As a moderate Christian pastor, I’m afraid I can’t join your religion, but I certainly appreciate its goals. Let it be known that not all Christians are goober-heads and some do believe in more of a live and let live philosophy. I figure that if all religions kind of kept it to “Love God (as you understand God), love your neighbor, and share what you have,” we’d all be better off. Any way, thanks to the FSM prophet for the peace offering.
-Dread Pirate David
Connect with other Pastafarians
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
RSS Feeds
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
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
Ramen! There may be hope for the Christian world yet…can we elect him for president?
Thank you, Dread Pirate David. You certainly aren’t a goober-head.
@ Paisley the Pirate
“I liked, particularly, the use of the word “goober-heads.””
Ditto.
Yes, Goober-heads made me literally lol.
thanks for that.
and yes, I am glad a pastor, of all people, understand this.
thank you kind sir, thank you.
In memory of you, I shall make it my goal for this weekend to use the phrase “goober-head” intellegently in a sentence.
yay, someone gets it!
I’m so glad to see that I’m not the only “moderate Christian” out there! Out of curiosity, what denomination are you a member of? (If you ever come back here and read this…)
Thank you, it is nice to know that there are sane, intelligent people out there after all who understand the meaning of satire.
Everyone always laughs at me when I call them goobers. Maybe I just needed to add the “-head” part.
Fizzmick PaChee,
No human invention is inherently dangerous, religion included; unless you are willing to claim that every human invention is inherently dangerous, beer and strippers included. There is a reason why almost every human civilization has religion; it is an adaptation that facilitates cooperation within a society. Yes, it had disadvantages, just like every adaptation (think of how much more we could get done if we didn’t sleep!) and yes, there are some individuals who find it easier to live without it (including me, in case you were wondering). However, when you make absolutist statements (as you have done), your posts smack of dogma and rhetoric, not reason and science. I wholeheartedly agree that in many cases, religion has harmed people (the crusades, the Salem witch trials, this ID nonesense) but in many cases it has also helped people (Mother Teresa, alms for the poor, some of the most stunning art and architecture in the world). For many people, religion enhances their lives and helps them behave kindly towards their fellow human beings (yes, even if said human beings do not have the same religious beliefs); please don’t let the “goober-heads” convince you that religion per se is “evil” and needs to be destroyed: history, evolution, and science have demonstrated this to be incorrect. If you’d like to read more why evolutionary psychologists think religion exists and persists, I’ll be happy to send you some articles. FSM be with you!
-Sarah
@Sarah,
Where in my post did I criticize invention? I love human invention. I have seen more “miracles”accomplished by humans than any god. My objection is to the portrayal of mythical beings as real to the detriment of society as a whole and often the recipient. Just because some bad events are prevented or some good grows out of a course of action in and of itself is not justification. Falsehoods can protect people. How many lives were not lost because boaters were afraid to venture too far for fear that they would fall off the end of the earth? Good Idea? The Nazis’ - Hitler was religious- had great infrastructure and art (lots of it stolen) and the trains ran on time. We can’t look at good that is performed and tolerate the bad that it grew from.
When people believe that a god will protect them they don’t look out for themselves. (I like that FSM preaches that He can’t look out for you so keep your eyes on the road.) Many people use the logic that a god will protect them so they won’t wear seatbelts.
Cursory investigation reveals that Mother Teresa was a disaster for the sick who came to her. There were no miracles performed by God or Heyzoos. With overcrowded quarters, highly communicable diseases, outdated medicines, and a lack of even basic hygiene, you can be assured that the “good” done by the prayers received was vastly outweighed. By her principle, painkillers were not dispensed. Her bizarre philosophy said that, “the most beautiful gift for a person is that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ”. ???
I know why evolutionary psychologists think religion exists and persists. But the evolutionary game is still running and the tide is turning. If we are to have any hope of being around in the distant future, sanity must take hold soon. The world we live in is getting to be too dangerous a place for the type of fanaticism bred by religion. (Except of course FSM.)
Thank you for giving me the motivation to elaborate. -Fizzmick PaChee
I suspect this may be a plot to undermine pasterfarianism next thing you know they will be talking love and peace even to Mondo Ray which will end in tears his tears explicitly.
@Sarah,
Not that I felt I was mean, but in deference to comments - in my second post on this thread, I said that I applauded his letter for being tolerant and embracing. Upon further reflection I stated that, “in light of the general tone of acceptance and lack of threats in your letter, perhaps I could have been kinder.” Did you miss that?
At least my comments are consistent and logical. In your previous post you said, “No human invention is inherently dangerous, religion included; unless you are willing to claim that every human invention is inherently dangerous, beer and strippers included.” Not that I said that inventions are dangerous, but can you tell me why any particular invention cannot be dangerous without every invention being dangerous? You then go on to list; “many cases, (where) religion has harmed people” and write of ‘good’ -read up on Mother Teresa- as if that makes the bad okay.
YOU ALSO SAID, “perhaps the world would be more ideal if there was no religion”. Isn’t an ideal something to be strived for, not dismissed as too difficult? It absolutely is unlikely to happen without the efforts that Fizzmick PaChee and the like-minded are providing.
Thank you again for giving me the motivation to elaborate. -Fizzmick PaChee
David, you most certainly are not goober-head - you are spreading inter-religious love and understanding. Perhaps you should do a sermon on this. Think of the strides you could make towards universal goodwill towards man.
Your a good man, and a good pastor. That is what religion, not just FSMism or Christianity, is all about. I wish people would stop just reading their religious texts, and actually READ them.
Fizzmick PaChee,
*shrugs* I don’t think the evidence is on your side, and I don’t think you understand how most people who classify themselves as “Christian”, or any other religion for that matter, really think. Fundies are in the minority (albeit a very vocal minority). Perhaps the world would be more ideal if there was no religion, but the world is not ideal, and I don’t think that’s likely to change any time soon. I any case, my only real objection to your posts is the fact that you responded with hostility to a friendly (and all too rare) post that encourages tolerance, and that kind of thing makes Atheists (and Pastafarians) look bad. Debate all you like, but do it with a clear head, else you’re to one who will come off as the fundie. My you be touched by his noodely appendage!
-Sarah
I should like to state very clearly my support for the views of Fizzmick PaChee against those of Sarah. I tend to agree that religion is inherently bad and dangerous and fundies are certainly not in a minority: every religious person is a potential fundie, even our well articulate and apparently tolerant visitor. Most religious persons would agree that their religion is worth dying for and this is just the same as agreeing that their religion is worth killing for. And this is what I would call a fundie.
.
I know however that, as long as there will be uneducated people, it will be useless to try to suppress religion. All those who have tried to do so have failed and religions even come off better when they are persecuted.
.
The solution is to educate people into understanding the real face of religion. The fact that the most educated countries in Europe are also those where religious practice is lower seem to support this view.
.
As for Dread Pirate David I would point out that after throwing God at us (even if he was liberal with the notion of god) he did not bother to come back and reply to our own posts.
.
RAmen and may you all be touched by his noodly appendages.
Yay!!! Another Christain with sense!!!
I have known a few, but not many. They need more guys like that to calm the zealotic masses.
Fizzmick PaChee,
My apologies for missing your apology, I was affronted by the end of you post (I took that “seeing the light” comment as disrespectful of other people’s beliefs) and felt the need to challenge some of the assumptions you seem to be making. You seem genuinely interested in what I am try to say, so let me try to explain.
First, my objection is not to you saying religion is dangerous (I agree that it can be) my objection is to the word “inherent”. As an atheist, I don’t think that any inherent value judgement can be placed on anything: anything can be either dangerous, benign, or helpful given the circumstances. The term “inherently dangerous” implies that there is some absolute measure of something’s “goodness” or “badness” - who but a supernatural deity could be capable of measuring the minds of humans well enough to determine if something has caused more suffering than joy?
But more importantly, I don’t think the question itself is important. It does not matter to me if something is overall more hurtful or harmful; what matters to me is weather that something it more hurtful or harmful in a given circumstance. For example, if something causes more harm than good 75% of the time, and more good than harm 25% of the time, then I think that something should be employed when it is useful and avoided when it is not - if one instead argues that because, overall, it causes more harm than good it should always be avoided, one is making (in my mind) the incorrect choice 25% of the time. You inferred that I am trying to excuse the harms of religion by saying it can also help. I was not trying to do that at all; that thought had not even occurred to me. Let me use an example I’m sure you are familiar with: religion as the opiate of the masses. Can opiates be harmful? Yes. Can they be useful? Also yes. Are they more harmful than helpful? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone can really know. Does using them when they are useful (e.g. morphine for cancer patients) somehow justify the loss of pain, loss of life, and violence that has occurred (and continues to occur) because of their discovery? Again, I’m not interested in justifying anything, I am simply interested in making the best of the current situation. Opiates have been discovered, people have become addicted and have died, and banning the use of morphine in hospitals is not going to change that.
And that leads me into the clarification of my ideal world comment - what I meant by saying that the world is not ideal is not that you should not attempt to make it so, but rather that you should not behave as if it is. In an ideal world, no human would ever have need of opiates, because no one would ever get hurt or sick (and they probably should all be destroyed in such a circumstance), but in this non-ideal world we have, there is need of them and I don’t think they should all be destroyed. Humans evolved, messily and imperfectly, and as they exist now (non-ideal and all) many of them have a psychological need for religion, and behaving otherwise will hurt more than it helps.
I’ve just realized I spent 2 hours composing this message (man am I lame) so I’m going to end this. I look forward to you reply. FSM bess!
-Sarah
Perna de Pau,
May I request some data regarding your claims? I am especially interested in the claim of “Most religious persons would agree that their religion is worth dying for and this is just the same as agreeing that their religion is worth killing for.” - I would really like to see some hard numbers on this, because it does not jive with my experience or my psychological and historical education.
As for Dread Pirate David, how exactly did he “throw God at us”? Did he imply in any way that there was something wrong with being an Atheist, because I did not detect that at all; he merely stated his profession and why he could not join the church of the FSM. I am also much confused by your claim that there is something wrong with the fact that Dread Pirate David has not posted beyond his original message. He basically said “way to go” - when you post that on a website, are you expected to return and see what responses have been made to you comment? Does it imply that there is something wrong with you if you don’t? Please clarify, because I am really quite confused.
-Sarah
@Sarah,
We are not that different. However, I think you are not clear on the reasoning for my objectives and the true spirit in which they are delivered. It is with the best of intentions, and I do try to be as nice as possible.
I disagree with your weighting of benefits. While religion may provide a sense of comfort, it is an illusion that carries many dangerous seeds of destruction. Sometimes success temporarily comes in spite of, not because of traits. Reason must prevail over superstition. If the “seeing the light” comment was interpreted as being disrespectful - my actual wording was more tactful… Well uh, only in the way that I do want my views to be adopted. Showing respect for what I percieve as an inferior view only perpetuates the problem, and would be dishonest on my part.
Do you see what I mean? - Fizzmick PaChee
Pirate David,
It is remarkably refreshing to hear you admit such things. I am also glad that you have decided that co-existing is the best option. I want to congratulate you, and hope that you run for the Dictator of Earth (president) someday. RAmen