A ridiculous religion!

[Massacre]

This should cause a lot of discussion. It's the weirdest thing I've seen in a long, long time.

The link is also in my profile. Read this article and comment and discuss. I've read it through but I want to hear what you guys have to say.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

Enjoy the article. Again, please come back and discuss it. I won't say anything until people have started reading it.

[Karuka]

AHAHAH!!!

At last, I meet someone who has been touched by His Noodly Appendage!

[Massacre]

Haha, you've already seen this? Isn't it absolutely odd?

[Karuka]

FSM is almost canon in one of the circles in which I once traveled.

But they were idiots, so I ditched them.

And yes...FSM is completely odd. As is Pastafarianism.

And I never got how Pirates = Global Warming.

[Massacre]

I'm not quite sure. And pirates pillage (I think that's the word). They don't hand out candy and other things to small children!

And they live by the "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" compared to the Ten Commandments.
I wonder what they really are though.. I suppose you'd have to buy the gospel.

[Karuka]

The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#The_Eig ht_.22I.27d_Really_Rather_You_Didn.27ts.22)

[Massacre]

Or maybe scroll down the page. >_>

That's pretty funny stuff. I'll post them when I have more time we can all abide. :p

[Lucien]

And I never got how Pirates = Global Warming.

That's the point...

It shows how correlations do not imply relationship. Just because there's global warming doesn't mean it's caused by the dwindling number of Pirates, just like other statistics aren't in direct relation to each other.

[Massacre]

How'd you like the 8 "I'd Really Rather If You Didn'ts" Lucien? Or didn't you read them?

[Koran]

This religion is not rediculious, it is genius.

I for one, would say 'screw you' to all of today's religions and follow this one, as it makes more sense and by the fact that His Noodly Appendage, is actually quite a tasty meal.

And I love the 8's. So much better than the Ten Commandments.

[Lucien]

How'd you like the 8 "I'd Really Rather If You Didn'ts" Lucien? Or didn't you read them? Was that the one with Leather and Las Vegas? The all capital thing sort've threw my off when I was reading. I'll go check now.

EDIT: I severely disagree with that one. As long as you have party favors; it's not rape, it's surprise sex.

[Massacre]

Heh, Koran, the 8 I'd Rather You Really Didn'ts are pretty funny but thought up quite spontaneously I imagine. I think despite the "genius" the man may have, he's a wee-bit crazy.

As for you Lucien, you're not supposed to interpret the meanings, they're very clear and straightforward for a reason! :p

[The Archer]

Hey, hey.

Don't diss the man just because he's going to start the Pastafarian Reformation.

Whatever happened to the "Don't be mean to each other over petty differences in opinion" Rather you didn't?

He can even tell the difference between Teal and Fuschia, I think.

[Massacre]

I think that there's one that touches on that, Archer. Not positive, they're hard to remember with all the capital letters.

[grim137]

I have seen light. Seriously, I read the 8 and not only was it some of the funniest stuff I've read in awhile I actually agree with most of it.

[Massacre]

Haha, it is things that a lot of people would agree with.

Shall we all become Pastafarians? :p

[Bernard]

I would. :)

[Zook Murnig]

There was a law somewhere that said that in order for evolution to be taught in science classes, intelligent design had to be taught in science as well. Stupid idea, in my opinion. Save it for History class.

However, it was required that ALL religions had to be brought up at least in passing. So, this guy came up with a completely absurd idea of the creation of the world by a flying monster made out of spaghetti with a mountain, a tree, and a "midgit." Pirates would be the great saviors of the religion, and they would no longer be evil men, but candy-givers.

And it was required to be taught in science classes.

That way, the law was proven to be stupid and I think it was repealed.

[Massacre]

Yeah, they touch on that in the article. I think it was about ID though. But they argued that it had too many religious aspects to be considered science and it couldn't be proven with evidence, or form any new hypotheses, ect.

[Karuka]

Bah. I would mention FSM in my class. Lecture title: Humor in Religion.

[Massacre]

Hehe, I agree with you on that one.

I'd take your class. ^^

[Cyrus the virus]

FSM is a really common favorite among people who know next to nothing about being religious (notice I didn't say religion, here). A very basic argument against religion twisted into an insult.

So yeah, you guys enjoy that :p

[grim137]

What I think is funny is the way people have twisted the FSM. Some people are starting to take it as a serious, religion while others think it was meant to insult the religious in general (mainly christians) neither of which is true. The best part is that the creator (and several articles on the FSM) have stated that its sole purpose was to make fun of the the school board's decision to include ID in science classes (something I am highly against).

[Cyrus the virus]

It's used as a means to bash religion constantly. Like, everywhere, all the time. I'm just saying it's a poor argument to use if you're going to use it in that way.

[Iain]

I've seen this before, me and my friends found that site a long while back. Have any of you heard of the invisible pink unicorn?

IPU (http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm)

[Zook Murnig]

I have heard of this colorfully colorless horned horse before.

It is amazing how it can be both pink AND invisible, but therein lies its godhood.

[Artifex Felicis]

How the hell did this slip by me? I use the image of His Noodely appendage about to touch Adam as my computer Backround. Fun stuff, Pastafarians, fun stuff. Funny story, I actually wrote a paper for it in a Religion class and got a good grade on it. It was an interesting expereance.

And now to slip back into the shadows.

[Fenris]

(On a slightly more serious note...)

Here are my thoughts:

1) Differing opinions exist about the origin of life, the world and whatnot.
2) Most are supported by some degree of evidence.
3) Few have been completely disproven.
4) What we teach our kids should (reasonably) reflect this.

Now, allow me to expand. (Sidenote: I discuss best through comparison, so bear with me through the soon-to-come analogy to whether the earth is round or not.)


People would get upset if a teacher in say, a humanities class, started teaching the kids that Jesus Christ truly was the savior of the world and the son of God. People would say "Well hold on, now. Not everyone believes that, so how can you teach us that it's the truth?"

Suppose I believe God created the world in six days and formed the first man from the dust of the earth.

Suppose a science teacher teaches me that man evolved from homo erectus, which evolved from another form of ape-like creature, whose ancestry eventually dates back to life-conducive water and carbon floating about some millions and millions of years ago.

Well hold on, now. Not everyone believes that, so how can you teach us that it's the truth?

The truth is that there is evidence to suggest that life evolved all by itself millions and millions of years ago. There is also evidence to support the existence of an intelligent Creator.

There are scientists who are convinced by the evidence that evolution gave birth to the vast array of life on this planet.

There are other scientists who are convinced by the evidence that God did.

So shouldn't we teach both?

Well, no. FSM is an excellent example of why that would be impossible. There are way too many beliefs--some fairly bizarre--to fit them all into a curriculum. What I advocate is the word "may."

Humans may have evolved from lower stages of life. Some scientists believe that they did. Some scientists believe that they did not.

Problem solved.

Granted, if evolution is the only theory ever taught, it's still not very fair. You can say "it's just a theory" all you want, but if you don't present any alternatives, it kinda defeats the purpose.

But again, we can't teach every opinion out there. So, on that thought:

We do teach that the world is round.

Statistically, in all likelihood, there is probably some remote tribe deep in the jungles of Africa that has never been told that the world is not flat. They would call you ridiculous if you told them otherwise. Some young children are the same way.

And yet, we teach our kids, with absolute certainty, that the earth is round. A huge majority of the world's population has been convinced by the evidence (or at least, been told by someone they believe to be smart) that the earth is in fact spherical. Very few people have actually launched themselves into orbit to see the curvature for themselves, but the information we've been given, and the logic we've been presented with, has been enough to convince us.

Hence, we teach that the world is round.

Suppose about half the population condemned that theory and claimed Earth was flat. Suppose they came up with around the same quantity of evidence as the round-thinkers to support their ideas. Which claim would we teach?

Both.

Because some scientists believe one way, some scientists believe another way, and neither group has managed to prove the other wrong.

Now, what would happen if a third group sprang up, claiming that the world was not round but neither perfectly flat. It was actually bent at an angle.

If much of their belief, and the evidence they supported it with, was the same as that of the flat-thinkers, would we go into depth about both theories in our astronomy classes?

Probably not. To save time, we'd tell the students that some scientists believe the world is round, for X and Y reason, and others believe it is not round, for A and B reason.


Thus:

Some people believe life originated through a process of evolution, because the fact that organisms adapt to their environment as well as fragments of fossil records (among other things) suggest that to be the case. Other people believe life originated from the actions of some intelligent force (thoughts on this point vary from God to Aliens to Flying Spaghetti Monsters), because the complexity of life and the statistical likelihood of spontaneously-occurring life-conducive conditions (among other things) hint at the hand of a Designer.


P.S. Religious parodies in general bug me. I mean, people have died for these beliefs...I think it'd be best not to use them as punchlines.

P.P.S. Although, I absolutely love IRYD #1. It's in the Bible, but had it been a Commandment, people might have taken better notice...

[Karuka]

That's why teachers nowadays are required to say with big flashing neon signs that "THIS IS A THEORY" and then define theory.

Karuka's Origins of the World Class:

Hindus believe the world was created from Vishnu.

Jews/Christians/Muslims believe that God formed the world from a void.

The Japanese believe that there were these two lover gods that were thrown from heaven (or they were brother and sister...OR they were both) and they are land and water.

Ancient Egypt had it that there was a god that formed the earth (and I totally forgot his name), and that the sky was his wife, Nut, and they are the mother/father of everything.

Ancient Greeks and Romans believed the same, only the gender roles were switched and Saturn totally ATE his kids. As did his victorious son. But they finally put a stop to that with Gen III. And then men were made. Several times.

In the Philipines, the creator god made the earth and then baked him some people. There were the underdone and pasty ones, the burnt and dark ones, and then the perfect ones.

In the Popol Vulh (Mayan tradition), the earth was formless and then the gods created the world (bloody missionaries mixing up the religion), and there were stone people (that had no emotions), and wood people (too cruel), and finally clay people (bloody missionaries).

And then there was the FSM, who was made by a college student in Minnesota. This is what we call a spiteful JOKE, children.

/religions class

*goes back to reading about memorialization. Bloody classwork.*

[Of Free Will]

Eh...I don't like religious parodies either. I ESPECIALLY don't like when people try to tell me I'm wrong because I believe that God created all that exists. It's cool to have you're own opinion and I respect it as such, but sometimes people get angry with me when I tell them I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. Basically what I'm saying is, although the guy who created FSP got his point across in a clever, almost genious way, the whole thing sort of touches sensitive areas that refer to Christianity, and it generally makes me feel " Eh. "

Yep

[Massacre]

The thing that bugs me most is that he did do it as a joke. There are better ways to get your point across. Appealing to the courts is one of the things that makes this country what it is.

Although his thoughts were creative I don't think people understand why he did it. Not for people to seriously convert to Pastafarism but to make a point.

The reason they teach evolution in the classroom is very simple. It can be supported by evidence (no matter if you believe it or not) and you can form a new hypothesis from that evidence.

You'd be a fool to deny the similarities between apes and humans whether or not you think the theory is true or not.

An argument then could be, cats and dogs are similar, are dogs evolved from ancient wild cats? Are cats evolved from ancient, smaller, wild dogs? The questions are endless and can be supported (more of less) with evidence.

ID is not taught because of the religious factor. People don't do the Pledge of Allegiance because it says "God" in it. Mentioning God in a classroom full of 3rd graders would get a teacher punished for fired.

The problem to me really seems to be everyone's obsession over religion. I personally don't have a religion and I don't believe in God, although I used to.

There are a few things to consider about religion;

1. So many wars are over religion.
2. Religion brings religious jokes, which hurt and offend other people.
3. When people begin associating with only people of their own religion that is not necessarily good. (My friend will only date Born Again Christians, limiting her choices greatly).
4. Priests having sex with young boys? No thanks.

And a few positive things;

1. It gives people something to hold onto that gives them hope. (Hope is the right word there right?)
2. Church on Sundays gives people a sense of responsibility and allows younger people to get experience interacting with older people, becoming more mature.

So I guess that was only a couple but I can't think of more right now.

And the other reason they don't teach anything with religion in a science class is because religion has so many varieties that it would be impossible to fully discuss them all. That's what they have a philosophy class in college for.

And they only teach theories having enough evidence and a large percentage of the scientific community supporting it. Otherwise the theory (no matter how accurate or supported) would not be taught.

Done with my little part. :)

[Fenris]

"The thing that bugs me most is that he did do it as a joke. There are better ways to get your point across."

Agreed.

Although his thoughts were creative I don't think people understand why he did it. Not for people to seriously convert to Pastafarism but to make a point.

Agreed, and...oy...the fact that he's actually getting converts is a shining testament to our society's level of cognitive function...

The reason they teach evolution in the classroom is very simple. It can be supported by evidence (no matter if you believe it or not) and you can form a new hypothesis from that evidence.

Agreed, but then...the same is true of intelligent design. I've already mentioned the pro-design scientific movement; there is evidence to back them, just as there is evidence to back evolutionary theory. Neither side has managed to disprove the other. At the most, evolutionists have shown that ID is not necessary, and ID proponents have shown that evolution is improbable. Impossible? We can't say. Disproven? Everybody's working on it. As for new hypotheses: the idea of God will certainly not limit science. At the most, embracing it establishes an "ultimate cause." The very beginning, the ultimate causality. But even that prompts questions. Do divine creations still occur? Is divine intervention still at work in biological functions? Why did God design the appendix? Were some organisms created earlier than others? There are plenty of hypotheses to go around.

You'd be a fool to deny the similarities between apes and humans whether or not you think the theory is true or not.

Agreed. Do those similarities prove evolution? Well...no. As others have said, correlation isn't the same as causation. God could very well have just created apes and humans to look somewhat alike. Such similarities fit design theory just as well as they fit evolutionary theory.

An argument then could be, cats and dogs are similar, are dogs evolved from ancient wild cats? Are cats evolved from ancient, smaller, wild dogs? The questions are endless and can be supported (more of less) with evidence.

Agreed. When were cats created in relation to dogs? Were they actually created, or just designed, and then physically "built" through divinely-directed evolutionary processes? The questions are endless and can be supported (more or less) with evidence. (Granted: Divinely-directed evolutionary processes are difficult to tag. But then, any of the above questions require the assumption of evolution's validity, just as these questions require the assumption of intelligent design. And thus, one of the major roadblocks in our scientific system...)

ID is not taught because of the religious factor. People don't do the Pledge of Allegiance because it says "God" in it. Mentioning God in a classroom full of 3rd graders would get a teacher punished for fired.

Agreed. But the question is, why? The answer I've heard: Third graders are impressionable, so we can't have the teachers they trust and look up to pushing a worldview. This is valid. But then...pushing an evolutionary theory in which there is no God is a worldview, too, isn't it?

The problem to me really seems to be everyone's obsession over religion.

Agreed. In addition, it seems to me people obsess over science a lot, too. I've heard scientists assert (here (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html)) that intelligent design can't be considered since "science requires a specific model that can be tested," and there's no comprehensible model for a divine being. I feel safe saying this on a fantasy writers' site: What if there's more out there than what we can make models of? Could they exist, even if we can't understand them?

There are a few things to consider about religion;

1. So many wars are over religion.

So many wars are over politics.

2. Religion brings religious jokes, which hurt and offend other people.

Race brings racial jokes, which hurt and offend people.

3. When people begin associating with only people of their own religion that is not necessarily good. (My friend will only date Born Again Christians, limiting her choices greatly).

It bugs me, too, when religious types refuse to associate with anyone outside their circle of thought. On the subject of your friend, though, she's probably pretty wise. In all probability, romance with someone who disagrees with you about the basis of life won't get very far.

4. Priests having sex with young boys? No thanks.

The world is full of plumber/librarian/teacher/scientist/CEO/engineer/poet perverts too. Priests are human, and they mess up just like anybody else.

I guess my point is that, again, correlation doesn't equate to causality. With all the wars that have been fought over politics, perhaps we should stop teaching our kids about government?

And the other reason they don't teach anything with religion in a science class is because religion has so many varieties that it would be impossible to fully discuss them all. That's what they have a philosophy class in college for.

Agreed, like I said earlier.

And they only teach theories having enough evidence and a large percentage of the scientific community supporting it. Otherwise the theory (no matter how accurate or supported) would not be taught.

Agreed. I tried to express this idea in my last post--but you said it way better. But, hence my dilemma--intelligent design fits this bill.

I guess what I'd really like is for teachers to present both sides of the argument. That's the only way to fully present the issue, right? I'm all for teaching kids the science of evolution and natural selection--but we should also teach them about the scientific questions people have raised, the statistical challenges to evolution, and in general the theory's shortcomings. That's the only way to present the full issue, and to not encourage any one side until the other has been disproven. That way, we're not "impressing" any worldviews on fragile children, and they can decide for themselves.

(Yes, that's a grotesque simplification. But you get my drift.)

Leave the religious and philosophical details to the Philosophy class. But tell the kids the whole story.

[Massacre]

The world is full of plumber/librarian/teacher/scientist/CEO/engineer/poet perverts too. Priests are human, and they mess up just like anybody else.

Priests are supposed to be the emissaries of God. And as such should not give in to such temptations despite their human influence.

[Koran]

RAmen to all that jazz. Hee hee, I like this religion.

[Sorahn]

We do teach that the world is round.

Statistically, in all likelihood, there is probably some remote tribe deep in the jungles of Africa that has never been told that the world is not flat. They would call you ridiculous if you told them otherwise. Some young children are the same way.

And yet, we teach our kids, with absolute certainty, that the earth is round. A huge majority of the world's population has been convinced by the evidence (or at least, been told by someone they believe to be smart) that the earth is in fact spherical. Very few people have actually launched themselves into orbit to see the curvature for themselves, but the information we've been given, and the logic we've been presented with, has been enough to convince us.


LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society) :D

Anyways, personally I think he makes a very effective argument by using satire (I'm actually a big fan of satire) but as a Christian, I do find some of the directly insulting remarks rather annoying. I also find the "we should be accepting of all religions and respect everyone's beliefs, but we're going to ridicule and harass Christians because they are just dumb" attitude to be a little bit odd. Even if this wasn't the aim of the FSM idea, it reminds me too much of similar things I've seen in the media and read on the internet.

And yes, the fact that there are some people who are serious about joining this religion when it has been stated publicly to be created by a college student as a ridiculous joke makes me sad for our society.

[Elrundir]

Priests are supposed to be the emissaries of God. And as such should not give in to such temptations despite their human influence.
And politicians are supposed to be the leaders of the free world; scientists and engineers the pioneers of innovation and invention; doctors the workers of healing and medicine. There are pedophiles among their ranks too. Is it fair to say that medicine or politics are flawed because of that? One bad apple does not, I'm afraid, spoil the bunch.

I agree with Fenris for the most part. Anything you can pin on religion you can also pin on politics, race, sex, or even age to some degree. Prejudice is prevalent in our society, whether religion exists or not, and so you cannot hold religion any more accountable for those things than you would anything else.

Though I won't say too much else since I like to avoid religious discussions on principle. In my experience no good has ever come from such a debate.

[Massacre]

My point is that they (only some, but not all) preach but don't follow their own teachings. And of course anyone can be a pedophile but the point is that priests are supposed to be holy men.

[Zook Murnig]

My point is that they (only some, but not all) preach but don't follow their own teachings. And of course anyone can be a pedophile but the point is that priests are supposed to be holy men.

More than that, they're supposed to be celibate. Meaning they don't have sex, whether it's with men or women, young or old, or anything in between.

[Elrundir]

My point is that they (only some, but not all) preach but don't follow their own teachings. And of course anyone can be a pedophile but the point is that priests are supposed to be holy men.
You're right, of course, but my point is that you can't use those select few priests as a reason to say people shouldn't be obsessed about religion, or use it as something for which you can point at it and say, "Bad, bad catholicism!" unless you're going to do the same thing to... well, just about every other institution in the world. You can hold it against those priests, sure. But what if we started hearing about doctors, let's say pediatricians, who were being intimate with their patients? We certainly wouldn't call the medical system corrupt or hypocritical. The majority of good outweighs the minority that's bad, and the same standard should apply elsewhere.

[Massacre]

There are people like you mentioned, doctors and whatnot. I was watching this show about some dentist who would lock the doors after he put his patients out to have their teeth pulled and would molest them and such. I just take novocaine when I go to the dentist now.

The point is that when a few priests do something they should expect a bad reputation, they represent their whole religion. And not all priests do it obviously but the ones that do give their respective religions a bad name.

[Fenris]

Again, you're right.

The fact that there are pedophilic priests is disgusting. It's really disgusting, disappointing, and considerably disillusioning. And it would follow that their actions would (and do) give their religion a bad name.

All we're saying is that it probably shouldn't. It makes more sense, to me, to condemn the corrupt priest before we condemn his entire institution as corrupt.

But, just like being wary of letting dentists knock you out to pull some teeth, will we ever be able to look at priests the same way?

Well...I will at least, because I never expected them to be perfect in the first place. I gave up on anybody being perfect a long time ago. In fact, when you think about it, a basic tennet of the very faith those priests represent is that no human being on earth is without sin. And while that does not in any way make what they did any less disgusting, disappointing, or disillusioning, when you consider the huge number of priests there are out there, statistically...

I am sadly not surprised.

All that to say, in my opinion, we should condemn the corrupt priest before we condemn the Church.