oh yes... im going there.... RELIGION!

[rachel1496]

http://www.venganza.org/

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sadly, I cannot take credit for it.

[elliott_gyal]

wtf?

ok thats... different....

[Kate]

wtf?

ok thats... different....

It's a parody to point out the absurdity of teaching intelligent design/creationism in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[ilovemykids]

http://www.venganza.org/

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sadly, I cannot take credit for it.

Priceless!!

[Skippy]

Is faith the same as religion?

[SCRawl]

Is faith the same as religion?

Faith is belief in that which cannot be demonstrated.

A religion is a set of beliefs and rules.

So, no, not really.

Yeah, the Church of the FSM is an awesome tool for demonstrating the silliness of teaching creationism as science. I feel touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[elliott_gyal]

faith is believing in something...

you need faith to believe in a religion, but you also need faith to believe in whatever else it is that you believe in (ie. your self, your significant other, your day's outcome, etc)

[SCRawl]

faith is believing in something...

you need faith to believe in a religion, but you also need faith to believe in whatever else it is that you believe in (ie. your self, your significant other, your day's outcome, etc)

No, faith is a rather special kind of belief. It does not require faith for me to believe that the next bite of my hamburger will taste more or less like the last one. That sort of hypothesis is testable, and leads to repeatable experiments. Someone else can perform the same experiment under the same conditions, and if they come up with the same results then it helps to validate that hypothesis.

Faith requires belief which is unfortified. If I have faith that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will save me -- no one does, of course, the FSM is just a convenient stand-in -- I have nothing on which to base that belief.

[Skippy]

Faith is belief in that which cannot be demonstrated.

A religion is a set of beliefs and rules.

So, no, not really.

Yeah, the Church of the FSM is an awesome tool for demonstrating the silliness of teaching creationism as science. I feel touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Is it indeed a set of beliefs and rules?

[eri]

no....
One of my favorite literary characters (ooh a link!) has an immense amount of faith but nowhere to put it which is sad because he doesn't believe in God (but disbelief takes an equal amount of faith in my opinion) and he ends up killing himself! So tragic..*sigh*

[SCRawl]

Is it indeed a set of beliefs and rules?

What is religion if it isn't that? Isn't it an accurate working description? If you belong to a particular religious sect, that "membership" (for want of a better word) carries with it the assumption that you'll live according to its rules (such as refraining from consuming pig products, or allowing your women-folk to be educated, for example) and that you'll share a certain core belief system.

Do we need to tack anything onto that in order to fully describe the concept? I suppose that I'm referring specifically to organized religion, but that is what we're talking about, right?

[SCRawl]

no....
One of my favorite literary characters (ooh a link!) has an immense amount of faith but nowhere to put it which is sad because he doesn't believe in God (but disbelief takes an equal amount of faith in my opinion) and he ends up killing himself! So tragic..*sigh*

(Emphasis mine)

No, there's no possible way to justify your opinion. Hold it if you want, but don't expect a reasonable person to respect it.

The notion that atheism requires faith at all is deeply flawed. Let's just have a look at Christianity for the moment, to see how things balance:

On the one hand, you have belief in the existence a supernatural god, which requires at minimum, that you accept that certain miracles have been wrought in the distant past, that your "soul" is immortal, and destined for either eternal life or eternal damnation. It also requires many other beliefs, and for none of them is a shred of meaningful evidence.

On the other hand, the paucity of meaningful evidence to defend the notion of the existence of a supernatural god leads atheists to the logical position that no such god exists. The burden of proof is always on the side making the claim. If I want to debate the existence of a supernatural god, as an atheist, I stand with my arms folded waiting for evidence to be presented, and unless such evidence is forthcoming, I win the debate by default.

In other words, atheism requires no faith at all. It is the absence of evidence that compels me to be disbelieve in a supernatural god.

[eri]

Yes, I am the queen of unjustifiable opinions and an ex-atheist. I haven't 'found God' but I think some of the time and debate people put into being an atheist is wasteful and unimportant in the grand scheme of things. And yes, you have faith in the fact there is no 'meaningful evidence' when all it is is your own subjectivity. There are no true 'hard' objective facts on either side..

[SCRawl]

And yes, you have faith in the fact there is no 'meaningful evidence' when all it is is your own subjectivity.

Nonsense. If you think that it exists, I wonder if you'd mind posting one piece of evidence which, when viewed objectively, would point even vaguely in the direction of a supernatural god.

There are no true 'hard' objective facts on either side..

This is almost true. There are is "hard" objective evidence in favour of the theist position. The fact that there is no such evidence in favour of the theist position is a fairly weighty point for the atheist side. Objective people need evidence to believe in something.

[Skippy]

What is religion if it isn't that? Isn't it an accurate working description? If you belong to a particular religious sect, that "membership" (for want of a better word) carries with it the assumption that you'll live according to its rules (such as refraining from consuming pig products, or allowing your women-folk to be educated, for example) and that you'll share a certain core belief system.

Do we need to tack anything onto that in order to fully describe the concept? I suppose that I'm referring specifically to organized religion, but that is what we're talking about, right?

Your definition could easily apply to membership in a political party, a union, or a social club.

I'm a believer but I'm not religious.

I may share the same beliefs as others, but I also question and think.

I refuse to be a trained chimp,rather I act on my own free will, and make choices that not everyone will agree with.

Everything in life is not black and white, hence faith is required.

I believe because I want to,choose to,and like to.

My personal journey has taught me lots.

I accept that you and others have a different opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

We should all respect choices made,even if we don't agree with them.

When all is said and done it is a matter of personal responsibility.