Book Discussion

Any thoughts?

1,969 Responses to “Book Discussion”

  1. SPACE MIKE says:

    Belief. Dost thou belief in the moon? The moon exists, and you and I can see it. It’s an undisputed fact. We even have moon samples in the Smithsonian if you need proof. Must a blind person accept ON FAITH that the moon exists? The blind person can easily feel the effects of the sun on their skin, but the moon radiates no heat and is completely invisible to the blind person. They can measure tides and infer that there must be some massive body that regularly orbits the earth with the sun. It’s the most simple explanation- it’s exactly the way sighted people proved it the first time. And there are many other ways for this blind person to back-up this hypothesis that “the moon exists.” All of this renders belief of real things unnecessary. The moon either exists or not. There’s no use for belief in any case. I’ve been asked “How do we know that you are loved by someone?” to which I reply, after stabbing out my own eyes, that love is how someone feels- and that’s electrically generated in their brain. It’s not some mysterious force. Same for the “soul.” There’s just no proof. And then they respond “when you look for proof, god hides the proof from you.” And that’s when I simply cry, and hope for a future where religion (except FSMism) is banished. It’s not hard to see the deeply negative impact religion has wrought on human progress.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      SPACE MIKE, because they have no evidence, fundies want to conflate the different meanings of the words faith and belief to conclude that everything is faith-based and thus of equal value.
      To be fair, science does have its ‘articles of faith’ (axioms), such as ‘logic exists’; but, logic is testable, consistent, fruitful and creates confidence rather than faith. The axiom ‘God exists’, leads only to incoherent rhetoric.
      We know we are loved because of the evidence of the other person’s behaviour.

  2. NumberOneSilver says:

    This letter is a true inspiration….

    • Keith says:

      What letter?

  3. Sagan (not Carl) says:

    Is everybody already dead set on the name of our deity? Try this on for size . . .

    Don’t you think ‘monster’ is a bit strong? What if we called Him, say, Flying Spaghetti Rascal? That still gives a sens of His mischievous nature, and yet isn’t nearly as likely to scare the children.

    And remember, today’s children might become tomorrow’s Pirate!

    If we don’t scare ’em.

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      Waytago, Carl!!!

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Sagan, most of the several different meanings of ‘monster’ are neutral. To heathen Christians, however, His Noodliness is likely confronting.

  4. fabricant de moule en plastique says:

    I am often to blogging and i really recognize your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I’m going to bookmark your web site and hold checking for brand new information.

  5. BerryPeala says:

    большой веб ресурс томск стоматология

  6. Andrew Long says:


    • james carosi says:

      i agree but they tryed their best

  7. James charles says:

    I believe his noodliness was inspired by pasta today and changed form long ago to make us think that we can wear pasta strainers with his noodle appendages.

  8. Reid says:

    I am going to convert. Who do I contact if I want to start a new church in my area?

    • Keith says:

      Just being a Pastafarian means that you are automatically part of a wide church. You could try Googling to see if there are any Pastafarians in your area already.

Leave a Reply