1158752 Views
796 Comments

What exactly do you think you are going to prove?

Published July 22nd, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

What exactly do you think you are going to prove? it’s just disrespectful to other human beings faiths and beliefs, and im sure u of all people should know u can’t put any sense into say a devout christian. Honestly, what your doing is the equivalant of making a rude, sarcastic joke to a child that doesn’t understand humor. u cant tell a christian thats been raised from birth to believe that there’s a magic man in the clouds that he’s wrong. you’ll just get what uve been getting, hate mail, and death threats. God is the equivalant of santa exept the child is never told he isn’t real until it’s to late. and u think your doing a good thing by making up this pastafarian crap to prove how absurd the idea of god is. what i don’t think u understand is that u cant argue with idiots about this stuff as most christians are dont know a thing about science.(I apoligize to all respectable christian scientists). as an athiest, im disgusted what youre doing. like making fun of christians being killed by somali’s, and u quoting, "apparently they thought there god could give them safe passage"(yes ive read ur website). really, did it ever, or does it ever occur to you that these people are actually human being’s with family’s and feeling’s, and just because they think the world was created  differantly than u, u have to mock them… that’s kind of a dick move. your being no better than they are(religious people) by making fun of and disrespecting other people just ’cause they think differantly than u. oh wait u are religous, u worship a flying spaggetti monster. which means i have the right to ridicule u on how stupid your dumbfuck religion is(oh may the great pasta diety forgive me for my sin) and dont deny that u worship the all mighty pasta king, because your the leader of the church. with the true words of your religion written on a piece of paper. it’s ironic that u, by trying to prove how bad religion is. go about it by u yourself inbodying everything that is wrong with human beliefs. u are everything that is wrong with athiesm. u go around acting all superior and pompus, like u know better than everyone else and tell them why there wrong mockingly. the world would be a better place if u took all your "followers" (butt pirates) got on a pirate ship and ate spaggetti until you all died of overeating.have u ever heard the term live and let live? and i love it how  u post all the hate mail u get on a your page to be ridiculed by your cronies( who by the way need to get of the internet and do something productive)yes we all the the bible huggars are gonna say dumb stuff because they’re uneducated. but that doesn’t mean u have to be immature and make fun of there faults so just lay off. even though this message sounds hostile just know i agree with what your’e trying to do (i think) educating people, i just wholly disagree with how u are going about it.

-David

A short response from Bobby:

It’s not our intention to mock or offend anyone. But I realize people sometimes feel mocked  or offended.

It might be fair to say that we’re disrespectful.  I would agree that most Pastafarians don’t respect the notion that religion should sit on a pedestal.  We don’t think that because an action is explained in the context of religion it is exempt from the scrutiny it otherwise would have been subjected to.  Religion is not a free pass for crazy ideas and crazy actions. 

I would agree that it’s not our place to pass judgment on those who see the world through a lens of religion.  But neither is it our place to ignore when personal belief becomes public action.  We can accept that some choose to teach their kids the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs are a myth.  But if they push for those ideas to be taught in our schools, it’s no longer a question of respecting personal belief.

The idea that rational minded people must be anti-religion is a wrong one, I think.   If we must draw a line to divide ourselves, I’d prefer the line be positioned between reasonable and unreasonable people, rather than religious and non-religious people.  

It’s one thing to see the world through a lens, and another thing to act as if it’s the only lens that can exist.

I believe there is no group more tolerant of other religious and nonreligious groups than Pastafarians, without question.  The death of the Christian sailors by pirates was a sad thing for everyone who heard of it, I’m sure.  My hope is that it doesn’t happen again.  The hard question is:  will criticizing the decision to venture into dangerous areas on the basis of faith help avoid a similar situation in the future?  I don’t know the answer.  But I wonder how many of their friends and family wish they had shaken them and said this is a bad idea, don’t do this.  This is one of the hard questions – this line between respect and concern. 



796 Responses to “What exactly do you think you are going to prove?”

  1. John says:

    Hey all, just wanted to state my view on this debate. I personally think that religon should be kept out of politics, and I believe that everyone and anyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs. I do not concur with many other Christians imposing here on your site, but at the same time, I do find it slightly offensive to criticize so harshly on one’s thoughts and beliefs. I am not saying that any religion is perfect, in fact, I question my religion on certain topics, but it is the thought that I am not alone in the world that fills a gap in my life. I agree with you on many things, but disagree on others. True, a religion without criticism could be blindly believed in. But criticism doesn’t necessarily need to be taken to the extreme, to the point where we are chewing each other’s heads off. I admire what you people here have done, and I fully support you, but I do not view it as fair to call other religions “lies”. A friend of mine introduced me to this website, and after hours of reading, and I am not judging a whole based on that of its parts, it seems that some here are biased against Christians. For example, where one person used “u” instead of “you”. While this is not grammatically correct, it is what many teens have gotten used to when texting and carry that to forums and other online posts. But here, the reply was along the lines of, “he can’t spell, no wonder, he’s probably Christian.” Myles Henely, that is a very ignorant thing to say. There are many scholars and authors out in the world who are Christian.
    This is the end of my speech. Thank you all and have a nice day.

    • Rev. Linguine says:

      So, even though you critisize your own religion on some points you still stick to it because “..it is the thought that I am not alone in the world that fills a gap in my life”. We are all alone. Grow up. Get a life.

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        It’s fear. Fear of being criticized. Fear of having control over your own life. Fear of the truth.

        • John says:

          Some can call it fear, sure. But that doesn’t mean it is fear of having control over your own life or fear of the truth. I am open to suggestions, though.

      • John says:

        Who are you to say that we are alone though? Do you know for a fact? There is no way to know for sure. You saying that others are wrong because it’s not what you believe is no different than what you are trying to stop. You don’t want others to say you are wrong, and that they are right. You don’t want the schools to force the teaching of Creationism in the classroom. Instead of trying to tell people who is right and who is wrong, maybe try a more positive view, “I can see how you might be right, or why you might believe that, but it is not what I believe. This is what I believe and this is why I believe it.” There is absolutely no one that can say for sure what is right and what is wrong. Faith is not necessarily meant to be proved. Not even science can prove or disprove it. And to tell me to grow up and get a life is a bit ignorant, honestly. How can you judge me on a single post on a forum on the internet? You can’t, it’s as simple as that. I don’t mind criticism, in fact, I encourage it. As I said, I admire you all. But attacking me doesn’t solve anything. We are all entitled to our opinion; I to mine and you to yours.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          John, I’m curious about what potential benefit or purpose there could be from the possibility of ‘not being alone’. Do you mean aliens? A supernatural god?
          I have never considered the absence of evidence that an idea wasn’t true, as evidence that it was true. Or at least, not with a happy ending.
          It’s probable that aliens exist and, if God is a mathematical formula, then I’m a deist. I have no evidence of any supernatural, godly presence, but, I am aware of the human propensity to believe such things.

        • John says:

          Is it possible though, that religion isn’t meant to be proven? Maybe it’s the teachings of religion that some look for. Possibly the fact that there is something to look forward to after this life. A simple prayer to reassure that there is help and guidance when it seems there is no hope left. Or even just the thought that some being is there to watch over your life, still keeping in mind that living in fear is not implied.
          I want to add that I love reading your answers. They are quite insightful and I respect your beliefs as well.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          John, regarding warfare, I like the age-old advice: “He who does nothing wins”. Works a treat for warfare as well as relationships. Is the cultural rhetoric that you explore the ‘blame game’, Abrahamic style; viz. who’s to blame for problems and am I entitled to destroy them?
          As a related aside, I enjoy the three-way Mexican stand-off: each has one shot; each wants the treasure; what is the best first move? The best strategy to win is to fire into the ground and smile at the other two.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          John, I don’t think religion is meant to be anything other than what people make of it. I believe that man made God after his own image.
          To me, an absolute belief in any myth, trades transitory good feelings for the truth, whatever use that might be.
          To me, faith is the opposite to doubt; to some people, certainty is the opposite to doubt. To me, to have faith, one must first have doubt, which is human; fundamentalists have no doubts, and have lost their humanity.

          Here’s to swimmin’ with bow-legged women. Aaaarghhhh…

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          @John, Cap’n Birdseye, & others: have been following your very civilized and interesting dialogue for a while and
          feel compelled to emphasize just a few points. The first is that the existence of many religions (a few, like Buddhism,
          with some disagreement about whether or not they ARE religions) suggests that – open-minded as we all are – we still really have to worry about the actual identity and uniqueness of the Deity we worship and the reality of our personal experience of Him or Her. The second is that the idea that there is no morality without religion is absurd. The most toxic Christians (and John is no such person, obviously) seem to believe that without the fear of God and the love of Jesus the rest of us would decide to go on a rampage of murder, rape, and stealing little kids’ lollypops. Not to mention ignoring the truth that God hates fags. The third is that the impossibility of proof / disproof for some religious position or other implies the same impossibility for more factual issues, like the age of the cosmos and the Earth (e.g., the flood and Noah’s Ark), the reality of evolution, and whether or not God would allow global warming. Thank you all and have a nice day.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      John, I consider appalling spelling as passive aggressive, expressing a defiant pride in ignorance and lack of care for readers.
      Personally, I see such bad spelling here mainly from offensive Christian posters: it’s like a badge.

      There are no respected Creationist ‘scientists’. In contrast, there are thousands of respected FSM scientists, some with Nobel Prizes. Does that mean that Pastafarians are more intelligent than Christians?

      • John says:

        I agree, Captain Birdseye, but at the same time, not everyone who doesn’t spell correctly on a forum is Christian. They could be Catholic, Jewish, etc. but “they are Christian” shouldn’t be a generic response to everyone who has horrendous spelling.
        On to the topic of Creationist scientists, I do not a strong expertise in that topic, but it’s just like I said before, no one can know for sure. We, as humans, like to believe we are right. I for one don’t believe in the FSM, but who am I to say you are wrong? I am an individual with my own separate beliefs, and I will never impose my beliefs on other person in my life. Also, is the majority always right? If the majority of America, for this example, thinks that African-Americans are disgusting and should be treated with little to no respect as human beings, and should be treated as slaves? Another example, Although I am not an expert in politics, but if the majority of the country elects a president and it turns out that that president put our country in debt, and/or turns out to be a horrible president, were we right? Or, from another point of view, maybe they were a good president, all depends again on personal belief. Is the majority always, one hundred percent correct? No, we are humans, we are imperfect. Humans make mistakes. What we must do is accept that everyone is entitled to their own ideas and learn to get along with one another. The sooner we stop finding everything wrong with and about one another, the sooner we can all live in peace and harmony. So no, that does necessarily mean that Pastafarians are more intelligent that Christians. If you would like, you can always look at it in such a way that one is more educated in a topic, but to say that one group is more intelligent than another can lead to problems. Such ideas have started wars, which is something we should try to avoid (not that this will start World War III, just an extreme case scenario). Again, this is my thoughts on the matter, not to be viewed as me thinking I am all-knowing.

        • John says:

          Do not have a strong expertise in that topic*; this site doesn’t allow corrections, my apologies.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          It is always the person who strikes the first blow that starts a war. Responsible means suffering the consequences without blaming others.

        • John says:

          Captain Birdseye, yes, but if one person attacks first, the second has the option to continue or stop the war. A war requires two or more opposing forces.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          War does. Genocide posing as war doesn’t.

      • sheila says:

        I think those that can’t spell, like me, need a browser with SPELL CHECK. It doesn’t work at all comment windows but in most.
        I do not “respect” religion but I do tolerate it and Pastafarianism is just as valid a ‘religion’ as any of the others and much more fun.

        I became a non believer in religion when I read the entire bible but you don’t have go that far to recognize that it’s full of nonsense, brutality & barbarism. Christian “science” is far from being anything like a true science as they teach that sickness is just “error” & if you believe strongly enough, you will cast off that delusion.
        The many deaths of christian ‘scientist” proves that belief to be an error.

  2. Sammy says:

    I completely understand what this religion is about (yes, I read the “About” tab), and while I agree that Creationism shouldn’t be forced down someone’s throat if it isn’t what they believe, I also like to look at it from the other side. To you, the education system is trying to teach your children that God created the world in his own image, as well as religious influence, while you want to remove that from the school system. Sounds good in theory, right? But with one solution gives rise to a new problem. What about those that don’t believe in Evolutionism and have their own reasons for believing what they do? It’s the same problem all over again. Someone being forced to learn what they don’t believe. What about a compromise where learning the history of the Universe as being optional, and the education system providing the funds to teach whatever is requested. I know this sounds like a “perfect world” scenario, but one can dream…

    • Rev. Wulff says:

      Firstly, once you bring one creation myth into a public school, you have to give equal time to all of them, or you are establishing one religion’s superiority over all others, which, in the US at least, is a violation of Constitutional law.

      Secondly, in the US where this began, we are falling further and further behind the rest of the developed world in science and math ability. We need more engineers, more architects, more researchers, and you don’t get them by praying about it. You get them by teaching science fundamentals. And you need to do it a) when the students are young, and b) by making it fun to learn, or it doesn’t stick.

      Finally, there is a place to learn about religion. It is called a church, or alternately, a religion class (or temple, or mosque, etc.). There is a place to learn science. It is called a science class. Anybody and everybody is free to attend both.

      However, religion does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and should not be taught in a science class. *Period*. Organic chemistry should not be taught from the church pulpit either. People who want their children to learn a particular creation myth should get off their lazy asses on their holy day and take them to their nearest house of worship, or read them the sacred texts at home, or enroll them in a religious studies program. But it is not and should not be the responsibility of science teachers to also be theologians.

    • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      I have a totally new system of mathematics. I haven’t worked out all the kinks yet; incorporating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, 2 + 2 does not always equal 4 in my system. Yet I feel it deserves equal time with the system of mathematics being forced upon our students today!

      And wile Im at it, theres diferent waze of speling wich shuld be konsidered, to!

      • Keith says:

        Welcome back Ferenst Anthpologist!

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          You know, Keith, I was going to cite Mr. Anthpologist but I couldn’t (mis)spell his name.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          I found “Ferenst Anrtplogist” in the “Flea Infested Spaghetti Mutt” thread, but am unclear about what to do about mis-mis-spellings…..

        • Keith says:

          I’d recommend that you direct the attention of some of the hate mailers to his posts. If people are going to abuse the English language they may as well be creative while they do it.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Good piont; grate sudgetshun, I’ll dew it..

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        Even though “Breaking Bad” did bad things for Heisenberg’s rep, your point absolutely telling. “Someone being forced to learn what they don’t believe.” WTF???? As an interesting side point, you certainly know about the serious mathematical arena of Fuzzy Logic – your fuzzy arithmetic might be a missing key!!!

    • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      I also dream of a world where all branches of medicine is given equal time. Instead of being forced to believe in “surgery”, “acupuncture”, “drug therapy” and the like, students are exposed to the wonderful world of curses, spells and incantations! I’m sure a Master’s degree in Voodoo would prepare the neophyte physician for a brave new world of health care!

      • Sammy says:

        I hope you do not see me as a “hate-mailer”, as I am just here to express my concern. Even though, yes, there is a place for religion, “church and religion classes in school”, but at the same time, what if someone doesn’t agree with the scientific views of how the world began? What if someone doesn’t believe that 2 + 2 = 4? We shouldn’t be calling people out on things that they believe because we see things differently. One solution that I personally believe in is the ability to filter and sift through what we learn. If we learn that there is a “magical man in the sky”, and there is a quiz on it, take the quiz and get past it. We, as a species, get offended much too easily. We get offended by our own creations (no other species does this). We need to not let outside forces influence us when we don’t want them to. If you sincerely do not want your children to believe in a god, then simply guide them on the path that you want them to take. At the same, alternatively, they, too, have the right to believe in what they want. If they want to believe in a “magical man in the sky”, that’s their choice. You can persuade them all you want, but you do have to realize that school is not the only place that they are going to be pressured to believe in god, aliens, a flying spaghetti monster, etc. You get my point. As a parent, the best you can do, hopefully, is steer your children. Controlling them just isn’t healthy. Children need to learn to be able to make choices on their own. At the same time, though, they do need to respect you as the adults in the household. My suggestion is to ask them what they want to learn, and what they believe.
        Have a good one.

        -Sammy

        • Sammy says:

          Also, you bring up the point that people are allowed to freely attend both science and religion classes. You are required to take a science class, but not a religion class. If we were to look through the eyes of a person who believes in Creationism, this is unfair. The other way around, it is unfair to you. The world isn’t fair and never will be. Maybe such controversial classes should be “optional”?

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          How many great discoveries have bucked traditional thought? Most of them, I suppose; that’s what made them great. Take Faraday’s discovery of electromagnetism, or Fulton’s steam engine. Ridiculed at the time, but PROVEN true. If you doubt something, PROVE otherwise. Do not attempt to drown out the voices of those who actually have found evidence and can PROVE what they believe in, just so your baseless superstitions can have center stage.

        • Rev. Wulff says:

          “What if someone doesn’t believe that 2 + 2 = 4?”

          Show me one, *one*, verifiable instance where 2+2=/=4.

          Anyone who does not believe 2+2=4 has lost all touch with reality, is a danger to themselves and others, and needs to be removed from society immediately.

        • Sammy says:

          Rev. Wulff,
          I did not mean that in a literal sense. What I meant it as was “what if someone believes something different than what most people believe quite the opposite?” For example, before the late 1500′s, many Catholics believed in the Aristotelian geocentric view that Earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around it. But Galileo discovered, and truly believed that that was not the case. He believed that the Earth revolved around the sun, now known as heliocentrism. Who are we to judge someone else’s beliefs? No one knows for sure, it’s just the sad truth.

        • Rev. Wulff says:

          The difference is that the Aristotelian model and the biblical text were both false, even when people believed in them. People once believed the Earth was flat; that didn’t make it so just because it was the belief. Galileo began simply by testing (scientific method) the theories of Copernicus. He observed (scientific method) that the geocentric viewpoint didn’t fit the evidence he collected (scientific method). He had two choices: either accept that his data was wrong because it conflicted with popular ‘belief’, or retest (scientific method) the data to see if his new observations supported or contradicted the original data. And how did it work out for him? A conviction for heresy and life under house arrest for daring to suggest the religious text could be wrong.

        • Sammy says:

          You missed my point. I was saying that just because someone has a different or new idea, or just because you don’t believe in them, doesn’t make it wrong (religion). Not saying that either side is right, or that either side is wrong.

    • Sammy says:

      Also, technically, by teaching science, which can be defined as: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance, with “supreme importance” being either an ultimate goal or nature, whatever you want it to be, it’s funny how that is a very similar definition for religion. Religion and what society views as “accepted facts of science” are both quite similar, actually. No matter how much one side can prove something, the other side can always think of a way to try and disprove it. The scientific community tends to reject anything coming from the hands of God or any other supernatural being, whereas some religious folks like to argue that, when it comes to fossils, “the Earth was made from unorganized materials.” However you view it, there will always be debate, and there is no perfect resolution. Your argument that “if you teach one religion, you must teach them all” comes back and turns into “if we teach one belief, we must teach all beliefs,” science and religion both being forms of belief. Can’t we all just get along?

      • Rev. Wulff says:

        What ass did you pull that definition of science from?

        “science (sci·ence [sahy-uhns])
        noun
        1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
        2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
        3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
        4. systematized knowledge in general.
        5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.”

        Science is observable. Science is measurable. Science is testable. Science is repeatable.

        If you read the actual dictionary definition I provided, you see the repeated use of the words ‘systematic’ and it’s variations. ‘Systematic’ analysis of religious texts inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and blatant falsehoods, yet it demands to be elevated to the level of ‘fact’ nonetheless.

        Faith is belief despite evidence to the contrary. Science is whether you believe or not.

        • Sammy says:

          Faith is confidence in a person or thing. If you have confidence in science, you have faith in science. If you have confidence in a higher power, you have faith in a higher power. Anyone can choose not to believe in “evidence” which one can now argue as having nothing backing up the “facts”. I feel like my words are being misconstrued. I am not arguing for either side, but simply making known the arguments that could be made for both sides.
          “Science is whether you believe it or not.” So is religion.
          “Faith is belief despite evidence to the contrary.” If you don’t believe that the evidence given is true, and have your reasons for believing that, it isn’t considered “evidence” to that person.

        • Jo Switten says:

          So Sammy, apart from His Holy Noodliness, is which fairy do you believe then? :p

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          Sammy, you missed a word when you wrote “Science is whether you believe it or not.” So is religion.
          Brilliant omission, since “Science is TRUE whether you believe it or not.” While religion can make no such claim.

        • Rev. Wulff says:

          TFTPTM, Sammy was quoting me, and I missed something when I typed it originally:

          Science *is*, whether you believe it or not.

        • Jo Switten says:

          Damn typo devil, I meant of course “IN which fairy do you believe then”. :)

        • Sammy says:

          I am not here to state what I believe in. All I am saying is that people should be entitled to their opinion, but not have anything they don’t want to learn shoved down their throats. The point was lost a while ago. I personally believe in a religion, but I also believe in science. Notice how I said “believe” for both things. people are entitled to their “beliefs”. What I find irritating is when people fight fire with fire and don’t expect a burn every now and then. I totally admire what you have done here, but at the same time, it’s the exact same situation for the people on the other side of the battle. It will never be fair, so you just have to take with you what you choose. And in regards to “Science is true, whether you believe it or not,” I believe in science, but I also believe that other people don’t have to. This does not make them ignorant, just as someone who doesn’t believe that religion is true isn’t ignorant. If I were to say “Religion is true, whether you believe it or not,” that would upset many. I could have my own proof for it, but because of the view that many have on religion, it would be considered “fake” or “made up”. The very thought that a religion might have even an ounce of truth would get shot down. I am a sympathetic man, and I truly do believe that everyone should be given an equal opportunity. The simple fact that people can’t accept each other is sad for our species.
          Another point I am trying to make is what is the point of changing the way something if it just creates a new problem? Why not just abolish it altogether?

        • Sammy says:

          I want to make it clear that I am not saying either religion or science is true. Just a comparison.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Sammy,

          Deliberate stupidity IS ignorant. Embracing a mythology, just because it makes you feel better (than everyone else) over rational, falsifiable reason is almost the definition of ignorance.

          If someone chooses not to “believe” in science, that’s their problem. To claim to have the same credibility as science as a way of viewing things is worthy of scorn in spades. I’m not surprised that you are religious, you obviously had an apologist agenda from the outset.

          The major problem with your viewpoint is this: You’re wrong.

          Subsequent to this problem is that if you’re wrong, your beliefs are cast in the harsh light of what they are: Fantasy.

          If you are living in a world based on fantasy, reality is unpleasant and confronting. I get that. Eventually, however, it may serve you well to stop fighting a losing corner, open your mind, stop making up definitions for things to suit your beliefs, and experience the joy that is freedom from ignorance.

          Yarrgh

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          It’s an invalid comparison anyway. Like asking which is better: Kittens or apricots?

          Religion is a series of statements and rules, where people look for evidence to support their suppositions. Science is observation of happenings, and attempting to find a way to explain them, always with the understanding that theory will change with greater understanding.

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          The big difference is, science actively seeks the truth. When accepted belief is contradicted, eventually – if not immediately – the new revelation is lauded and becomes the new law. When accepted RELIGIOUS belief is questioned, it’s called heresy and things like shunning, excommunication, or even burning at the stake occur.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          I’m confused by a distinction being drawn between evidence and ‘evidence’ that is untrue – meaning evidence that may be dismissed. In science, evidence is simply evidence: there is no such thing as untrue evidence.

        • sheila says:

          Science is not a “belief system”, it’s based on verifiable evidence. Evolution is not a belief system, it’s a verifiable fact, creationism is not & no belief system should be taught as ‘truth’ in our schools.

          I do not “believe in ” evolution any more than I “believe in” the findings of science, I accept them as the best explanation as to why things are the way they are including us.

          We need to stop saying that we “believe in” evolution, gravity, earthquakes, lightning etc as they are explained by scientific theories. Scientific theories are not just guesses, they are based on the study of the available evidence & sometimes as we gather more evidence, that theory is modified.

          Religion is based on belief through faith, no evidence needed which is why there are thousands of religions & hundreds of christian faiths.

          Pastafarianism makes more sense than any of the other religions & is much more fun! Long live the FSM!

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Sheila, my research indicates that there are about 20,000 different Christian sects, each telling the others they are going to Hell, and, there has been about 2.2 billion different religions.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Science is not a faith, belief or religion (although some people can make it into one). Anyone who holds ‘faith’ in science is holding a false belief. Science is simply following the scientific method. Acceptance of logic is the only presupposition.

        It’s absurd to suggest that not accepting a religious belief, is, in itself, a religious belief. Thus, not accepting science is, in itself, a science.

        The Creationist mindset renders people socially marginalised and unemployable in any science-based field.

        • Sammy says:

          Actually, there are Creationists who do believe in Evolution as well. The idea that the two theories can work side by side is actually what quite a few people believe in.
          If one can have a scientific method, then why not a religious method? I honestly don’t see what it is that sets you off so easily, but I, being open minded, like to think for both sides. And regarding to your first statement, true, science is not that, doesn’t mean someone has to agree with it. If you really stop and think about it, science wrong in many ways, so is religion. Let’s take the Big Bang Theory for one example. This also halts religion in its tracks, where did everything come from? A Creationist would say “God” and someone who believes in science would say “The Big Bang”. But now we can criticize both. “Where did God come from? How can God come from nothing?” and “Where did the Big Bang come from?” are both very in depth questions and are impossible to answer, let alone more than our minds can comprehend. I would also like to point out a common statement made as to why someone wouldn’t want to join a religion. Firstly, because of war. Sure, religion starts wars, but so does science. Biological warfare uses the science of Biology to attack an opponent and inflict pain and suffering. Even though Einstein did not intend for the splitting of the atom to be used as a weapon, it was. The atom bombs that were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were just as disasterous as any religious battle or war, not to mention that some of its effects linger still to this day.
          As for questioning religion, it goes the same for questioning science. I have already proved that this is a two way street. I spoke on behalf of another group, but was shut down because I suggested an idea that questions science. I am expecting a lot of criticism from this post, and that is fine, because I know not everyone will agree with me, and I am fine with that. But it just saddens me how much people fight over something so simple. All I ever see is arguments and insults originating from here. When someone sends a hate-mail, the response is just as agressive as the original statement. Sure, it’s offensive that someone comes in here to attack you, but how much damage can they do? It’s when an opposing side acts upon a subject that an argument is started. Personally, I would explain why I don’t agree with someone, but I don’t tell them what to believe, because I don’t believe in forcing someone else to believe what I believe, I will leave that to the extremists and the government. I strongly feel that they should be free to state their side on the matter as well, with equal opportunity to justify their thoughts. I hope you all have noticed that not once have I implied any hate or sense of falseness upon anyone here. I state my opinion and wait for a response, yet still, the hate rises. The close mindedness here sincerely breaks my heart.
          And on a final note, in response to SillyKiwiMan: If debating religion and science is such an invalid comparison, then why is this such an issue? Why make such a big fuss over something that can’t be solved? Why waste all the time comparing which is better (religion vs science) when, as you put it, “It’s an invalid comparison anyway.” A civil conversation can not take place with hatred, close mindedness, arrogancy, and such rage that goes into the responses that I see here. “Grow up” “Anyone who doesn’t believe [what I believe] has lost all touch with reality, is a danger to themselves and others and needs to be removed from society immediately.” I simply do not see how such intensely hateful comments are at all helpful or insightful in a conversation.

          For the record, I also sense a lot of misplaced hate and anger here. Not once did I try to force my beliefs, insult you for what you believe, or even state my personal beliefs, yet I still recieve insults, statements calling me ignorant, and more of the likes. How can I be judged for the beliefs of others? You want to end a “problem” that you see in society, yet you start more. I’m sorry, but I do not see this as a productive place, you need not judge me on this, unless you truly wish, though it is a true waste of time to criticize this.

        • Sammy says:

          Oh and TFTPTM, what exactly is truth? I suggest you read up on post modernism. A good website that I recommend is: http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/uduigwomen-postmodernism.shtml as it touches on the basis of the question, “What is truth?”
          This is a question that has been asked repeatedly throughout history, and in some ways, can be very controversial. Remember, a wise man once said, “There is no such thing as a perfect world, we must accept things we can not change, and strive to better those we can.”

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Sammy, this is less of a criticism than an observation:

          You have not contributed anything to the argument. You have no idea what you’re talking about if you think Einstein’s theory of general relativity started any conflict. Your little wank over postmodernism is nothing I haven’t heard from hundreds of jumped-up little shits who’ve read a single paper at university. You can reinterpret creationism to suit yourself all you like, but it doesn’t stop it being stupid.

          And above all else, despite apologists from both sides, science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. We look out, you look in.

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          Sammy, I believe SillyKiwiMan summed up the scientific method rather well. What is truth? Only what can be proven. Or at least the best possible explanation that fits observation. Ken Ham might gloat over the fact no one was around to observe the Big Bang billions of years ago, but isn’t it odd how the white noise between TV and radio stations exactly matched the frequency the BB model proposed? Or how DNA and carbon dating and archeology all back up Darwin’t theories?

          Did a god kick off the Big Bang? Perhaps, but I don’t care. Until evidence is shown that a god exists and gives a damn, I won’t waste my time with religion.

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          Pardon me! Giving credit where credit is due, it was another esteemed Pastafarian, Rev. Wulff who expounded on the scientific method.

      • Rev. Wulff says:

        (Apologies to Carlin) “The King of Sweden is using his penis as a radio transmitter to send secret anti-Semitic lesbian meatloaf recipes to Soupy Sales and Marvin Hamlisch.”

        The Scientific Mind says “Test the statement. Does Sweden have a King? Yes. Did he admit to making any transmissions? He released the records? Okay, that’s a yes. Can he send anything to Soupy and/or Marvin? Seeing as they’re both dead, no. Can a penis be a radio transmitter? No. Do secret anti-Semitic lesbian meatloaf recipes exist? Not impossible, but highly improbable. Is the statement true? Absolutely not. We’re not going to waste time talking about it. Wait, you have new evidence? There was a transmitter *implanted* in the penis? Soupy Sales and Marvin Hamlisch are code-names for Lady Gaga and Ben Affleck, and you have notarized statements to prove it? We’ll revise the statement to say ‘The King of Sweden is using a radio transmitter in his penis to send secret anti-Semitic lesbian meatloaf recipes to Lady Gaga and Ben Affleck, using the code names Soupy Sales and Marvin Hamlisch.’ Is the statement true? As the existence of secret anti-Semitic lesbian meatloaf recipes is still unproven, we cannot give a definitive answer. The statement is possibly true pending new information. The recipe has been made public? It wasn’t meatloaf, it was chili? Let’s revise the statement to say ‘The King of Sweden is using a radio transmitter in his penis to send anti-Semitic lesbian chili recipes to Lady Gaga and Ben Affleck’. Is the revised statement true? Unless new information surfaces to contradict it, yes.”

        The Religious Fundamentalist Mind says ‘I believe it’s true. Any evidence to the contrary is a lie you are spreading to discredit my belief. I don’t need evidence; it makes perfect sense to me, and it should to you, too. You must be a terrible person to not believe this. I insist this be taught in school alongside the opposite position; that’s only a theory anyway. In fact, I don’t want my kids exposed to the opposite position, because I don’t want them to question any of my other beliefs, either, and I want a law protecting my family from being exposed to this filth. Is the statement true? Of course it is, because I believe it is. (Sticks fingers in ears) La,la,la,la, I can’t hear you, la, la, la.”

        • Sammy says:

          Again, SillyKiwiMan, you have proved my point. I find it interesting how you judge me for the belief of others. Should I judge you that way too? Should I judge you because of what someone else posts on your website? If a child is upset in the grocery store, and screams, the mother or father then picks up the child and begins to soothe them. Who should we judge for screaming? The mother? The father? They had nothing to do with it. You simply can not judge someone else for the actions or beliefs of another individual, although I have seen a lot of this here. Not to mention the bigotry. You loathe it when others try to say “You are wrong because you don’t believe in our god, you are going to Hell, blah blah blah…” but what are you accomplishing with “Grow up, get a life” and “To believe in some magic man in the sky is just ignorant, and anyone who believes in religion is sad and pathetic” because that’s what I see a lot of here. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Some famous words said by Jesus (not forcing religion at all here). I would rather believe in treating others with respect and attempting to live in peace and harmony with others than telling others they are wrong and need to “grow up” because they believe something other than I do. It’s bigotry and that is not how I want to appear to others. Good day and I hope you succeed on your path, whatever it may be.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Post-modernism was simply an entertaining experiment and not an analytical tool. Some people believe that the truth lies in the outside world; others, believe that truth can be found by looking inwards; though, it seems rather grandiose to believe that internal experience can reveal truths about the outside world. Even more surprisingly, some people believe them.

          The so-called religious method has been in existence for a million years and has contributed nothing of any use. At best, it’s a type of obsessive pastime that avoids the moment; at worst, it’s the purest form of politics.

          Creation ‘science’ is a futile attempt to align religion and science, bringing religion into the classroom as valid. Adults can spot the idiotic assertions; targeting vulnerable children is unconscionable. There is no such thing as a respected Creation Scientist: they’re unemployable. I wonder if Newton is responsible for the dropping part of the atom bomb; or Faraday for triggering it.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Sammy,

          I’m not judging you based on what I’ve observed from other religious people, I’m judging you based on what you’ve said here.

          You have made several stupid statements. You have displayed a breathtaking ignorance in a number of matters. You’ve trotted out tired old arguments that we’ve all heard many times before. You fail to understand that the only way you can reconcile religious beliefs with the actual observable world is to move the goalposts constantly. You’re not alone, your faith is no more idiotic than any other, all religions do the same thing.

          Having a couple of ignorant ideas doesn’t make someone completely ignorant. Having stupid ideas doesn’t make someone completely stupid. I’m not sure about where to sit on the topic of evil, but according to many people of faith, we have no moral compass anyway. We are usually all tarred with the same brush by the religious. There is even disagreement with how we atheists define ourselves. I personally am an antitheist. Others are agnostic (because they can’t commit ;) ) or sit somewhere between. It has been assumed that I must worship Satan, or money, or something other than your god. (as it is, I worship beer, my motorbike, and the mighty All Blacks)

          You can feel free to judge me. We all do it. You do it. You probably kid yourself that you’re not, because it doesn’t sit well with your beliefs. We make judgements all the time, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to keep ourselves safe, decide who to do business with, work for, employ, be friends with, the list is endless. There’s a world of difference between thinking “here’s a young bloke, with fervently held beliefs (and when I was younger, I used to fight a losing corner to the bitter end too out of stubborn pride) who has come looking for a fight. He’s going to lose, but let’s see if he has redeeming features” and thinking “you’re an arsehole and I hope you die”.

          You haven’t attacked us (directly), you haven’t abused us, your arguments are disingenuous and intellectually offensive, but that’s a result of your lack of education and indoctrination. As you get older, your views WILL change on things. Whether or nor you grow as a result is optional. I think you may have a chance, all you need to do is critically analyse a few things, and rather than reading material that supports your viewpoint, find information that doesn’t and think about why others may see things in a different way.

  3. Sam says:

    This Pastafarian religion is just proving a point that over all these generations, we’ve been brainwashed into believing all these different religions to cover up the truth, Pastafarian religion is just a made up religion like the rest of ‘em. and they are very much aware that. I’m not i’m saying i’m pastafarian or even atheist, some of this shit is all common sense. Look it all up, and question everything thats the only way you’ll be most satisfied and enlightened. I was raised a christian and i changed once i wanted to figure it out on my own. I questioned everything about my religion and i found out that i’ve been lied to all these years. This world is too close minded to believe anything else scientific or even question “Oh that could be a possibility”. Instead there like “naw all these answers are written in a book.” ( A book written by a bunch of humans to fool you)

    • Sammy says:

      Let me get this straight, you are saying that anyone who believes in religion has been “lied to”? You contradict your earlier statement of “It’s common sense. Look it all up” by saying “A book written by a bunch of humans to fool you.” If you think that everything pertaining to religion comes from a bunch of books written by a bunch of humans to fool you, then what are science journals? What are history books? Surely the great lizards of the past wrote them. Surely aliens from out of our world come to Earth all the time to discover new things, make great philosophical discoveries, to provide insight as to what it means to be human, because obviously a human could never write something true. Because obviously all humans write stuff just to fool each other. You call those who believe in something other than you “close minded”. You’re kidding me right? If someone tries 13 different religions before finding one that they like and seems to suit them, you call that close minded? I would call that much more open minded than someone who was raised Christian,

      • Sammy says:

        Someone who was raised Christian, did a small bit of thinking, then all of a sudden calls everything else lies and everyone around them a liar.
        To me, looking for something to believe in, searching for many, many years for an answer, and not necessarily settling down with it permanently and agreeing 100% with it, but satisfying the thought for the time being, is much more open minded. Also, what you are suggesting is that only you can be right, and that whatever you believe is 100% correct, that whatever anyone else believes, is wrong. This is called bigotry.

        Bigotry:
        big·ot·ry
        bigətrē/
        noun
        bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

        Besides, who are you to decide who’s right and who’s wrong? You are no one. None of us are. Let’s face it. We are all nobodies in this world…

        (For some reason, it submitted my post before I finished… Probably this damned laptop keyboard…)

        • Sammy says:

          Captain Birdseye, how can even begin to say that there is no such thing as a respected Creationist Scientist? Or that they are unemployable? We all know for a fact how absurd that is. I’m not saying they are correct in what they believe, but that they do exist. A simple Google Search would have shown you this.
          Here is a small list, easily accessible from Google, and many other websites confirm this. It doesn’t require a high IQ to understand that saying something before doing any research is ignorance.

          Small list of Respected Creationist Scientists who also have contributed much to society: http://www.creationists.org/outstanding-creation-scientists.html

          Everyday I wonder, where is the hope in humanity? All we ever do is fight. Bigotry and ignorance will forever rule the world and I look forward to the fall of mankind. An event like this would prove to the world, and all those who think they know everything, that they really don’t know anything.

          “A wise man would admit that, despite what he thinks he knows, he is really ignorant of how much he doesn’t know.”
          - Anonymous

          “Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.”
          - Socrates

        • Jo Switten says:

          No child is born christian, islamic, jewish or whatever. They are brainwashed into the religion their parents have. All religions should be banned. Only the belief in His Holy Noodliness can be accepted, because He is the only true God! R’Amen!

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Sammy, I examined lists of ‘Famous Creationist Scientists’ years ago. Notably, such lists are inaccurate and only published by Creationists, presumably, as an attempt to gain validity for creationism. Have you read-up on Project Steve? Obviously, there are many respected scientists who are also religious (please note the distinction), but, they keep creationism/religion separate from their professional work.
          There is no such thing as a Creationist so-called Scientist who is respected by scientists; anyone trying to introduce creationism into a research project would be out of a job. Nothing of any scientific value has been produced by creationist ‘science’ – ever; their only employment is teaching in Bible schools or working for absurd organisations, such as AiG and Discovery Institute.
          Call it bigotry if you like, but, creationism should not be taught in schools as anything other than one particular religion’s creation mythology.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Sammy, I have no answers, but, I think the difficulties are age-old problems to do with resources. Religions are notorious for ever-increasing use of community resources for their activities. I can imagine stone-age people complaining bitterly about those of the group who spend time and resources on religious rituals and not providing. It would seem tempting to eject them from the group as a threat to survival.
          I think the current religious difficulties are to do with a perceived waste of diminishing resources and expansionist religious ideologies, such as Promised Lands (other people’s resources).
          I enjoy the company of spiritually-inclined individuals, but, am saddened by the like of televangelist scammers and fundamentalists who justify genocide.
          Have you seen the movie Life of Pi? I have watched it four times, closer to the screen each time.

        • dis kid says:

          So, you’re a creationist then? Tell me, which creation story is the correct one? Oh, wait a moment…

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      I think that anyone who:
      - invents information and attempts to persuade others that it is true, is a liar;
      - passes on such information as true, without evidence of its veracity, is also a liar;
      - persuades children that such information is true, is a liar guilty of child abuse.

      Gullibility or delusion do not change the fact that information was/is provided as purportedly true. That people were/are evicted, tortured and killed for not believing such stuff is also beyond belief.

      History books and science journals are thrown out when shown to be in error.

      Aliens have been on Earth a long time: they are called the fungi.

      Religion is the purest form of politics. As if Promised Lands (someone else’s) were not enough, we then get Prosperity Christianity – isn’t it obvious they just make it up? Religion is man worshiping himself and the root of all evil.

      The light is failing, just need to rip the hearts out of a dozen kids to make the Sun come up tomorrow.

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        A little harsh, Captain. While I agree that those who invent information are liars, the ones who believe and pass it on aren’t. They’re just fools.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          I’m thinking of the same legal principal as in slander or libel, where, repeating someone else’s lie, while believing it true, is also libel. I’m curious about any legal test cases, where someone has committed a serious act after being given false religious information by someone who didn’t invent it.
          I agree, it is a bit harsh; it’s the listener who should check veracity and reject bull-shit, unless they’re a kid or about to be burned at the stake.

        • Keith says:

          So was Harold Camping and his chain of command ever sued? Obviously this is not libel but people spread his bullshit to weak minded people whether they believed it or not. I tried looking on the internet but all I got was a flood of sites with people giving their opinion on whether or not he could be.

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          See? There you go. Camping really BELIEVED his own drivel; technically he wasn’t lying – he was the head fool. Isn’t it amazing how absolutely certain people like Camping can be in their faith? Yes, the Supreme Creator made the universe just for them! In actuallity they’re a minority of beings on a small planet orbiting a mediocre star on the outskirts of an average galaxy among countless billions in one of potentially countless multiverses.

  4. web design says:

    Really no matter if someone doesn’t understand after that its up to other visitors that they will help,
    so here it occurs.

    Here is my web site :: web design

  5. nancy says:

    I am a religious person, and no I am not uneducated or stupid. I feel however David apparently is no better than he accuses you of being. I would not want to be educated by someone like him, if he wants to be an atheist fine, but do not call others uneducated or stupid because they believe in God. I do not call evolution stupid I just do not believe I evolved from an ape or any other creature. My Choice

    • Keith says:

      Belief (or acceptance as I prefer to say) in evolution has nothing to do with atheism. There are probably a minority of atheists who do not accept evolution (like the Raelians who are technically atheists). Likewise there are many religious people who accept evolution as a fact. Robert Bakker is a prime example.

    • Jo Switten says:

      Dear Nancy, even if you call evolution stupid (which proves only your own stupidity then), you just can’t ignore the facts science is giving us. The bizarre thing with religilous people like yourself is that you see science as another religion, which you can choose to believe or not. Science doesn’t give a rat’s ass about that opinion. We all evolved from apes, basta :) It’s a FACT, not a BELIEF! :)

      Science however delivers the means of mass destruction so you can all go kill yourself in blind hate because someone else believes in a different god. Science also delivers methods of curing terrible diseases.

      But hey, why should we call you stupid because you are being brainwashed into your belief? Religion itself is also not stupid, it is a certain phase you are in before you will reach the stadium of enlightment…

      … and join the Church of FSM. All hail to His Holy Noodliness! R’Amen :)

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      Nancy, you may not be unintelligent, but your choice not to ” believe in” evolution is stupid.

      The head of the human genome project, Francis Collins, is an evangelical god-botherer. He’s an undeniably brilliant geneticist with a high intellect, but he can simultaneously hold idiotic beliefs.

      As Jo said, whether or not you embrace stupidity over reason is irrelevant. Physical phenomena occur regardless of the state of mind of an observer. You declaring yourself to be educated doesn’t make it so, nor does your attestation to your own intelligence.

      • Jo Switten says:

        SillyKiwiMan, I love your choice of words! I desperatly must learn more words so I can be as eloquent as you! :p

        Maybe we were to harsh for poor ol’ Nancy! Perhaps she has good qualities to be a stripper! And the Divine FSM knows we can always some good ones! It’s actually a good thing if they are a bit dumb! It’s more fun if they believe anything you say! :)

        R’Amen, o Brother in Arms :)

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        Creationists like to cite that they’ve never seen anything evolve, like they’re standing around in some laboratory or jungle and a creature is suppposed to suddently turn into something completely different right in front of them. Quick question: They believe god just created all things, but has anyone ever seen a human, plant or animal suddenly just appear out of a flash of light or a puff of smoke? OK, magicians pulling a rabbit out of a hat aside…

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Creationists persistently misconstrue the difference between ‘evolve from’ and ‘share a common ancestor’, with questions such as, ‘if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes’? This is equivalent to asking, if Americans derived from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

          They also just can’t grasp the idea of incremental adaptations to the environment, suggesting absurd straw-man arguments such as ‘crocoducks’ and ‘catodogs’ as absent transitional species.

        • Rev. Wulff says:

          “a creature is suppposed to suddently turn into something completely different right in front of them”

          This is exactly what they believe. I used to know a brilliant engineer with dozens if not hundreds of patents to his name who didn’t believe in evolution because, in his own words, ‘a butterfly can’t give birth to a bird’.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Rev. W, this seems to raise the old pseudo-paradox: ‘Which came first, the chicken or the egg?’ The answer, or course, is the egg, because it was laid by (a creature closer to) a dinosaur and not a chicken.

          Apparently, most creationists are engineers, which I am still processing. Any ideas? Perhaps your friend determined flight to be the essential quality, which, with his brilliance, suggests he may be savant autistic.

        • Keith says:

          Don Mc Leroy and Jobe Martin are dentists. Perhaps they’ve been exposed to too much nitrous oxide.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Nancy, if you had a billion word book and there was, say, a word spelled backwards; and you then found another print of the same book by another publisher and it it had the same word miss-spelled in exactly the same way, would you be alerted to plagiarism? Humans have a broken gene for making vitamin C; apes have the same defective gene, broken in exactly the same way. Does that suggest anything to you regarding your ancestors?

      I was saddened to hear of the latest mass-shooting in America. But what revolted me was the young girl saying that her parents had “gone to a better place and she will see them again”. Her grandfather nodding suggests his part in her abusive indoctrination. In fact, her parents are dead and she will never see them again. This sick way of minimising the impact of such a tragedy may tempt her to suicide and cause citizens to never address the reasons for such slaughter.

      I suggest that religion is self-inflicted powerlessness; a dream-world of fatalism, inaction and acceptance of horror; and then there is self-righteous genocide, theft of other’s land and god-given prosperity. Religion is simply man worshiping himself.

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        Broken gene? But god made us perfect – in his own image! God has love handles, male pattern baldness and a balky prostate. Captain Birdseye, religion can also offer a comforting lie to that girl and her grandfather; I’ll give it that. Some of us, however, prefer the truth to nice-sounding fantasies.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          No doubt God gave us these defects as a gift to test our faith. I do like the connection between ‘made in His image’ and the human condition. I believe there are some clever images of that idea.
          Of course religion provides comfort, but, at what price? There is a correlation between religiosity and crime rate in America (where I do not live). The Vatican has the highest crime rate of all states: 500 citizens and 800 crimes per year. Didn’t Mormons once have hit-men for apostates? I wonder what percentage of Nigerian fraudsters are also religious.

    • Jo Switten says:

      one for Nancy :)

      Vacationing this summer in the Cornhusker State? Consider visiting the University of Nebraska State Museum, especially its exhibit on evolution. It features several brief videos done by Richard Dawkins, all of which focus on important issues in evolution, and are available online, too.
      However, before you go, check out two recent discoveries adding to our knowledge about evolution. Georgia Tech scientists have new evidence that all living creatures have similar ribosomes. And, from studying skulls fossils, Smithsonian scientists have evidence shedding light on how one small band of people managed to migrate from Africa, and then settle so many different parts of the globe. Our classic BBC video, narrated by Dr. Alice Roberts, will also enlighten you on the subject.
      Speaking of “needing enlightenment,” would the Nigerian government please educate itself? Its recent imprisonment of Mubarak Bala (charge: “atheist’) was an international disgrace.
      The Openly Secular campaign’s new website is open for business! Check it out at http://www.openlysecular.org
      Robyn Blumner
      Executive Director
      Richard Dawkins Foundation

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Jo, I had a look at that site. Thanks. Have you discovered the site, Sensuous Curmudgeon?

        • Jo Switten says:

          Thanks, Captain, I’ll look into it this weekend :) Looks very interesting!

    • Rev. Wulff says:

      Nancy, I doubt you’ll come back to read this, but if you do, can I ask you a serious question? You say you don’t believe that humans evolved from other creatures, and I will not attempt to argue otherwise. Most of the creationists I’ve known over the years were not just opposed to the concept of evolution, but actually disgusted by the thought that at some point in their genetic history, there were lower forms of animal life. Now, according to the bible, man was created from dust/dirt/soil/etc. (depending on translation). I’ve never understood why it’s better to think that before we were humans we were just particulate matter, instead of being part of an on-going life cycle. Can you explain your feelings on the subject to me, please?

  6. Bill Davison says:

    Why oh why do we persevere with all of this Religious Waffling – a pure Man-made Humbug – & concemtrate our minds on the Facts of Life?

    Common Sense – the basis of Science & Research, is a quality that ALL of Humanity uses, & MUST continue to employ in order to survive! The contributors to ‘Thought for Today’ – BBC Radio 4 early morning – are religious types trying to use this quality but insist on dragging a fictitious God into their diatribe.

    • Keith says:

      As far as fundies go, they continue to believe in religion because it is convenient. They do not have to bother thinking about cause and effect because, to them, everything is in the hands of some supernatural being. If something big happens, such as the Earth being doomed due to climactic changes, or the imminent threat of WW3, they don’t have to think about averting it because it is all part of their god’s plan. Some even look forward to such things because they think it is a prelude to their salvation.

      • Rev. Wulff says:

        Good answer, Keith. I’d also like to add that the fun-duh-mentals are taught and believe that the more their lives suck on earth, the greater their rewards will be after dying. Therefore, taking steps to improve your life means getting cheated on the back end, so it’s better to let yourself be treated like shit in the here-and-now instead of making things better.

        • Keith says:

          Also a good point. I wonder if they treat other people like shit because they think it will save unwilling souls?

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          I’ve always had a big problem with Pascal’s wager in that people ignore the alternative.

          Instead of obeying stupid rules just in case there’s an afterlife, how about enjoying yourself (as long as you’re not hurting anyone) in this life just in case there isn’t.

  7. J Borne says:

    Religious people view religion as an attempt to explain the nature of existence. Failure to update the belief in the face of insurmountable evidence which contradicts or completely nullifies the possibility that the explanation might be correct, is the reason that religious people are considered irrational.

    The historic record of the Christian religion, when observed objectively and with forensic detachment leaves bare a fantastic story of deception and politically motivated manipulation of vast populations. However, this can be brushed aside, as ‘the evidence could have been falsified’ and ‘you weren’t there to see it, so how do you know it’s true?’

    To which, we must simply say, ‘you believe Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, brought a dead man back to life, and rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven.’ How can you possibly believe that, if you weren’t there to see it happen?’ Having faith is just a cope out, which allows for the suspension of reasoning and the application of double standards to any argument that begins to show plausible reason to doubt the validity of an idea or thought.

    People try to mix religious (or even new age wishy washy spiritual) arguments with scientific theories, arguments or findings, which they poorly understand and manipulate to suit the argument. This just shows a devotion to a false idea rather than a sincere devotion to the truth. As ultimately, this is a discussion on the nature of the truth.

    I believe this site is a protest against religious ideologues trying to enforce their perceived monopoly on the truth.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      J Borne, is this your first visit to this site? Of course it’s a protest, using Poe’s Law. There is just as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for any other deity, but, He is far tastier and comes with a 30-day trial period.

  8. sizzling hot deluxe download za darmo says:

    I think this is among the most vital info for me. And i
    am glad reading your article. But wanna remark on some general things,
    The site style is great, the articles is really great : D.
    Good job, cheers

Leave a Reply