1197713 Views
982 Comments

We shouldn’t live with absolute frivolity

Published August 12th, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

While life should not be taken too seriously, this doesn’t mean we should live with absolute frivolity. Yes, so-called religions attempt to mandate all sorts of opinions and behaviors about morality and social conformity. This does not mean that actual religion — the sincere attempt to understand the unknowable — is inherently stupid or necessarily bullshit.

Quantum mechanics tells us that all possibilities exist simultaneously until foreclosed by inconsistent observations. So, with regard to what we truly cannot know or observe, it’s possible that all beliefs are equally "true" and very much real. It’s an incredibly powerful thought: that we can design our own eternity simply by imagining it.

Personally, I’d want much more from my eternity than to party on a pirate ship with a bunch of beer and strippers. The ability to have that experience at any time and for any duration? Sure, that would be great. But plain old life has plenty to offer that’s much more sublime and extraordinary than simple hedonism. And it’s not even a very ambitious vision of hedonism.

World history is replete with terrible evils committed in the name of "religion." Certainly, it’s an important message that moral and social "values" should not be elevated to the level of religious beliefs. But our ability as humans to recognize the fundamental unknowable questions — where are we from, why are we here, and where are we going — creates a fundamental human need to discuss and confront these questions.

Pastafarianism does indeed celebrate the power of the individual to choose his or her own answers to these questions. Some might like the idea of choosing answers that are deliberately silly or absurd. But to do so simply to make a point about the beliefs of others is to degrade and dishonor one’s own spirit.

-Tom



982 Responses to “We shouldn’t live with absolute frivolity”

1 24 25 26
  1. Edwin Spoonfagle says:

    I’m still stuck on the comment about not wanting to spend one’s eternity with beer and strippers.. what kind of beer and what do the strippers look like?

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      Whatever you want them to be, everyone has a different idea of heaven and His Holy Noodliness grants us what we desire. Guinness, Monteith’s original, Young Henry’s hop ale, and dwarves for me. (Guess which one isn’t a beer…)

      • Keith says:

        The Ale. Anyone who has played D&D (or for that matter, Simon the Sorcerer) knows that Dwarves can be bribed with beer: they are obsessive about it. In fact, Dwarves drink so much beer that their body is composed of 75% beer. Therefore, Dwarves are beer (or as near as damnit).

  2. John Gilbert says:

    Our Solar System the most prominent entity in our region of the Universe is ALIVE. Yes, I mean an actual life form. Stop thinking bio matter. Do not limit the ingredients that create life because we have already learned that DNA is not the only way to reproduce. Prions can replicate inside mammals.
    I am 78, finally learned about 5 years ago the the local intelligent life form is not people on the planet Earth, but instead the local intelligent life form is our Mother Sun including Moon and planets. I will help you all realize that we are not really alive – microscopic bags of mostly water and bio-matter, sound asleep, without *free will* – and logically Mother Sun’s mass/energy activity makes much more sense. But wait, do not quit me now. I am now in doubt whether Mother Sun is the supreme being, because I slowly experience an amazing vision: The Milky Way is the local life form I learned, not the local solar system. I am John (godhas4legs) Gilbert in Toronto or Picton.

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      Are you in a state of superposition? If I observe you, will your wave function collapse causing you to be in either Picton or Toronto? Could it be that you are just another spammer, or are you insane?

      Prions are still biological matter. They are the result of genes being expressed. Not a flaming ball of hydrogen wishing them into existence. At least you didn’t offer us a loan.

    • Keith says:

      My high school biology may be out of date but if I remember correctly the criteria for life are:

      It must feed
      It must excrete
      It most grow
      It must respond to stimuli
      It must reproduce

      If someone can prove to me that the Solar System fulfills all of these criteria I will be happy to take the proposition seriously (which is not to say that I will agree with it).

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      John, you may have watched Avatar too many times. Your proposition seems to depend entirely on what your definition of ‘life’ is. I can construct a neural network that is able to learn, speak, solve problems and demonstrate ‘intelligence’, but, I would not accept, as Keith suggests, that it is alive by accepted criteria of life.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        …. Keith, said neural network would feed on energised electrons, excrete lower energy electrons, engage with its environment, repair itself, respond to stimuli, expand and replicate itself, but, it is still not ‘alive’, as John suggests it would be.

      • Keith says:

        Come to think of it, if I play “The Sims”, the sprites fulfill the requirements listed. They cannot be said to be alive.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Keith, even defining life as an entity containing DNA or RNA may not be sufficient, even on Earth. The prions that John mentioned (that cause Mad Cow Disease and CJD) are simply large organic molecules that can replicate. One needs a worthlessly broad definition of ‘what is alive’ in order to include prions, crystals or star-systems as life-forms, even if they display apparent intelligence, which is us projecting it onto them.

      • Faykin says:

        I’m curious. Why would you not consider this hypothetical neural network to be alive?

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          If you wish to consider neural networks as ‘alive’, you may, but, you will then need to regard your new washing machine as alive, which rather spoils the usefulness of the word ‘living’. I think that ‘biological’ may be an essential criterion of life-forms, as well as all those that Keith mentioned.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Touchier but perhaps more interesting would be adding “self-aware” to the criteria being debated. Probably not everything “living” by ordinary everyday standards is self-aware, but if evolution goes in that direction, it would seem kinda significant. I wonder what Cap’n, Keith, SKM, tFtPtM, and others think….

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          The ability to reproduce is a big one. Self awareness is proof of life a la Descartes, but definitely not a necessary feature.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Also, evolution will not steer things I the direction of self awareness. If it doesn’t offer a reproductive advantage, it won’t be selected for. Monocotyledon plants are ancient and haven’t changed. They fill their niche, the angiosperms are younger, because their was a gap for them to fill. While one could be considered more advanced than the other, the reality is that there is simply no good reason for the monocotyledons to change.

        • Faykin says:

          Hm.

          I *think* what you are saying is that if the definition of life is too broad, it isn’t useful.

          As a counterpoint, let’s consider SETI. If we are too restrictive in our definition of life in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, is it possible that we’ll overlook a non-DNA/RNA based intelligence?

          Why is DNA/RNA/Biological essential for the definition of life?

        • Keith says:

          Not wishing to open a can of worms, I wonder what “self aware” actually means. Something that moves and avoids hazardous objects could be said to self aware as it recognises where parts of its body are going and reacts accordingly so as not to get damaged.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          I think the definition of a ‘life-form’ is that it must be an entity composed of one or more biological cells, plus all the stuff that Keith mentioned. It must allow for extremeophiles and some immortal creatures.
          Bacteria constitute the largest number of species of life on Earth and virus are on the edge of qualifying. I doubt if either are self-aware. I think that a Universal definition of life includes the possibility of silicon substituting for carbon in making complex substances.
          Interesting to note that fungal spores are found in deep space, suggesting that aliens are already living on Earth and we just don’t recognise them as such.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          I think there is more to it, Keith, than responding to an environment. For example, I would not regard an anti-body as alive, despite its purposeful response.
          I think that Volition is a necessary criterion for awareness and suspect that ‘self’ must allow for each creature. Thus, I suspect my cat has an enduring perception of itself in its world. Perhaps a worm also has a self, but, I don’t think the reflex actions of motile bacteria involve one. I think it may be necessary to have a brain or nervous system as a pre-requisite to a self.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Fakin, I am not aware of any life-form that has evolved without genetic material, and, suspect there are no aliens who did not evolve from ancestors. However, the presence of DNA/RNA is not used as one of the definition’s criteria, nor is intelligence. Anything ‘alive’, by definition, maintains a delicate internal balance of complex chemicals. Pick another name if you don’t like biological.
          If a rock from another galaxy ever talked to me, after discussing its origin and solution to entropy, I may simply conclude there are talking rocks that are no more alive than my washing machine.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Just wanted to express appreciation for all your various reactions – helpful. I had always – more or less unconsciously or at least not self-awarely – equated evolution with progress, not necessarily guided but at least governed by some sort of logic that made “improvements” like self-awareness favored over whatever the opposite might be. Probably wrong, although it seems surprising, somehow, that the ability to generate a theory of quantum mechanics (and get it fairly well, most of the time, see above, LOFLMAO) is collateral to reproductive advantage. Re talking rocks, Cap’n B., you’re likely aware of the fairly large amount of argument surrounding Turing’s Test – another related fun topic, for sure!!!!

        • Keith says:

          Re the Turing test, for those who had not been aware of this event. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/super-computer-simulates-13-year-old-boy-passes-turing-test . I daresay a more complete examination of the event is available elsewhere. My question is: did the computer have its parents permission to talk to all of these strangers?

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Computers that can win the Turing Test on laymen, cannot deceive the people programming them. Eventually, no doubt, there will be Artificial Intelligence machines that can deceive their own creator, but, it will never be alive or complain of being turned off at night.
          The Robin Williams movie Bicentennial Man explores many of these ideas.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Keith, thanks for the link – was unaware of that test – really interesting. And, BTW, of course, Turing himself was an interesting guy. Having been 13 myself once, I might now propose some kind of double-blind experiment that included *real* as well as AI-synthesized 13-year-olds, just to see how good the “pickers” are. Though not really fooled, I thought iPhone’s Siri was pretty good, actually. Cap’n, you could be quite right, but it will be interesting to see what the future brings. Quantum computing, thought about for only a few 10′s of years, seems to have enormous possibilities, don’t you think?

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Quantum computing is already with us: it’s why memory sticks and LEDs are suddenly ten-times more powerful. Artificial Intelligence is not achieved by using super-computers. Although computers can imitate basic neural networks, they operate sequentially and not simultaneously like a neural network.
          Neural networks are constructed to resemble brain matter and have a simple algorithm that links them. They are as basic as that, although the current algorithm did win a Nobel Prize.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Cap’n B., appreciate your comments; sorry to be dense. I was – some years ago – involved in looking into a relatively “simple” problem which involved neural networks and more “ordinary” schemes for decision-making. At the time, relatively simple simulations on ordinary computers sufficed. Looking on the internet (my only resource at the moment), the only evidently authoritative survey of neural network hardware realizations that I found still emphasized more or less ordinary digital circuitry, sequential, albeit “massively parallel”. The survey alluded to more exotic hardware (“electro-optical” and even “molecular” but declared those beyond its purview. I’d appreciate any pointers in those fancier directions that you might be able to provide.
          Re quantum computing, I’m not sure (and maybe don’t adequately understand! Pointers appreciated again!) that the improvements you mention involve quantum computing per se. You’re certainly right that decades have elapsed since Feynman and others raised the prospect, but implementations that fully exploit the profound differences between “classical” digital circuitry and those that function quantum-mechanically seem still in the future. Though maybe the very near future: NASA, DARPA, the AFOSR and – cheer up! – the NSA have programs going….

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          The algorithm used in computer-simulated neural networks is iterated one node at a time, but, in a real neural network, all nodes iterate simultaneously: parallel processing. Although computer, sequential, systems may eventually converge on the same solution, the neural network type that works the best uses a process called back-propagation of error, where it processes forwards while it’s results are fed backwards. If one uses one CPU to be one node, a 24-node neural network could be made from 24 old computers. Super computers have no problem with lack of CPUs and there may well be neural chips in the latest translators.
          The problem with neural networks is training them.

          There are a few universities that may give you working models of Artificial Intelligence from their AI departments. Try Googling ‘Jets and Sharks’ for a student version of a basic neural network. For decades, neural networks have been used as research tools for language, dyslexia or learning theory (Pavlov was wrong). When neural networks are learning to talk (24-node system), interestingly, they make the same initial grammatical errors as children and in the same order.

          Regarding quantum computing: I believe that single atoms can now be switched on and off and the big problem is the lack of a programming language.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          AF. ‘Brainwave’ is the teaching simulator that is still available for download (save the web-page in HTML to use Offline). I spent a few years studying AI post grad about ten years ago and then a year making some 12-node models using Excel. I should have got out my soldering iron as I can’t write Java script and genuine neural networks work very fast in real time.
          When I have the time, I intend to make a proper network with a dozen nodes. Sounds basic but, that means 144 inter-connecting wires, 156 chips etc. 24-nodes would be better, but, so many wires and chips.
          NNs have to learn and are not programmed. I suspect I will first give it a pocket dictionary in text form, wait for it to start speaking with correct pronunciation and then start messing about. I would love to discover what it would make of the American spelling of some words. If it pronounces them correctly, I will forgive Webster. If I had a second network, I would rig them up in binocular rivalry to try and achieve the so-called Cheshire Cat Effect (if you’ve never experienced it before, all you need is a small mirror, white wall and a friendly participant).

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Thanks, Cap’n B., helpful and interesting! Will pursue your suggestions. Good luck on your pursuits!

        • Keith says:

          As a child of the ’60s and ’70s this way out of my league. I’ll keep tuning in to your conversations but I won’t be joining in due to my ignorance.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          AF, I suspect that machines that pass the Turing Test on experts will be a hybrid between a NN and a computer. I suspect they would need to be trained for years. However, when one is trained, clones can be made in seconds. I imagine government agencies are working on million-node systems for some crackpot scheme, such as robo-soldiers.
          Anyway, despite NN’s apparent ‘intelligence’, they do not give a machine a shred of ‘life’, as Faykin suggested; they simply explore our ingenuity and definition of intelligence.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Keith, I have yet to see conversations here in which you ever did less than hold your end up and then some. It’s nice to find a niche in this battered cathedral where stimulus is still to be found.

        • Keith says:

          I’m afraid that anything technical to do with computers goes over my head. One thing that did occur to me while this discussion was going on is that as far back as 1962 (or ’63) Cordwainer Smith (i.e. Paul Linebarger) was writing sci-fi stories which included robots using computers containing sectioned animal brains. I wonder what parameters one would use to determine if a cyborg was living or non living?

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Keith, I think the section of animal brain in the robot is a living thing, but, the robot is not, anymore than when a person drives a car, the car does not become alive. Strange have people have sympathy for mechanical objects.
          What is ‘intelligence’ may be regarded as the ability to learn and solve problems. It seems tempting to think that only brains can demonstrate intelligence. I would agree that intelligence is usually associated with animal life, but, things other than a brain have such abilities, simply by having a neural structure.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Could it reproduce? Not just by building another mechanical body and sticking another brain in it, but with some form of heredity. I think reproductionwwith hereditable traits is one of the criteria for life, assuming all life will be subject to evolution.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          SKM, I didn’t mean the bit of brain in the robot was an entity/organism, but, that it is living matter and would certainly need a life-support system.
          It’s a great sci-fi idea, because the robot seems guaranteed to go beserk. I doubt if said slice could be ‘reset’ and given new data. Information is stored in the physical interconnections, not the nuclei, and an attempt at re-programming could not be just a bolt of electricity. An organic neural network (slice of brain) would take months or years to re-program, if at all, whereas, an electronic one takes a second to make a clone.
          As per Futurama et al: Is a living brain, in a jar, on a life-support system, an organism? I don’t think so – any more than a living body with a dead brain, or an organ for transplant is.

  3. ilovespaghetti says:

    so during mass (if that exists) does the spaghetti king take a piece of spaghetti and dip it in the spaghetti sauce and feed it to them. like christians take the bread and dip it in wine. and do they confess to a plate of spaghetti. pls answer i need a new religion.
    -confused pastafarian

    • Keith says:

      Worshipping the FSM is really a personal thing and is not dictated by any hierarchy. Worship him/her/it how you please as long as you neither harm nor annoy anything that is likely to be harmed or annoyed by your actions.

  4. ilovespaghetti says:

    one more thing will you be strangled by spaghetti if you eat some. do the spaghetti gods lowkey know if you eat pasta???? pls answer i dont wanna go to spaghetti hell.

    -still confused pastafarian

    • Keith says:

      No

  5. TiltedHorizon says:

    meanwhile…. China produces eight times more scientists and engineers. Thank you ‘bendover’ for demonstrating the ‘why’.

  6. Spammyboy says:

    Good evening vaginas i had sex with your mother at the time you you were performing oral sex on your father who is having sex unintelligent.

    Nope, still doesn’t make any sense, bendover. (Also, is that your real name? because you might want to consider changing it…)

  7. Drained and Washed Clean says:

    Totally shocking…

  8. nun sequitur says:

    In China there r also scientists SPLICING HUMAN GENES with that of CATTLE (moo cows) in an attempt 2 produce milk more amenable to human consumption…which ends up torturing cows & raising ethical concerns…while ramping up goats milk production could go a long way to adressing matters, to start with. WHO needs ‘god’ as unseen entity, when persons…entities in our own right, some feel a right & duty 2 tinker with ‘creation’ in this manner…& religion has nothing 2 do, with this…

  9. nun sequitur says:

    In reply 2 nov 7, 2011…9:10 a,

    This post, appearing separately by chance; was to b posted in REPLY 2 TILTEDHORIZONS comment on China…just as posting, screen cut out & the result was as mentioned. ..attempt #3 (pressing REPLY, 2 post mentioned…under’ not live with…frivolity’- getting ERROR message)…

    In China there r also scientists SPLICING HUMAN GENES with that of CATTLE (moo cows) in an attempt 2 produce milk more amenable to human consumption…which ends up torturing cows & raising ethical concerns…while ramping up goats milk production could go a long way to adressing matters, to start with. WHO needs ‘god’ as unseen entity, when persons…entities in our own right, some feel a right & duty 2 tinker with ‘creation’ in this manner…& religion has nothing 2 do, with this…

    ack…the pet visiting our place is into something she ought not b by sounds emanating from other room…i m less concerned about cows than this @ moment, but think about what i said, please…

    TILTEDs post, which this reply FAILS 2 load properly, under:

    November 7, 2011 at 9:10 am

    meanwhile…. China produces eight times more scientists and engineers…

  10. Danger Dave says:

    They also have almost 4 times the population

  11. TiltedHorizon says:

    Nice try converting that mess to usable English. Unfortunately a polished turd is still $#!+.

  12. nunya biz says:

    this is perfectly acceptable but my attempting to point out that religion has been permitted to supress individual freedoms in many cases is considered offensive.

  13. nunya biz says:

    this is perfectly acceptable but my attempting to point out that religion has been permitted to supress individual freedoms in many cases is considered offensive. HOWEVER UNINTENDED. I never said that being kind & discouraging the issues from a different angle is wrong inherently, it IS well meaninged…I do not object to the intentions, but the unintended outcomes…so that if some1 lapses in following advisements, for reasons outside of religion, right or wrong, the consequences are punished by judgement ON EARTH, & any punishment in the afterlife, is just a continuation of the fact that the person died being OPRESSED & SILENCED very often, including dying of otherwise preventable diseases…but since homosexuality is a ‘sin’, or pre marital sex, just let them reap the results, right? & counsel them on their eternal souls…if u believe in life not ending @ death, which I do not neccessarily disagree with, it does not impart the right to ENCOURAGE deaths while it is widely accepted that this is somehow not @ ALL what is going on, & it is blamed on any1 opposing this cycle, instead, which is a lie perpetuating abuses… which makes it a SIN…& even if u believe god may forgive this, not is it neccessarily forgivable accross the board, since concepts of what is forgivable VARY depending on what u perceive god 2 find forgive-able…so even if a mob of persons here believe in the ‘same’ god as this mob over here, each, every individual conception will VARY in context, between individuals…
    DEATH ROW INMATES R NOT INFREQUENTLY VISITED BY MISSIONARIES & MANY CONVERT ON THEIR DEATH BEDS NEARLY…serial murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc are as entitled to believe in god, redemption as their victims probably did, or may well, have. If any of those victims wished for their assaulter to ROT in HELL, AS PUNISHMENT… THEY R NOW BY DEFINITION DENIED THEIR FINAL WISHES…if ANY sinner CAN be ‘saved’…what is to stop some1 from comitting murder if EVERYTHING they do is WASHED CLEAN in the end…what CONSEQUENCE would they then have to fear? IF u believe in justice, & ur own religious teachings, u would have 2 concede there is an imbalance. HELL does NOT neccessarily deter.

  14. Yo Momma says:

    Spammyboy, did you get out of the basement again? Don’t make me get the cattle prod out…

  15. Wayne says:

    Fixed, and double ups removed. Hope you don’t mind nun.

  16. nun sequitur says:

    ‘Hope you don’t mind’ mind about post dups? i had 1 of these, once (mind) but that was long ago…fyi, if i try 2 link here from recent comments area, the screen reads ‘error 404′…

  17. nun sequitur says:

    I pressed reply 2 other comment & post, instead shows up in separate window…

  18. Wayne says:

    Yes, I know. It does it to me as well. Don’t know how to fix that.

  19. nun sequitur says:

    has any1 tried

  20. nun sequitur says:

    has any1 tried?

  21. nun s equator says:

    moo.

    i have spliced cow genes with my own, in a way, by ingestion.

    i have not been able 2 eat a burger since i considered it that way.

    mad cow disease was not enough to deter me, tho…

  22. The Voice of Reason says:

    An aquaintaince of mine once said, ‘What if we are a physical manifestation of god?’ A very interesting theory, but I find religion to unlikely, however, it is an interesting thought.

  23. K Russell says:

    Is everybody failing to remember the fact that it’s the Chinese that decided it was a good idea to try to mate people with chimpanzees? I don’t think that is the best example to be put here. Unless you all support beastiality… but I don’t think that’s the message you’re trying to convey. nun Sequitur should let you believe in your spaghetti deity, it’s just so cute, and has nothing to do with the sicko Chinese scientists.

  24. nun s equator says:

    replies do not post where placed…adding 2 clutter…

  25. nun s equator says:

    Reply does not post where placed…
    adding
    to
    clutter

  26. nun s equator says:

    TESTING

  27. Tasm10 says:

    Exactly!! That is why religion CAN BE so dangerous, because there is time always to repent sins, commit a few more, repent again etc. That could be a flaw in having an ever forgiving deity, if you don’t like the idea of sharing your eternal afterlife with murderers, rapists et all. I wonder if they could commit crimes in the afterlife too? Perhaps the pagans got it right, especially the greeks, you p*** off the gods and you have a one way ticket to Tartarus. Yay!!

  28. Drained and Washed Clean says:

    It is pretty convenient, isn’t it? You can do whatever you want because you take comfort in the knowledge that your god will forgive you no matter what you do if you pray… Probably explains why there are more xtians in jail then atheists…

  29. nun s equator says:

    Theoretically TASM, if the people ‘repent’ they r ‘saved’ & therefore ‘worthy’ of being in ‘heaven’…there is a veiled inferrence that once u become something of an energy field vs whatever matter combination format we exist as, now, that we attain some final, perfection status…i think not.

  30. Carbonara Corsair says:

    Aside from Pastafarianism, as someone said, every different religion is just a sense of guilt in different days of the week…

  31. Pirate Smily Face says:

    WHAT THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
    .D

  32. tyler says:

    WTFSM!!!??!?!??!?!?!

  33. nun s equator says:

    “nun s equator says: January 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM

    Theoretically TASM, if the people ‘repent’ they r ‘saved’ & therefore ‘worthy’ of being in ‘heaven’…there is a veiled inferrence that once u become something of an energy field vs whatever matter combination format we exist as, now, that we attain some final, perfection status…i think not.”

    that being said, this is the kind of statement which gets me hated on 4 just specul8ng about. i m not pretending 2 kno what happens 2 consciousness because, its not entirely clear what consciousness is or is not. not pretending 2 have all the answers. i dont think religion & praying r only about negatives. i just cant c the specific formula as it is fitting with manson, the zodiac killer, etc. we r walking chemistry experiments, in part… i think that has something 2 do with contributing 2 some otherwise unexplained acts of violence; it just started 2 not make sense 2 me @ 1 pt, how if certain people r going 2 hell 4 doing something heinous, 4 sure, no return ticket…& u can b redeemed by repenting & get ticket 2 heaven, WHERE is the impetus, what is the ‘threat’ of hell or even, the ‘promise’ of heaven? what some texts do then is get so specific about the KEY, 2 either, which is a noble endeavor but not completely sound, perhaps. i think intangibles such as intuition, consciousness has something 2 do with spirituality & religion is a structure placed around these…ultimate justice seems 2 b main goal of all religion, but by this standard model it nearly falls apart. like me…in pieces…

  34. AnneDroid says:

    Where do you get that from? Nonsense! There so aren’t more Christians in jail than atheists if you count numbers practising their faith. If you base it on what they declare themselves as on admission to prison you misunderstand the stats.

  35. devils right hand man says:

    Most that go to jail become religious immediately. Its sad and those kids they raped to get there spend the rest of their lives hating themselves. Thank you Jesus now go fuck yourself Ramen bitch

  36. The 13th Doctor says:

    I don’t think so. Christians make up about 37% of people in jail. Atheists make up less than a percent. No matter how you understand the stats 2 plus 2 is still 4.

  37. TiltedHorizon says:

    I smell a no true scottsman fallacy. It can’t be true “if the are practicing their faith” hence by being in jail means they were never “true” Christians. Sorry to break it to you, no matter how you spin it, atheists are underrepresented in jails.

  38. Tarnakk The Defender says:

    Who do you suppose allows religion to do that? And are they really the only ones? Governments, Businesses, Religions, Social Groups of sufficient size – all of them act to suppress human rights and individual freedoms. Some of those freedoms (the option to torture, rape, plunder, murder) *should* be suppressed. Most others shouldn’t be. But you have to remember that even without religion, there will always be people who will act out of self interest to suppress the potential thoughts and actions of others. It’s just part of being human. Another part of being human is *resisting* those forces that try to control your life – preferably by nonviolent means. Personally, I don’t find the people applying the pressure to be objectionable. I find the people who refuse to resist objectionable.

  39. Tarnakk The Defender says:

    In reply to one of the underlying themes here that “Religion suppresses freedoms and is thereby objectionable”.

    Who do you suppose allows religion to do that? And are they really the only ones? Governments, Businesses, Religions, Social Groups of sufficient size – all of them act to suppress human rights and individual freedoms. Some of those freedoms (the option to torture, rape, plunder, murder) *should* be suppressed. Most others shouldn’t be. But you have to remember that even without religion, there will always be people who will act out of self interest to suppress the potential thoughts and actions of others. It’s just part of being human. Another part of being human is *resisting* those forces that try to control your life – preferably by nonviolent means. Personally, I don’t find the people applying the pressure to be objectionable. I find the people who refuse to resist objectionable.

  40. Bishop Bob of Linguine says:

    Indeed- Pastafarism is totally free of guilt. May the Holy Flying Spagnetti Monster (may Sauce be upon him) grant us all the never ending pasta bowl with free bread sticks. May he grant us mind blowing diabetic coma’s and lead us to the land of Rigatoni for all eternity-
    Ra Man

  41. Ms. J. L. Knutson says:

    You are so mean.

    His Noodly Appendage should Smite you,
    however, I believe that

    Jellyfish

    are close relatives to the

    Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nevermind, you are probably busy with IMPORTANT STUFF. Have a good day.

1 24 25 26

Leave a Reply