While one may correctly say that evolution is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in†Creation as it is literally set forth in Genesis.
The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.
Evolution is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Creationist spouts.
Sean O’leary
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
I just read a few of the following posts (after OEJ) and you could be right about memes. The ID/creationist theory, it is not a theory, has just chosen bits out of others theories to tack together something they think may help them. Wouldn’t surprise me if their belief gene was thought up using the memes hypothesis. What a bunch of wankers.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@NowtheworldhasMeaning
It is something I know little about but hopefully can learn anyone advise any books on this subject?
I’d go with Richard Dawkins. I am particularly interested in “The Selfish Gene” which I still havn’t had a chance to read. Over my next break definately.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The God Gene
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm
Shows how much christians are confused about what they actually believe in.
my conscience: “Niki you are supposed to be working”
me:”I know it’s just that the FSM site is so good. There are all these really good posts there and it’s a worthwhile cause. Besides Friday is our holy day.”
conscience “Finish your work first ok I need those figures”
me: ok ok
Catch you guys later
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And another one @ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml
‘God gene’ discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory
By Elizabeth Day
(Filed: 14/11/2004)
Religious belief is determined by a person’s genetic make-up according to a study by a leading scientist.
After comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples, an American molecular geneticist has concluded that a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.
His findings were criticised last night by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a “god gene” and say that the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith – that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain’s electrical impulses………”
Interesting in the context of the ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE post
“…….Hence, those who believe have a selective advantage over those who do not. Belief in a supernatural being leads to more offspring.”
Warning: Believing in god can make you pregnant.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry guys, both those articles are identical.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also my ideas of where this might have come from stand corrected.
There are just so many amazing things going on in molecular biology (in all the biological sciences actually), due to the modern molecular techniques that are now available, that it is impossible to keep up with them.
There is a hell of a backload leftover from before modern techniques were available. Things like malaria as well as a whole lot of genetically/non-genetically
inherited diseases (bacterial,viral) and developmental processes ect ect.
The ability to manipulate and sequence DNA and thus genes, has just exploded the biological fields.
I guess I am a bit protective against junk science creeping in especially when research has come this far. Darwinian theory is the basis on which experiments are designed to carry out reseach in a numbers of fields concerning human biology as well as the biology of all other living things. It should be seriously protected.
No doubt there will be some consequences due to the explosion of these new molecular technologies. Population numbers for a start, due to disease cures and genetic modifications to produce food crops for places like Africa ect. But each and every individual on the planet has a right to fruits of any scientific discovery. Unlike the fundamentalist christians who may “proclaim only certain people can come into OUR heaven/hell” scientists don’t differentiate who may have the benefits of their discoveries.
It is impossible to completely keep junk science out. After a few years (maybe sooner) they are discredited by peer review. In the meantime people might read their stuff and agree with it. If people only read the junk, then that is all they know. It will probably impress them if they have only a limited understanding of the concepts.
I am still not sure whether all “clerics” disagree with the “belief gene”. I think maybe some, as in the ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE post, think the concept handy to swing the ID/creationist debate. I can’t see how, but I haven’t thought about it enough. Then again they may not have been handed down the final orders from their head honcho yet as to what they believe. I find the whole thing (ID vs Evolution) really weird in this day and age and still find it hard to believe it is actually happening. Its not like the facts aren’t available or anything.
AnywayI was just reading over some stuff at home and got a bit passionate here.
Thats enough.
Tired! Rambling on!
RAmen
ps Did I say I really really like molecular biology?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@nikiee
I agree with you completely. My girlfriend did a Biology Degree which covers Microbiology and Genetics. She now has a very astounding level of understanding on biology. But even during her studying time she was amazed at the amount of people that still question Evolution, including Lecturers and students (but most of this seemed to be due to their religious background).
Doing casual observations I have noticed that people need to believe in something. Ranging from your major religions to crystal balls, ghosts and many more strange things. The conclusion I came to is that peoples fears stop them from accepting Evolution. It’s a need of self importance stops them from accepting the idea of the fact that when you die that is it. The fact is your life. You only get one go at it and there is no such place like heaven or hell. Its this fear of death that is what keeps all religions going. Because when we die we get to go to heaven and enjoy our self’s in a stress free environment where I don’t have to go to work everyday to pay my bills, work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week just to be able to eat.
The other thing I have noticed is peoples urge to be part of a group/collective. For example people are proud to support a football team and wear their football shirts. Or join a religious group or go out with a group of people, we naturally need groups. I believe this goes back to a basic survival instinct where your odds of survival are higher in a group then as a single being. Hence our urge to be with people and socialise. This is so in build that when people don’t socialise they get lonely.
The other thing about groups and group activity is the support they provide this is something else that makes religions so appealing. For example: You move to a different city. You know that when you go to a church on Sunday you will find many like minded people there. Who will help you (Group Support) settle in to your new community. This provides many survival advantages helps you learn more about the area and where everything is (in hunting terms where the berries are, fresh water etc).
So my personal conclusion is religious/social organisations will be a major part of human interaction and social structure for many years to come. Until the time comes where we as individuals are brought up in a religious neutral environment where once you a fully educated past the age of 16 and only then will you be allowed to make a choice on joining a religion. This will give the individual a choice and the time to develop their own points of view instead of being introduced to them and a very young age.
Sorry about my ramblings.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok, so yeah, I totally made the whole thing up. Serious? Other than trying to help the ID folks see the reason they are as they are (on a much more biological scale, if they could clue in) due to the randomness of evolution, no. As far as I know, just as many people in the know (of which I really am not) about Maslow do not agree with him as agree with him. I’m glad however I rated that 0.5/10 for my attempt at Darwinian theory. Room for improvement keeps me from getting bored. GO ME!
And oh, yeah, as a recovering Catholic, I used to think belief in god may make some people pregnant (lots of families with 10 or more kids in my neighborhood). The nuns told me in school that kissing could, too. As a kid I couldn’t reconcile however, why the nuns were never pregnant (except one but that’s a whole other story, something to do with kissing).
So anyway, thanks for all of your constructive criticism, and if you find that “belief gene” let me know so I can incorporate it into my next version of “truth.”
Cheers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the foundation of your faith was that Catholicism and kissing made you pregnant, perhaps it is best for everyone that you moved on.
A pregnant nun is the best kind of nun anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is this a non-accepting pastafarian? I thought they didn’t exist. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“according to a study by a leading scientist”
.
I just love this phrase and thought it needed to be highlighted. Ever notice how when evidence is really shady or the research is suspect that the authors are “a leading scientist” or “a leading doctor”, but never a name?
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lote You are so spot on and put it accross perfectly.
A big RAmen :)
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE
Sorry if I was a bit harsh on you. If you read my post, ( two posts before your last) following my critiscism, you will read my correction as to my vague references to the origins of the “belief gene”. After referencing an article the term was actually coined/ attributed to molecular geneticist.
As I said I had remembered, vaguely, hearing of something along these lines.
Your school experience is the reason I get so angry about indocrinating kids with religion school. It just doesn’t prepare for the real word. The last ones I want to blame are the people who were subjected to this type of education. So my anger is not directed at you.
My father was brought up in a catholic minded home and attended a catholic school run by nuns. (Later on in his life he always laughed about them hitching their habits up teaching the boys to play football) However when we were kids (7 kids in mine) we were never really exposed to religion at home. My fathers attitude was that we could choose for ourselves whether we wanted to go there, so to speak. None of us did. He also always pointed out to me the wonders of nature. I learn’t in my 20s that he reaaly absolutely detested, well I would call it organised religion. I did actually choose to go to church from about 8-12. I think for the reasons lote was stating. A few of my good friends went. My cousin is heamistress of a catholic school. She never brings religion up with me and she is also a great person. I think what I am getting at is that
it is the organisation that most pepole are atttacking (unless you send nasty hate mail in the name of Jesus, then you are fair game) not the individuals who really haven’t had a choice in be exposed to this sort of indoctrination. That is the thing this site is fighting against.
Niki
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I lie, my cousin is not a heamistress, she is actually a “headmistress” of a catholic school.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No worries Nikkiee, I have a pretty thick skin (ok literalists, not really, and it is due to nurture not nature!). You may guess I am fond of stirring the stew a bit. I must say that I thought your comment about probing C. elegans and fruitflies was clever (TH Morgan is probably spinning in his grave). To follow that hypothetical thread, how about checking the Mus genome first? Mammals tend to display more altruistic behaviors than insects/roundworms, and ok here’s a stretch… might be more likely to believe in a suppernatural being or (as you state) might be more likely to seek out spaghetti than the inverts.
Gotta run. Probably won’t post for a while. Lot’s to do and little time for it. Enjoy and pass the marinara.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE
After checking up a bit on Maslow, I think I am a bit more aware as to the theme of your original post which I responded to. I think lote was on the right track there.
Just for others: (I have inverted a pyramid which obviously could not be produced here)
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
1. Physiological (biological needs)
2. Safety
3. Love/belonging
4. Status (esteem)
5. Actualization
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with Maslow hierachy for society as a whole either. I agree that belonging to a united group covers all these needs. However I disagree that this should necessarily be a religous group.
I’m am also biased. I believe an appreciation for the wonder of science unites scientists from very different fields of scientific endeavour all over the world . We will all tell you that our chosen field is the most important. But we all laugh about that (except for the fundamentalists/ fanatics of course) together and know these fields are too relative to ecah other to separate. Example: geology can tell us why certain plants grow where they do. That is not to say I think everyone should become a scientist.
Many of us may not get around to repoducing offspring either, but there are plenty of kids in the world today who are happy for us shower our paternal/ maternal instincts on them. I have childless friends who go to some of the most remote and savage places in the world helping communities in areas such as medicine, growing food, purifying water and basic hygiene education against infectious diseases. Many also contribute to this out of their own pocket for these endeavours. Even when funds have been provided by some organisation they rarely meet the real costs involved.
Most of these people, while appreciative, would be highly embarrassed to have their name up in lights for doing this. They consider it to be just basic common human decency and they get their satisfaction out of being able to help these people. I feel is that satisfaction drives a lot of them. The other side of that coin is that they contribute to stopping the spread of epidemics which would affect a lot of those outside of an the area where they are doing these things.
So I guess for me being part of my chosen scientific community as well as family and friends pretty much covers Maslow. The stem cell debacle really embarrassed the molecular biologists (mainly because it was published in a reputable scientific magazine before the fraud was discovered) they know they will all be tagged with it
by a puplic, largely ignorant of how acceptance of research “normally” works. When the media get hold of this stuff (as with anything) they tend to coin phrases to get the attention of readers. These phrases, (usually insinating) are what the average reader remembers of the article. You get that!
Whenever I see reference to ID/creationism as science I see red and will always stand up and fight against it. The savage stuff that is happening all over the world in the name of religion (the need to believe in something) is depressing and scary. I just prefer not to get depressed or scared. A little sad for kids being born and brought up into it maybe as they don’t have the rescources of experience to not be scared and/or depressed by it all when they start to realise what is going on. Then the realisation just gets bigger and bigger.
Fear is bred out of ignorance. (by that I mean lack of knowledge) Kids who get cancer or other nasty diseeases lose most of their fear when you explain to them, in a way they can understand, how your body and the cancer are actually working against each other. Some of them, maybe going through chemotherapy or other nasty treatments, even get quite a buzz out of sitting down the adults and explaining (in their simplified way) how their particular form of disease works. The adults being lectured are usually speechless at this. We are the ones that teach kids fear (some for good reason i.e. “don’t touch that it’s hot”) and introduce them to scary concepts. (scary movies, television hell ect).
Anyway I have said enough and I have work to do.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE
I was just writing out another post to you and after I posted it you already had another one up there. You are on the ball.
As for your last post
………Mammals tend to display more altruistic behaviors than insects/roundworms, and ok here’s a stretch… might be more likely to believe in a suppernatural being…….
Reguarding the worm and fly. I know :) just couldn’t help myself there. I was tempted to go off on a Mus tangent because mice …cheese …spaghetti, but I practised self restraint.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ya evolution is fraud. right. may i just say that scientists just found a full body of human ansestor, that is better than lucy, connecting apes to humans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was a ’scientist’ until I saw the light. My former colleagues and I spent many hours fabricating skeletons that would bridge the gap of something that never happened. Upon threat of death, I am unable to tell you much of my horrible, dirty past. Suffice to say that following ‘Lucy’, they have a ‘Linus’ and ‘Charlie Brown’ planned. ‘Snoopy’ seemed to be a bit pretentious.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There was a sample of a dead animal shipped to Britain from Australia about 150 years ago. British biologists quickly assertained that it was a fake. This crazy frankenstein beast was apparantly a beaver with it’s feet sewen up and a ducks bill surgically attached. It turns out that the biologists were wrong and this was indeed a true creature. What is more they discovered later that this mammal lays eggs (one of two mammals which does this – known) and has poisoness spurs (unique to all mammals – known). This is a platapus of coarse. Who needs to create fake animals with real ones like this??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because we (now ‘they’) can. What you don’t know is they partake of a great deal of Corona Extra, which gets us (sorry… them) worked up into a creative frenzy. As is well known, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous, and a lot of it can be… well, REALLY dangerous. We (again… they) build on these ‘pranks’ and plot and plan until they have a nice system. Scientific seminars, held all over the world carry secret, corruptive messages in the lectures. Again, I know. I was once part of that sad system.
Why, you ask? Why? Because they know the truth, and they are afraid of it. They believe they can build their own fleet of pirate ships that will one day be converted into space-pirate ships. The goal is to go after FSM and try to defeat Him. This will allow them to own the Beer Volcano so they no longer will be forced to drink Corona and Ripple.
The FSM will allow them to take this as far as His whim will allow, before He removes them from His sight… permanently.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We can make a fruit flies legs grow where its eyes should be or antennae grow instead of legs. Could be dangerous. Then again could provide us with years and years of fun and laughter. Biological marcanno(?) (Lego in Australia) sets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because….you know…we don’t have solid scientific evidence pointing toward the highly probably theory of evolution or anything. I can tell you this much…if we all just sit on our asses and talk to the ceiling, we’ll never find out where exactly we came from. The answer isn’t going to magically appear in the semen stains under the desk or the week old pizza you left sitting on the table, it’s going to be through rigorous research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It might.
Have you ever seen how fast a Pizza can evolve – Once it has past from the stage of being a food it devolves to a lower lifeform and hibernates for several months before rising up to a level that we can only bow down and pay homage to.
Try this at home kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A few days ago,father of our minister of education,Maciej Giertych,professor of biology officialy denied the theory of evolution by Darwin.He also affirmed that dinosaurs lived not a long time ago-the proof-report of Marco Polo visit in China where he saw the dragon pulling the caridge,and the Loch Ness monster.As well he revealed the mammoths found on Alaska died of suffocationand as an evidence he submited their jutting penises.And as a comment I’d like to add that this is not funny ’cause the vice-minister of education agrees with these revelations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ahhhh, you poor buggers… Don’t let them win. Protest with spaghetti might. Fight for your minds. Eat pasta.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What sort of drugs are these people on?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@nikkiee:
Cheap, nasty, non-noodly drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Greetings from Poland,
.
This appears to be Maciej Giertych’s website:
.
http://giertych.pl/
.
I’m not too great at Polish. Are you able to spot if there’s a means of contact? He sounds like a man in need of pasta-spam.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE,
.
Congratulations on the neologism ’suppernatural’. A better adjective for the FSM I could not imagine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
WARNING – THIS IS THE LONGEST POST YET, I THINK.
.
I’d really appreciate feedback from any of the regulars, but you’ll need a good few minutes’ reading time and a whole lot of patience. I am but a simple pirate.
.
Guys – especially Nickiee and ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE,
.
I want to chip in to the ‘religiosity as a survival advantage’ debate started by ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE way back when. But, I’m not a scientist and I’m going to be blundering around committing all kinds of crimes against proper scientific language and thought, I expect. Nickiee, I’m trusting you to correct me – or shoot me down in flames – afterwards. (I need to learn!)
.
So, on with the guess-ery and supposition! Richard Dawkins refers to the idea of the religious inclination as a kind of ‘gap’ in the psyche that is conveniently filled by supernatural beliefs. He suggests that it may be a sort of side-effect of various traits that are evolutionarily selectable. One of them is that it makes sense for kids to be very open to accepting information given by adults, because kids who learn for themselves not to play by the cliff-edge are at a distinct survival disadvantage. This leads to the phenomenon that kids so readily take on their parents’ religion.
.
I like the phrase ‘God-Shaped Hole’ for what Dawkins is on about, because it’s one that someone used to me years ago. And I reckon that, continuing along Dawkins’ lines, there might be lots of evolutionarily plausible reasons for the God-Shaped Hole to appear. FOUR of them follow.
.
NUMBER ONE is the anthropological argument that we’ve had elsewhere. We can suppose that a group of humans who instinctively impute human feelings and intentions behind everything will be at an advantage compared to those who don’t. They’ll understand and bond with other humans, and may even be at a slight advantage in interpreting the behaviour of predators and prey (though you could see pitfalls here, too). We can see today that this instinct remains in the way we humanise our pets, treat inanimate objects like friends and give good money to astrologers. (Obviously, this is all truer for some people than others.) If a genetic difference were to differentiate between ‘expectation of, and great sensitivity to, human characteristics’ and ‘no expectation and no sensitivity of human characteristics’ then the first group should win out.
.
This helps to supply the God-Shaped nature of the Hole. We look for a big explanation and we see a Big Person, a set of human intentions.
.
NUMBER TWO is a sort of social glue, along the lines of what Lote was talking about. I’m inclined to think along the lines of the Prisoner’s Dilemma here, though. We can again see that earlier humans are at a survival advantage if they live and work in teams. It’ll take a few of you to kill that mammoth. It’d be useful if someone could mind the kids while you’re at it, and if someone else could help you drag it back to camp. You could do with friends to help guard against people who might try to take your dead mammoth from you in the night. And, having caught it and dragged it home, you’d appreciate someone who could peel it and cook it.
.
Once you’re within one of these groups, though, you might seem to be at an advantage if you break the rules – cheat a bit so that you do better than your peers. You can see this as an increasingly advantageous strategy as societies grow and become more complex, affording you more opportunities to steal, rape, rob and murder, and get away with it.
.
If this strategy is so obviously advantageous, we might expect it to be commonplace – but a society of thieves, rapists, robbers and murderers is no longer a functional, co-operating society and the whole group advantage risks falling apart. Natural selection should favour individuals that will somehow ‘self police’ and find a way to enforce a kind of behavioural code, holding their society together.
.
Enter religion, again. In the absence of an effective justice system, a species that is inclined to believe that exploiting others will result in harm to itself will have the appropriate motivation to play fair. (You might call this the ‘My Name Is Earl’ imperative.)
.
Of course, our early humans are going to be inclined to want some explanation for this feeling of universal order. Their instinct, following Point One, should be to humanise it. *Someone* will reward them for being nice to people and punish them for not doing so.
.
NUMBER THREE – Fear of death can be pretty paralysing. Firstly, there’s the point that feelings along the line of ‘if I’m just going to die anyway, then sod the guilt, I’m going to have a damn good time when I’m alive’ would pull directly against the moralistic imperative for social cohesion described above. Secondly, an early human with an overwhelming fear of death isn’t going to take the sort of risks that a braver one might – risks like charging that mammoth, spear in hand. Any early human who demonstrates an ability to diminish his or her fear of death (not completely conquer it, which could lead to suicidal risk-taking) is again at an advantage, both in terms of the bold and aggressive behaviour that secures food and wins arguments, and in terms of co-operating unselfishly with a group.
.
NUMBER FOUR – In today’s enormous and complex society, there’s room for people with all kinds of jobs. We can have professional academics, dedicating their lives to specialised fields that most of us will never think of.
.
For our distant ancestors, anyone who was inclined to spend his or her days contemplating the cosmos instead of getting on with practical matters would have been at a clear disadvantage, again. Sure, whilst we might expect the ability to think and reason to be a survival advantage, giving you an intellectual one-up on your competitors, so too would be the ability to say to yourself ‘That train of thought isn’t getting any mammoths hunted’. Early humans who descended into clouds of existential confusion would have been hungry as well as confused.
.
It’s only comparatively lately, perhaps (a few thousand years, say) that society has been at liberty to employ and support dedicated philosophers and scientists. And it’s certainly only very lately that science has reached the point of unravelling all the godism that’s built up over the millennia.
.
Basically, I’m saying that an instinct for cutting corners, choosing a simple answer and shutting out unnecessary complexities may also be evolutionarily selectable. Interestingly, this same instinct, differently applied, feeds both Occam’s Razor (‘always go for the simplest answer’) and the self-blinding behaviour of the die-hard theist (‘this evolution is a bit hard to swallow – God is much simpler!’)
.
SUMMARY – So, I’m saying that there appear to me to be common sense reasons why the evolution of humanity might have favoured the development of such traits as:
.
– an instinct to believe in humanised causes
.
– a tendency to believe in a sort of cosmic moral order, with rewards and punishments
.
– an ability to perceive death in such a way as to render it less threatening and absolute
.
– a habit of shutting the door on complicated-sounding arguments in favour of simpler ones that allow you to get on with whatever you were doing
.
Wrapping those things up together, we have the basis of a God-Shaped Hole, I think. What is god if not a human-like answer for questions that seem too difficult for us to answer, who imposes a moral code upon us, incites us to unite as a group and promises us a better life after death?
.
Just had to get that out there. Really keen to know whether this is all just blindingly obvious already, or clearly wrong in some way.
.
Ta.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Elegant, to the point (despite the length) and a well constructed argument. I just love the irony of considering the evolution of religion, a subject generally opposed to the theory.
.
I have another point however, one that isn’t so nice. How about religion as a tool?
.
It would surely aid any prospective leader if they had some source of moral high ground to call upon (listen to me, not him, he’s a heretic),
.
or some sort of divine retribution to call down on the foe (It doesn’t matter that we lost, because they will burn in hell)
.
a way to intimidate the others in the tribe (listen to me, or you are a heretic AND you will burn in hell)
.
or finally, a way to use fortuitous chance as a reinforcing argument (see, if you follow me, more wild boar will conveniently trap themselves in this gorge).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, The Aussie,
.
Thanks for the response! Thought (still think actually) that the sheer size of that might have made it one of those thread-killing posts…
.
Nice points, you make. They’re highlighting the efficacy of aspects of religion as a tool for an individual taking power within his/her lifetime, right? Can’t argue there! Don’t know whether this relates to meme theory, in any way (since I don’t really know anything about meme theory after the point when Dawkins first raised the idea).
.
I always find it kind of amazing how Christianity of the sort that I used to be a part of (Anglican low church evangelical) has managed to change, change, change with the times to stay convincing. When you see the baroque beast that is the Catholic church struggling to decide whether it’s time to ditch the idea of limbo, you appreciate just how flexible moderate Protestantism has managed to be. Once you accept Jesus, every detail is justifiable.
.
In fact, when I became a signed-up Christian, they taught me a handy little evangelical tool called ‘Two Ways To Live’, which consisted of a grid of six little pictures conveying the core message of their faith, with a New Testament quotation for each one. It ended with the big ‘will you accept Jesus or not?’ question. I wonder if an atheistic (or Pastafarian, of course) equivalent might be worthwhile. Oooh, I’ll think about it…
.
PS – Everyone: If you guys ever feel like another format for fighting creationists, IDists and the never-ending legion of multi-flavoured godists, the Richard Dawkins website is good. http://richarddawkins.net/ Choose the one with the picture of the double helix and click on any of the recent articles. Inflammatory book reviews and discussion threads abound…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@J and Aussie: I think both your posts are spot on. Witch-doctors held a lot of power over the tribes ect.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now they call them priests or “father”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J
“….Catholic church struggling to decide whether it’s time to ditch the idea of limbo….”
I thought that they had indeed decided to do this just recently?
Why do christian religions wonder at the ridicule they recieve over their version of the “truTh” contained in various editions of the “booK” Who was limbo for? The atheists or half good christians?
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nikkiee,
.
‘I thought that they had indeed decided to do this just recently?’ – Yup, that’s right! Progressive bunch, aren’t they?
.
That’s one of the things that’s so great about Catholocism. Whilst Protestant faiths try to reduce everything down to the bible and engage in a lot of very subtle interpretative massage to make the logical ends meet, Catholicism barely even tries to disguise the fact that it just makes things up. Praying to saints? Purgatory? Holy relics? Papal indulgences? Limbo? None of this is in the bible – it’s all just nonsense invented to shore up Christianity as it existed hundreds of years ago, to appeal to humanity’s appetite for ritual, and to pad the Pope’s purse.
.
But, better a lie that’s so sun-eclipsingly massive you can’t miss it than a set of sneaky, back door, camouflaged, ninja fibs. Brilliantly, Catholicism does for Christianity pretty much the same as the FSM does for all religion. It shows you exactly the sort of manipulative lying, the exploitation of popular gullibility, that all Christianity relies on. Protestantism is Catholicism reinvented for a more well-informed, more educated audience, but it’s still an edifice with a heart of pure fabrication. And ditto for all the other theisms
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another reason for the existence of religion:
.
Besides the tendency to humanize objects, the fear of the unknown is also a huge motivating factor. When it wasn’t (conclusively) know that the earth was round, all sorts of theories about the ‘flat’ earth were there. Before the earth was shown to self-rotate, all myths about ‘day’ and ‘night’ emerged. While the church (from Aristotle) claimed that the sun orbited the earth, standard model was ’some god put the stellar objects in the sky’. I hope you will agree that almost no-one believes in this tripe nowadays.
.
It is the human fear of anything inexplicable that drives all this wild imagination. Thus, the unsolvable question about ‘life after death’ will always fascinate the minds of those abhorring logic and common sense (what happens to bodies buried for several years? duh)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My i refer you to truth. Richard Milton must have broke his hammer when he tried to shatter evolution. Hey I just had a idea, lets rebrand! Insted of Darwinian evolution the lets use Wallaceian evolution. Ok its the same and was thought up at about the same time but its a different name! I mean that’s when there doing. Rebranding creationism as Intelligent design.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ All pastafarians, atheists, humanists, Brights, and free-thinkers,
.
Ahoy there!
.
I’m copying this post onto a few threads because I’d like as many people as possible to notice it. (Bobby, if you should read this, is there any chance of a new thread?)
.
You might have spotted on these pages Richard Dawkins’ high-profile references to the FSM, unmasking himself as at the very least an honorary pastafarian and certainly a friend of pirates the world over. He’s done his bit for the FSM – here’s a chance to return the favour.
.
His many books on evolution and, in particular, his recent book ‘The God Delusion’ have influenced a lot of people here.
.
Anyway, here in Britain, one of our national newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, in conjunction with Morgan Stanley, is running the third annual ‘Great Britons’ awards. People are invited to vote for the British person they think has been the most ‘Great’ (somehow) in each of seven categories.
.
Me salty guts tell me that a hearty lot of pirates’ll want to support their own and put their cutlasses behind Richard Dawkins, by far and away Britain’s noodliest man of 2006, and doubtless also he of the biggest meatballs.
.
I nominated him earlier today, in the ‘Campaigning’ category. You can add your nominations by visiting greatbritons.org. It takes barely a minute and might help one of the FSM’s finest sea-dogs to the gain the legendary status he deserves. You can even put in a 50-word explanation of why he gets your vote, which would probably strengthen the case (if you’ve anything to say). If you’d like to know more about him, try visiting richarddawkins.net.
.
Douglas Adams fans might like to note that Dawkins and Adams were close friends and that Adams credited Dawkins’ books ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ and ‘The Selfish Gene’ as having influenced his reasoning towards atheism. Dawkins wrote a ‘Lament for Douglas’ immediately after Adams’ death, and delivered a eulogy at his funeral.
.
I’ve a second reason for recommending this. The Telegraph ran an article by regular columnist Charles Moor on Saturday that dismissed ‘The God Delusion’ as ‘fashionable’ and gave a very selective, wilfully interpreted representation of its content. It’s a good newspaper but pretty thoroughly conservative – not an obvious place for pastafarianism to thrive. In light of this, I think it doubly worthwhile to demonstrate the strength of support that Richard enjoys among the world’s many pirates to the Telegraph.
.
(Note – I’ve left http:// off the website addresses in this post, as the first couple of times I tried to post it, it got stuck awaiting moderation. Hopefully this’ll help.)
.
Nominations for the awards continue until November 24th. If ye can spare a second of plunderin’ time, set a course for greatbritons.org and add your cannon to a broadside for free thinking and the FSM!
.
May His Noodly Appendage be upon ye all.
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yar i be willing to support the great portayer of truth that is Dawkins. May the sauce be with you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I refer you, in turn, to “Shattering the Myth of Richard Milton’s Sanity”, me. (yet to be released)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Shattering the Myth of Richard Milton’s Sanity” Brilliant!!! I can hardly wait!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The people who don’t believe in evolution are those that need it most.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Faith is believing without proof. Believing with proof isn’t believing it is knowing.”
Sorry nikkiee, I couldn’t resist. LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First of all, anyone who says that Evolution is not real, please look around you. Scientists are finding offspring of creatures that are different every day that are more fit for survival. Still don’t believe me? Look at a fossil. Yes, a FOSSIL. What, do you think those are just made up by someone who have nothing better to do in their spare time?
Second of all, Evolution isn’t a religion – it’s a theory. And we all know it’s a theory. It’s almost a fact. It’s more believable than your so called “Creation”. If you can’t believe in FSM, than you might as well not believe in God, because FSM is, in spirit, just like your Christianity, or Catholicism or whatever other Intelligent Design thing you believe in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
….because FSM is, in spirit, just like your Christianity, or Catholicism or whatever other Intelligent Design thing you believe in…..
NOT!!
FSM is way better!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here are some questions-do beleivers in FSM still eat pasta,or is this sacralicious?-Whitch came first,the meatballs or the noodles?-And did the apes eat the spaghetti (we spell it spagetti)and evolve into humans or did the spaghetti eat the apes and create humans,or maybe spit the apes back out as humans,or just relocate the apes so humans could come out of their caves and get a few bananas too….that seems only fair after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pasta is a gift from the great FSM himself. the meatball came first, but if you are refering to the FSM himslef then it is a pointless question as he is eternal and thus nether the meatball nor the spaghetti come first.
.
For reasons only know to his greatness he only handed down the great gift of pasta in recent years. Perhaps it wasat the point he thought we were ready for his wise teachings or perhaps it simply slipped his mind until then. I don’t pretend to have any great insights into how the mighty one thinks. All I can say is that he has a plan!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Penne: I had pasta for dinner tonight — black pepper fettucini with tomato, olive, marinated pork and artichoke. I had an orgasm half way through. This, I believe, is no coincidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0