Upon). Jehovas witnesses knocking at your door, people telling you that you are destined for a big furnace with demons putting pokers up your arse.... fire at will and enjoy yourself. Religious people, minding their own business, not causing any quarrel with you or attempting to bring you over to their way of thinking... is mocking necessary? If you wish to engage them in discussion then being reasonable about it might yield more positive results.

The book of Genesis, and the Norse and Greek and Huron creation myths for that matter, makes for stirring metaphor. I have no quarrel with that. I do, however, reserve the right to point out the absurdities that arise when someone insists that everyone grant special privilege to it merely on the basis that it is sacrosanct and cannot be mocked.

I saw the movie based on Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose; I dearly would have loved to read the book in that library that the somber faction of monks was so determined not be seen, the one that defended the concept of laughter.

-- Steve

I prefer the Norse myths of creation actually. Wolves chasing the sun and moon around and trying to eat them and stuff like that. Thunder coming from the wheels of Thors chariot as he is riding around fighting frost giants. Fantastic stuff.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

You should mock it whenever you feel it is necessary. The line you draw is entirely dependant on how you, as a human being, value the human being on the other side of the table where you are seated. Generally speaking I go for the DNFUFO rule (Do Not Fire Unless Fired Upon). Jehovas witnesses knocking at your door, people telling you that you are destined for a big furnace with demons putting pokers up your arse.... fire at will and enjoy yourself.

That's exactly where the FSM came from; when the Kansas Board of Education decided to teach Intelligent Design (a false-front "alternate theory" intended to support the literal interpretation of Genesis, according to the US Supreme Court) in biology classes because the board members felt uncomfortable with the incredibly valuable theory of evolution. The entire "church" was created to parody the ID movement by pointing out that "teaching the controversy" would have to accept all creation myths... even ones obviously invented on the spot... according to the reasoning put forth in their decision document.

That others picked up the (meat) ball and ran with it is a separate matter.

-- Steve

 

[ForrestDixon]

Thats really strange I though Google had everything.

Well it didn't explain enough for me to understand it

I guess its like Googeling strange kinky fetishishes. You may know whats happening but you may not know why. Google cant have all the answers!!!

 

[DELTA x WOLF]

Thats really strange I though Google had everything.

Well it didn't explain enough for me to understand it

I guess its like googleing strange kinky fetishists. You may know whats happening but you may not know why. GOOGLE CANT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS!!

Hey you have your CAPS on, don't forget to turn them off it makes you sound like your yelling, and that's just not good for you

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

What I want is true secularism. Complete and total freedom of religion and freedom of non-religion too for those that run that way. A few people (Bobby Henderson, Dawkins, C. Hitchens, completely retarded dumbarses like this [http://www.atheists.net/]) don't want that. They want state sponsored atheism. As we have seen in the past, such states are no better than theocracies. If a person is religious they should have no fear about stating that. I don't care if they are Christian, Buddhist, Satanist, Hindu, Demonaltrist, or any of the above.

I can't speak for the others but I have read some of Hitchens and Dawkins work. I thought it was pretty clear that their ideals didn't involve abolishment at all, the chief goal being to take away the absurd level of respect religion and religious practices get.

 

[timmytom1]

Greatest religion ever?