This is a documentary film on the Pastafarians, and their quest for religious freedom!
Pastafarianism came about In 2005 when activist, Bobby Henderson founded the religion of Pastafarianism in response to the Kansas State Board of Education’s decision to teach intelligent design in Kansas schools.
He requested that “Pastafarianism” be taught alongside intelligent design and “logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.” After his protest letter to the board was ignored, he posted it online and the beliefs quickly gained traction.
The documentary is pretty funny, but makes some good points close to the end. It includes footage from the Kansas State Board of Education’s hearings.
Available on iTunes and amazon. Well worth the 5 bucks.
Atheists are all ready and willing to jump at the chance whenever our theistic religions looks no more sensible than Pastafarianism. The effort to push ID into science is certainly a good example, but I think there are plenty of other cases also. Though… not all atheists are the same quality (i.e. rationality) and there are those who parrot arguments they understand poorly so the applicability of the comparison they make is sometimes a bit weak.
So perhaps you should take the implied challenge and compare your particular theism to this made up belief in a flying spaghetti monster and ask yourself if your belief system is all that much better? I have to wonder if this those most offended are the ones where the comparison in their case is not so flattering.
To be honest there are very few atheists who actually are atheists if you know what i mean.These ahteists make some good arguments.The others in my opinion (the common folk)either are just edgy teens ,angry at God because they didnt get that money from the KINO they played or atheists who make strawman arguments.I had a man telling me that he didnt believe in God because he is not helping people.When i asked what kinda help do you want from him he simply stated:Well a couple of women would be good.I instantly nod my head and stoped the conversation
Since I never clicked the link, because I’m not going to watch it I don’t have any idea when it came out. I just know there are dozens of videos and other things about it since it’s been around for a while. When I was in high school people was wearing shirts with it.
I must have dialed that number wrong yesterday it said no longer working number. Nuts, I did. I hate my eyesight now, the blind spot spoils the reading. The contact link does other things,like let you give testamonials and biola doesn’t have contact info for him.
Thank you very much. I will try again in a day or two
This is as bad as atheist sophistry to make us all atheist by default. I see no merit in such argumentation.
The vast majority of atheists are simply not interested in religion. Others see all the problems caused by religion and find a solution in its negation going from passing responsibilities onto deities to taking responsibilities for our own life. They see more meaning and value in life by accepting that it comes to an end rather than investing in an afterlife they don’t believe is real. And they see the complete failure of a toddler’s morality based on “because daddy says so,” when in a rapidly changing modern times we need reasons of substance to distinguish between right and wrong. Then they see religious putting on a self-righteous sham of doing good in order to please their deities when good should be done for its own sake.
Trying this sophistry against atheism will certainly not work with me. I wasn’t raised Christian to accept such nonsensical rhetoric. I come from a completely scientific worldview and see nothing wrong with atheism. I just happen to see value in Christianity and a big part of it was seeing how much of the Bible is devoted to a criticism of religion. I even have a notion that when God spoke of those where the law of God is written on their hearts he could have been speaking of atheists who do good for its own sake.
Sounds more like a hedonist than an atheist. I have met people like that. And more often than not that is just people raised in religion going through a period of superficial rebellion before they snap back to religion before raising a family. It is all a function of that toddler morality making no distinction between a bunch of nonsensical religious regulations and things you shouldn’t do because of the natural consequences – because the only moral reasoning they were ever given was because God will send you to hell if you do that.
but was told it isn’t a licence for God to lie unless he speaks about nature or history.
@Lost and found needed help, but as I saw it people were throwing anchors at him to help him drown and leave the faith.
Mitch you may define atheism anyway you want, but I wouldn’t say the above was Christian evangelism either.
MItch, reading the above reminds me exactly of what I read on atheist boards and listservs back in the 90s and early 2000s. You kinda repeat their ‘bravely facing death’ stuff (and they do), but you forget that I too am facing death and am relatively well founded for this task before me.
You sound like you are saying it is a waste to invest in an nonexisstent afterlife. In reality this is a binary choice. We either have an afterlife or don’t. And the probabilities don’t really matter given that at one time they said I had a 97% chance of being cured of my cancer–except, I fell on the 3% part.
> And they see the complete failure of a toddler’s morality based on “because daddy says so,” when in a rapidly changing modern times we need reasons of substance to distinguish between right and wrong. Then they see religious putting on a self-righteous sham of doing good in order to please their deities when good should be done for its own sake.
I raised 3 boys and never did I base their moral teaching on ‘Daddy says so’. This is clearly a caricature view of Christianity, which you claim to hold to. In rapidly changing times we need Jesus, not ‘reasons of substance’ I have watched over 17 years the 'reasons of substance ’ that come out of the bioethicists . If someone has doubts about a procedure, we bring this ethicist in and he finds a reason of substance to do the questionable surgery. Then they can slap it on a government report and operate away!!!
Trying this sophistry against atheism will certainly not work with me.
As I have said many times, nothing will work with you. It is sad. We all need Jesus, not reasons of substance with which to rule our lives.
I wasn’t raised Christian to accept such nonsensical rhetoric. I come from a completely scientific worldview and see nothing wrong with atheism.
My father was atheist. I see lots wrong with it. The lack of giving to help others is one problem. The general self-centered ness is another. Where are the atheist hospitals? Schools? Charities? Atheists give trifles compared to christians. I don’t see them doing that good or its own sake. I see christians doing it though.
"Though representing only 14 per cent of the Canadian population over the age of 15, religiously active volunteers make up 43 per cent of volunteers in Canada and account for a startling 50 per cent of all hours volunteered.
"The 32 per cent of Canadians who are religiously active contribute 65 per cent of direct charitable donations. As one might expect, this group is responsible for 86 per cent of donations to religious bodies; yet even in the secular sector, the religiously active provide 42 per cent of the $2.1 billion raised by direct giving. " http://givingandvolunteering.ca/pdf/n-vc1sen.pdf#search=‘Charitable%20giving%20religion’
Lets repeat that 32% give 65%? Yeah those darn religious people are so stingy and those non-churched are so generous, doing good for its own sake.
The biggest problem with atheism is the lack of investment in the next world to which our God calls us, begs us to come to. But when Christians tell one and all, as you did, that “atheism is just ok with you, (to paraphrash that said 'Jesus is just alright with me?” are you drawing disciples as Jesus wanted us to, or driving them away? I think the latter sadly.
Just my thoughts. This is the only board on which I was ever asked the question, ‘why do you want the Bible to be historically true?’ That alone says a lot.
No I may not and you may not either. Atheism has a well established definition as the decision that there is no good reason to believe that a God or gods exist. Redefining it as something else is dishonest. And that includes the common new atheist redefinition of atheism as the lack of a belief in God. It is a dishonest tactic of rhetoric to put all the burden of proof on those who disagree with them.
Oh and I am not all that interested in evangelism of any kind. I will defend the rationality of a number of things: Science, Christianity, atheism, religious liberty, and tolerance for example. But I am not interested in pushing all my religious beliefs on others. I don’t buy into the Gnostic gospel of salvation by knowledge of sound doctrine.
I fixed my post above to avoid that misunderstanding in the future. Atheists view it as nonexistent. I do not. But there is no objective evidence for a reasonable expectation that others should agree with our belief in such a thing.
No there is nothing you can do to save me. Fortunately, no matter what you might imagine, my salvation doesn’t depend on you. I need Jesus and I have found reason to believe in Him. And I believe we all need God, but I am not as willing as you seem to be to confine God to my personal religious beliefs as if God were my patent, property, and tool. And I am also not willing to buy into this inane rhetoric making Jesus a multi-tool to fix all problems. Jesus will not fix my computer, my plumbing, or my health problems and NO, shouting Jesus will NEVER provide a sufficient basis for morality in the free non-theocratic society that I want to live in and will FIGHT for.
My father was an atheist too – Maoist communist in fact. And he devoted his whole life to helping others. This was why he eventually abandoned Marxism because he finally realized that those people had no interest whatsoever in helping people. Frankly, I think the atheists you are talking about are the temporary ones in a Xtian dominated community – ether to justify their hedonism or reacting against the corruption and hypocrisy they see in the community. But that does not describe the atheists all over the world.
It is easy to see problems in particular versions of atheism. In father’s case it was based on a Deist conception of God which He decided was irrelevant to the living of our lives.
Oh I believe you.
I was quite surprised to see how afraid my father was of death. But people are different and you should not assume that everyone is the same as you because they are not. I am most certainly not afraid of nonexistence. That is irrational as far as I am concerned. Nor am I afraid of the monster god running a protection racket believed in by a lot of so called Xtians. What frightens me is the sin and capacity for evil that I find inside myself. Thus my vision of hell is not some lame fiery torture chamber – that just makes me laugh. No the hell I see is one where our sins consume us and drag us into total depravity.
are you drawing disciples as Jesus wanted us to, or driving them away? I think the latter sadly.
What drives people away from Christianity is intolerant Christians who don’t even make an effort to understand other points of view.
If you can find examples of Christians in a particular country doing better than atheists, I am only going to applaud the discovery. Sadly this isn’t universally true.
What a stretch from what I didn’t say. I am not trying to save you. That is not in my power. I am observing what I observed and commenting on it. That was all. This discussion turned bizzaro quite quicklly
Mitch, I mean this seriously. I am saddened by the statement above, but I understand because that was almost where I was in 2002 and 2003. I would agree, if all religion is is 90% talk, then I would call it a philosophy, not a religion.
I think we have seen you over the last year get to this point, where religion is an empty suite of close, a blank book of nothingness, that offers nothing of substance for its adherents. It is for this reason, I argue (obviously unsuccessfully) that religion MUST be real, MUST impact this universe, or it is nothing anyone would want to have–just empty words.
Been thee Mitch and maybe you are not as sad about it as I was when I was 95% of the way to this view, the consequences of religion being nothing but empty words means an interesting but ultimately meaningless universe–more empty words. This life will end and we will either meet the greatest mystery out there or we meet nothingness for eternity, with our brains unable to process anything of hearing, seeing, feeling etc.
For others not for Mitch, if religion is as Mitch describes, then it has zero value because it tells us nothing about the universe we live in, offering no hope or help. I chose, not a philosophy to follow, or a path. I chose a man, Jesus Christ to try to emulate my life like. I can’t save anyone, I can’t do miracles, but I hope my life can bring a bit more hope to some than "90%’ empty words, which is what I wuld call them.
I said language not talk. Each religion has its own special language for things which make communication between them very difficult. The point I was making is that we come at things from such completely different directions with the words we use that it is hard to see that we are in nearly the same place even when we are. So yeah the differences are 90% talk and it is making too much of such difference in a divisive manner that the Bible warns us against – not to mention going all judgmental which is really foolish. It is bad enough to approach religion with such a battle mentality but then to build your castle and parts of nothing but the smoke and mirrors of mere words is tragic.
If what you are after is an understanding of the objective universe then you should go to science not religion. I believe in the things of religion precisely because as a scientist I find myself unable to believe that this objective stuff is all there is. Life is not objective observation but subjective participation and thus to confuse science with life is a huge distortion. But turning religion into an imitation science is even worse.
In case you hadn’t notices, I am a physicist by training and a geophysicist by occupation. I am in science, but I know science alone can’t create a complete total picture of the universe. You and I disagree on quantum and its implications to the existence of the soul. I still assert that if religion is nothing more than 90% language, it still isn’t worth much of anything. Songs are about 100% language, Science itself has its own unique lingo or language and is mostly about understanding the MEANING of the words and in Science, The meaning of the words carries connotations of REALITY. That reality is very important for religion and has been lost. We no longer think of religion as ‘real’ or as true or false.
Just as there are one set of physical laws by which he universe moves and operates, Why do we think that there are no rules for the afterlife? Because we think there is NO afterlife and it is just all meaningless words that take us nowhere. If that is our view, then even the Christians have turned into materialistic atheists (yes atheists). If God is just a word used to comfort people like me, dying and wanting hope, if he REALLY doesn’t exist and is just a word, the word might as well be dog for all the good it will do! Remember it was you who said religion was 90 words. Words are useless unless they are in a context and carry a coherent storyline. "Camellia, elm, bee, Mich,ate, green dreams in stone" is 100 words, but carries no meaning, no hope and thus, the conclusion can’t be that there must be a religion in there somewhere because of your definition of religion, just words.