The Gospel of the flying spaghetti monster : Bobby henderson

As noted elsewhere by me, one of the signs that a person is too religious is a lack of sense of humour (and its cousin irony ) as well as the inability to recognise sarcasm. It should come as no surprise that this book which uses humour, irony and sarcasm as it's chief tools to make a point will be ignored by the people who should read this book. Written primarily as a means of countering the Intelligent design supporters, indeed the genesis(heh) of the book is a letter written by the author to the Kansas school board (when they were considering teaching Intelligent Design in school) , this book has in my opinion , devastating arguments against the teaching of Intelligent Design. It states that not only was evolution guided by an intelligent designer, they also do know the identity of the Intelligent Designer, ta dah- The flying spaghetti monster. And in doing so they neatly counter every argument put forth by the Intelligent Designers ,including Sen. John McCain. For e.g. McCain : Every point of view must be taught in school. Therefore we should teach children that a flying spaghetti monster designed us is a theory.
Full of pun's (the followers are called pastafarians and say RAmen after a prayer), this book is a hoot. While taking on the Intelligent Designers, the pastafarians also take on my favorite targets - religious fundamentalists. And they do it with their own tools.
For e.g.
How convincing is this argument to you?
P1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being which has every perfection.
P2. Existence is a perfection.
C. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Not convinced? Well tell that to St Anselm.(this is his argument for the existence of God , replace FSM with God)

And what does their religion stand for? Everything that is good.
and what is their religion against? Everything that isnt good.
Funny no? But everyone does believe this about their religion.

And also a set of commandments or eight I rather wish you didnt, reproduced here because people should compare with their own religions set of rules and think which one is better


I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like A Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjigate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Dont Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This Through You Thick Heads: Woman=Person, Man=Person. Samey-Samey. One is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B*******.

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build MultiMillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/ Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick): A. Ending Poverty B. Curing Diseases C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable. I Might Be A Complex Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go around Telling People I Talk To you. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses Alot Of Leather/Lubrication/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly It's A Piece Of Rubber, If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did It I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

Unfortunately though, the only people who would get a good laugh from reading this book are people like me

Jesus for the non religious - John Shelby Spong

This book is more appropriately titled as Jesus for the religious rather than the non religious as I think they will benefit more. Spong a christian bishop of 45 years has evidently concluded that his religion as practised today is far removed from what Jesus (within whom he sees God) taught or experienced. And he goes through and tries to interpret the various miracles that are now treated as literal. He dismisses the concepts of virgin birth, prayers answered, walking on water, even the resurrection as not literally true and point's out time and time again how these events seem to have been copied from jewish tradition with his explanation of that people tried to interpret what they experienced using the only language they knew. He tries to maintain that only after you discard all the various miracles that have accrued around Jesus, can you truly understand the message and even see God.
It is an interesting book and good enough to be read by people who believe in other religions too. Religious people mostly believe that questioning their faith is a sin, is somehow wrong, makes you weaker, takes you on the path to atheism/hell. This ofcourse is absurd. Faith that cannot stand the test of rigorous questioning should be discarded. And this is what Spong believes as well.
He also mentions christianity's irony now. Jesus was the breaker of all traditions, the unifier but now Christianity is the opposite, everyone want to stick to their traditions and the segregation found in Christianity itself is quite startling (The one place where blacks are still noticably segregated from whites is the black and white churches).
Spong however makes the same mistakes that most liberal religious people do. If some of the thing's in your religion's holy book are metaphors/ made up/ interpretations/ just plain lies then how do you know which is or which isn't? e.g. One of his point's is that Jesus didnt discriminate against the Gentile's and points to passages demonstrating it. But if some of the other passages are not literally true , how can we be sure this literally happened? He also avoid's some of the harder questions e.g. How does the concept of Jesus get reconciled with the concept of hell? And if say he does see God in jesus, does he also see God in say the Buddha who also shares some commonality in the tradition breaker, unifier? or does his devotion blind him to the other great teachings that exist?
The book is good though and people of other religions too should read it and see if they can question and investigate their faith as Spong does. I dont agree with all his conclusions but I respect them which is more than what I can say for the Pope!

The End of Faith : Sam Harris

Sam Harris argues eloquently to leave religion and faith behind, pointing out various problems with the three major religions. As also with his other book, the faithful will be hard pressed to come up with meaningful arguments to counter Harris and would probably dismiss his arguments off hand. A good read but ultimately wont convince the religious and the devout because as usual Harris is appealing to reason which as history show's isnt very effective against religion.

Letters to a Christian Nation - Sam Harris

The tragedy of this book is that, the people who dont like religion will find that Sam Harris argues for the danger of religion eloquently, that he demolishes the various illogical beliefs that religious people have but ultimately he tells us nothing that we dont already know. Which is fair enough because he has addressed his book to the believers. And therein lies the tragedy. Astonishingly few believers will read this book , and of those who do, how many will stop and say , Hmm maybe I should think a little more on this topic, I might actually be wrong. Its far more likely that they will read it , denounce it as an atheist's attempt to sway them from the path of the righteousness and repeat that their holy book is irrefutable , is perfect , is the word of god (why? because it says so in the holy book!).

The Miracle Detective - Randall Sullivan

I took this book from the library because it claimed that both believers and non believers will like this book. That its an objective book. And for the most part, it is. But the title is misleading , it should be The Miracle observer. The story is enthralling and for a curious non believer , it's quite difficult to explain away (assuming ofcourse the phenomena are accurately and honestly described).
The book deals with apparitions of Mother Mary in Medjugorje where Mother Mary makes a series of appearances to six children. A fascinating tale of how the people, the priests, the church react. And in some places , the author loses his objectivity, as he gets involved with the incidents.
The politics within the various factions in christianity are also referred to. As well as the fact that its not just the skeptics who would question the apparitions but also the devout (why would Mother mary show herself in the mountains and not in church?). The church ofcourse cannot say the apparitions are authentic (as it would lose credibility if proved false later) nor can it outright say the apparitions are false.
Reading this book , it was curious that all the people who didnt believe and then saw something that made them change their mind were all christians as some point or the other. Or to put it another way if I saw an apparition Im not likely to directly go for Mother Mary, but all the seers here seem to know it without the apparition telling them that it is so. And while some of the *facts* are such that science has no explanation, its curious that all the tests conducted are things like measuring brain waves or pricking the seers with pins. I would have thought that an easy test would be to ask questions which the seers wouldnt know the answers to, or is not common knowledge (i.e. things that you wont get to see in the bible) e.g. ask the apparition to speak in aramaic or ask questions based on the era christ lived in that is not common knowledge. It's easier to ask questions like which religion is right and get answers of the form there are no differences before God. Having said that , there is no evidence that would make a skeptic believe and there is no evidence that would make the believer disbelieve. Some incidents are red flags though. There is the story of Mother mary telling the seer's secrets , some of which pertain to *bad things* that will happen. And supposedly some bad thing didnt because enough people prayed. Full proof predictions is it not? I can do that. There shall be a great war unless you heed my words! and later if there is - see i told you so and if there isnt - thank god some of youll heeded my words and averted this!
Nonetheless the book is an interesting read.

Black Friday-Hussain Zaidi