Do you believe in God?

[jonboy1066]

I read this article by Ricky Gervais a short while ago and have to say I agree with every word, a brilliantly written piece!:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

 

[Joey D]

Only as of December 2010. Science has the ability to discover many things. It could discover the absolute meaning and effect of death without dying by using as yet unknown methods.
You can't absolutely say we will never know something.

It's not possible to know something that only exists in the realm of the dead. That's why I put know in quotes. You have to be a physical being to know something, you have to have a functioning mind. When you die we don't know what happens other then your body stops working, what that person sees or experiences is anyone's best guess. Unless we can kill someone and then bring them back to life there is no way to prove it.

Science needs a testable hypothesis in order to work up a sound theory, since the hypothesis is untestable without killing then reviving someone somehow then we will never know. And even then, would that even be ethical? Probably not.

 

[Duke]

The dictionary says that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of a supernatural being(s). I think what you exhibit is agnostic atheism, where you don't think there is a supernatural being but you can't say for sure.

Anyone with any logical integrity HAS TO assert that we cannot prove there is no god. That does not necessarily leave open anything other than the most formal of possibilities that supernatural god(s) exist.

 

[Joey D]

Anyone with any logical integrity HAS TO assert that we cannot prove there is no god. That does not necessarily leave open anything other than the most formal of possibilities that supernatural god(s) exist.

There are many people who do assert that there is no God though, all you have to do is look on the comments section of CNN or YouTube to see that. I'm not defending them or saying they are right, but there are many self-proclaimed atheists that say without a doubt there isn't a supernatural being and the world around us is proof. If you look through this thread I'm sure there are statements similar to that.

To me not being able to prove the non-existence of a supernatural being is the same as not being able to prove the existence. As I've said, this is why I consider myself an agnostic, I don't know and I don't think there is any way to ever know. I think there may be a force out there, but with no proof all I have is my opinion...just like everyone else.

 

[blaaah]

I put my points in red.

It's not possible to know something that only exists in the realm of the dead. How do you know that, nobody knows that. In the future that could change. Using science and technology.
That's why I put know in quotes. You have to be a physical being to know something (same point), you have to have a functioning mind (and again) When you die we don't know what happens other then your body stops working, what that person sees or experiences is anyone's best guess. Unless we can kill someone and then bring them back to life there is no way to prove it. You don't know what we can do in the future, we could create a whole universe with life and death within it and observe from outside and within it's function and know everything about it, in fact it might be a toy for children, how can you so categorically make these statements?

Science needs a testable hypothesis in order to work up a sound theory, since the hypothesis is untestable without killing then reviving someone somehow then we will never know. And even then, would that even be ethical? Probably not.
Again it might not have to involve killing or reviving, even if it does the universe might not care what is ethical, only some people at this point in time, and the right or wrong of it can be argued either way.

 

[Tic Tach]

It's not possible to know something that only exists in the realm of the dead.

Which is likely the same as the "realm of unicorns".

What we need to appreciate and consider are the reasons why we humans entertain the idea of surviving death. Given that it is a fact that we are merely a part of the carbon-based tree of life which has evolved on this planet in the last 3.5 billion years, what makes us think/believe that we are any different, or separate from the rest of the animal kingdom? I suspect that the reasons might be:

- Fear of death

- Comfort (both with surviving non-existance, and the idea of seeing loved ones again).

- Desire for hope in devine reward

- Ego. That child-like (yet arrogant) emotional trigger activated in the brain by a story in which they are loved by an authority figure or imaginary being.

- Wishful thinking



Thoughts from some great minds:


Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we will sacrifice all the beauty of our lives, will imprison ourselves in totems, taboos, crosses, blood sacrifices, steeples, mosques, races, armies, flags, nations, in order to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have. (James Baldwin)


Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not? (Epicurus)


I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders. (Robert Ingersoll)


We try hard in science to stamp out the influence of wishful thinking, whereas so much of religious thought seems to be nothing else: “I must believe in the afterlife because how could I face it if my life was going to terminate at death?” (Steven Weinberg)


I am a hopeless materialist. I see this all as nothing else than the sum of activities of the organism plus personal habits, inherited habits, memories, experiences, of the organism. I believe that when I am dead, I am dead. I believe that with my death I am just as much obliterated as the last mosquito you squashed. (Jack London)


The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, but there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there is little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. (Carl Sagan)


It's an incredible con job, when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations, with all their reward systems, don't try to make it posthumous. (Gloria Steinem)


The idea of a good society is something you do not need a religion and eternal punishment to buttress; you need a religion if you're terrified of death. (Gore Vidal)


I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I was dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and did not suffer the slightest inconvenience from it. (Mark Twain)


The finality of death is the coldest truth one must face. Religion makes the perfect distraction.


Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing; fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. (Bertrand Russell)


Without death, the influence of faith-based religion would be unthinkable. Clearly, the fact of death is intolerable to us, and faith is little more than the shadow cast by our hope for a
better life beyond the grave. (Sam Harris)


I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. (Albert Einstein)


--------------------------------------


And regarding earlier posts about being "agnostic": No rational person is "agnostic" about the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, dragons, gnomes, etc. So why is the god concept granted a special status?

 

[Keef]

According to Wikipedia, the difference between a reasonable person and a complete idiot is if they exhibit weak agnosticism or strong agnosticism. Weak agnosticism isn't even a term worth mentioning because it is the position of any logical thinker: Admitting an unknown, though it isn't necessarily unknowable. AKA, "reasonable person".

So since that definition is a complete waste of time, that leaves us with the only real definition for agnosticism, apparently called strong agnosticism. This is the admittance of an unknown, and that it is unknowable. Only a person with rocks for brains could ever take this stance.

In fact, that is definition #1 in the dictionary. So somebody please edit that Wiki article because it is misleading.

 

[High-Test]

Anything Tic Tach has said

Wait a minute. I believe in God, therefore I am a knee-jerking childish man of impoverished logic? Your worldview seems to only take into account the flawed image of the anthropomorphic God and makes that image and anybody who believe that image or anything remotely similar its archnemesis. You are clearly on a crusade to proselytize people. Most ironic, given your argument, is it not? Your ethos is that of a Baptist Preacher. Knock it off.

Duke[/b]]Anyone with any logical integrity HAS TO assert that we cannot prove there is no god. That does not necessarily leave open anything other than the most formal of possibilities that supernatural god(s) exist.

Sounds remarkably similar to the argument over Erwin Schrodinger's cat. God's existence is neither provable or disprovable at the moment, and it's up to the belief system of the individual, right? Nobody's right or wrong at the moment, some people are just louder assholes than others.

Let us remove the emphasis on who is right and who is wrong over this "atheists versus everyone else" nonsense. We cannot know in our lifetimes, infinitesimally small periods of time compared to the fourteen billion years we suppose that the universe has been extant, whether or not there is a God. It is up to belief. One can believe or choose not to believe.

It is that simple. There are far better things to concern oneself with than a feeble attempt at making religious people feel like a pack of morons.

Say what you want. I'm a religious Jew and a highly logical being. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Moglet]

The dictionary definition of God is “a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.” Included in this definition are all deities, goddesses and supernatural beings. Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6,000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

And this is why I love Ricky Gervais.

 

[Tic Tach]

Wait a minute. I believe in God, therefore I am a knee-jerking childish man of impoverished logic?

Sorry for taking so long to reply - been super busy.

In many areas of your your life, I'm sure you are a reasonably itelligent and rational person, but when it comes to your supernatural beliefs, it appears that yes, you have not looked at said beliefs critically. And I don't mean the sort of enemic, limp-wristed pseudo examination that many theists claim they have gone through, I mean the same sort of critical inquiry one would place on any other equivilantly crazy package of beliefs.

I really like this from Robert G. Ingersoll:

All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention, of barbarian invention, is to read it. Read it as you would any other book. Think of it as you would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form of superstition. Then read the Holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity.

Your worldview seems to only take into account the flawed image of the anthropomorphic God and makes that image and anybody who believe that image or anything remotely similar its archnemesis.

Then I must ask you what you mean when you say or use the word "god"? For if it is some nebulous, vague esoteric construct like "energy" or such thing, then you also are saddled with the obligation to offer some level of evidence or reason for those claims.


Whatever we cannot easily understand we call god; this saves much wear and tear on the brain tissues. (Edward Abbey)

You are clearly on a crusade to proselytize people.

Epic fail. To proselytize is to attempt to convert someone to a particular belief. I do no such thing, but rather, to debunk beliefs or claims made which don't stand scrutiny. Perhaps all you need is a better BS meter. (shrug).





You mentioned that you are Jewish. If you don't mind sharing, what was the religious beliefs of your parents?



Thanks. I look forward to your reply.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I read this article by Ricky Gervais a short while ago and have to say I agree with every word, a brilliantly written piece!:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

While I'm not an atheist agree there is no direct scientific evidence that there is a nature god. Of course any god greater than science and nature wouldn't be subject to them either. Science is limit to the understanding of the three pounds of fat that between our ears. The whole argument is basic on the assumption we are more than just three pounds of fat.

 

[Tic Tach]

While I'm not an atheist.......

An atheist is not one who says: "There is no god", but rather, simply does not believe (a positive affirmation) in god or gods. So, if I ask you the simple question: "Do you believe that there is a personal god?" and your answer is either yes, or no on the belief factor - not on whether you know or not. So if your answer is no, then congratulations, you are an atheist. If your answer is yes, then you are a theist. It really is that simple. I am actually a poly-atheist - there's lots of gods I don't believe in.

This is great:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector?gl=CA&hl=en#p/u/39/d0A4_bwCaX0

I agree there is no direct scientific evidence that there is a nature god.

Correct. What other kind of evidence is there?

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. (W. K. Clifford)

Of course any god greater than science and nature wouldn't be subject to them either. Science is limit to the understanding of the three pounds of fat that between our ears.

Incorrect. Science is open to all observable phenomena.

 

[Joey D]

There is definitely a "I don't know" when it comes to a personal belief in a supernatural being. It's not always a strict yes or no answer. It's not an answer that really can be made off the cuff either, it takes thought and research to get to how you personally believe whether it's through study of religious text or scientific research.

 

[Joel]

There is definitely a "I don't know" when it comes to a personal belief in a supernatural being. It's not always a strict yes or no answer. It's not an answer that really can be made off the cuff either, it takes thought and research to get to how you personally believe whether it's through study of religious text or scientific research.

Do you actively believe in a God? If so, you're a theist. If not, you're an atheist.

 

[Keef]

I really like this from Robert G. Ingersoll:

All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention, of barbarian invention, is to read it. Read it as you would any other book. Think of it as you would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form of superstition. Then read the Holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with your bluntness, but I would like to raise a point that is particularly frustrating to "reasonable" people and probably Ingersoll, too. The fact that when an idea has been pummeled into one's brain since they were a baby, the idea isn't going to go anywhere any time soon. No matter how much sense the new idea makes, or little little the old one makes, the odds are stacked in favor of operant conditioning and repetition.

I believe I'm lucky that my parents couldn't be bothered to raise me religiously. Because of that I'm not burdened by anything when it comes to analyzing religion and gods and whatnot. There is nothing in the back of my head saying "this is wrong, don't do this," and there is no bias. Except when I'm too lazy to think.

 

[Tic Tach]

There is definitely a "I don't know" when it comes to a personal belief in a supernatural being.

One can say that they haven't made their mind up on whether they believe or not, but it isn't a question of knowledge, it's a question of belief. Same applies to the existance of unicorns; are you equally unsure of their existance? If not, why not?

 

[Joey D]

Do you actively believe in a God? If so, you're a theist. If not, you're an atheist.

I don't know where I stand. I kinda think there might be a God but I honestly have no idea and I don't think I've done enough research on either side of the fence to come up with a "yes" or a "no".

What's so hard about seeing that it's not a clear cut answer for some people? There are people out there that will say "yes" or "no" and they have obviously made up their mind's on the issue, which is entirely their personal belief.

One can say that they haven't made their mind up on whether they believe or not, but it isn't a question of knowledge, it's a question of belief. Same applies to the existance of unicorns; are you equally unsure of their existance? If not, why not?

It is a question of knowledge though, I don't feel like I have enough enough knowledge to take a stance either way on the issue. Same goes for a lot of things. I don't believe there is enough evidence to dismiss the existence of a supernatural being, just as I don't think there is enough evidence to prove the existence. However, I do think there is enough evidence to make a case either way.

 

[Tic Tach]

I would like to raise a point that is particularly frustrating to "reasonable" people and probably Ingersoll, too. The fact that when an idea has been pummeled into one's brain since they were a baby, the idea isn't going to go anywhere any time soon. No matter how much sense the new idea makes, or little little the old one makes, the odds are stacked in favor of operant conditioning and repetition.

Generally, that is quite true. It depends though on how much one cares about what is true, over what is familiar, ingrained, comforting, inculcated etc. It also depends on ones investment into said beliefs. If one must face their entire family and peer group and declare that they no longer hold those beliefs, that requires a level of intellectual honesty that few possess.

BTW, I was born & raised in a seriously christian home, and was a bible believing christian for a quarter century. I jettisoned those false beliefs not because I wanted to live a negative, rebellious, self-serving life, I just cared more about what is true, and the patently rediculous beliefs of christianity (or any other supernatural, religious belief) just did not, and does not map onto reality in any way, shape or form.

It gets very interesting when you stop and consider why people belief such things.

Here's a great book.





Those who take refuge behind theological barbed wire fences, quite often wish they could have more freedom of thought, but fear the change to the great ocean of scientific truth as they would a cold bath plunge. (Luther Burbank)


If someone were to prove to me, right this minute, that god, in all his luminousness, exists, it wouldn't change a single aspect of my behavior. (Luis Bunuel)

 

[blaaah]

I don't know where I stand. I kinda think there might be a God but I honestly have no idea and I don't think I've done enough research on either side of the fence to come up with a "yes" or a "no".

What's so hard about seeing that it's not a clear cut answer for some people? There are people out there that will say "yes" or "no" and they have obviously made up their mind's on the issue, which is entirely their personal belief.



It is a question of knowledge though, I don't feel like I have enough enough knowledge to take a stance either way on the issue. Same goes for a lot of things. I don't believe there is enough evidence to dismiss the existence of a supernatural being, just as I don't think there is enough evidence to prove the existence. However, I do think there is enough evidence to make a case either way.

You were asked whether you believe in a god not whether you know if there is one yes or no. So you can definitely say yes or no as to if you believe in a god. Either you do or you don't. If you are not sure then you don't. Belief is certainty.
Belief is the act of believing even when there isn't any evidence.
I'm open to there being a mysterious entity outside or inside the universe, but i certainly don't believe in a god, i see no reason to.
But all of us as humans have an ability to feel emotions and meanings to things that feel spiritual. I don't believe in spirits of trees for example, but that doesn't stop me feel as if they know I'm there or i am being part of some kind of magic place when there are lots of very big old trees and it's like they are far wiser than me. But i only follow the logic of science, i don't believe in spirits of nature.
I don't believe in ghosts either but i am still scared of the thought of them and that i might see something. It's just part of being human.

 

[Joey D]

You were asked whether you believe in a god not whether you know if there is one yes or no. So you can definitely say yes or no as to if you believe in a god. Either you do or you don't. If you are not sure then you don't. Belief is certainty.
Belief is the act of believing even when there isn't any evidence.
I'm open to there being a mysterious entity outside or inside the universe, but i certainly don't believe in a god, i see no reason to.
But all of us as humans have an ability to feel emotions and meanings to things that feel spiritual. I don't believe in spirits of trees for example, but that doesn't stop me feel as if they know I'm there or i am being part of some kind of magic place when there are lots of very big old trees and it's like they are far wiser than me. But i only follow the logic of science, i don't believe in spirits of nature.
I don't believe in ghosts either but i am still scared of the thought of them and that i might see something. It's just part of being human.

I'm still uncertain whether I believe in a supernatural being or not. There is no certainty either way. If I had to take a stance I would say I believe that the existence of a supernatural being is unknowable and that there will never be enough evidence to adequately prove it one way or another.

 

[Tic Tach]

There is no certainty either way.

You don't need to be certain to believe.

If I had to take a stance I would say I believe that the existence of a supernatural being is unknowable and that there will never be enough evidence to adequately prove it one way or another.

That's not really a stance. Please explain why the existance of a supernatural being is unknowable.

 

[Joey D]

You don't need to be certain to believe.

However you look at it I end up in the middle, I believe that both sides have merit.

That's not really a stance. Please explain why the existance of a supernatural being is unknowable.

Yes it is, it's exactly the stance of agnosticism.

I don't think it's possible for us to know whether a supernatural being exists or not. You are trying to prove or disprove something that is above the laws of nature, hence supernatural, how in the world do you plan on doing that?

I just don't think the human mind is capable of figuring it out. It's like trying to conceive the vastnesses of space, it's so mind boggling the mind just can't process it since we have no concept of the distances. Same goes for other life in the universe, we are bound by what we know, there is no way to even make a guess what other life would look like.

 

[blaaah]

I'm still uncertain whether I believe in a supernatural being or not. There is no certainty either way. If I had to take a stance I would say I believe that the existence of a supernatural being is unknowable and that there will never be enough evidence to adequately prove it one way or another.

That would put you as a definite non believer of a god in the conventional sense.
But you have a kind of faith to life as you know it.
A strong denial of future technology,thought and discovery though, either way.

 

[Tic Tach]

However you look at it I end up in the middle, I believe that both sides have merit.

It isn't about merit, or whether said beliefs are useful, comforting, etc. It's about whether they are true or not.

Yes it is, it's exactly the stance of agnosticism.

I've offered this before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4

I don't think it's possible for us to know whether a supernatural being exists or not. You are trying to prove or disprove something that is above the laws of nature, hence supernatural, how in the world do you plan on doing that?

Your logical fallacy here is concluding first that there is or may be a realm beyond the natural, and then flounder away without being able to test it. Perhaps the logical conclusion is that there is no "other" realm.

 

[Keef]

If I had to take a stance I would say I believe that the existence of a supernatural being is unknowable and that there will never be enough evidence to adequately prove it one way or another.

Yes it is, it's exactly the stance of agnosticism.

Pretty sure Duke and I, and any others I don't recall, filed this theory under "for the birds".

 

[Joey D]

That would put you as a definite non believer of a god in the conventional sense.
But you have a kind of faith to life as you know it.
A strong denial of future technology,thought and discovery though, either way.

If you say so, but I do think there could be a supernatural being, I've even tried my hand at trying to communicate with him/it/them whatever it is. Call it prayer, meditation, whatever you want to label it.

I do not have a denial of technology or discovery at all, I fully embrace all technological advances and I love hearing about new discoveries...it's why I attended university for what I did. Just because I do not have a stance on a supernatural being does not in any way make me technophobic.

I've offered this before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4

Ya and I'll ignore it again. I don't take some biased person's video on YouTube to prove anything at all. If that's what you are going to offer up, I'm done with you.

Pretty sure Duke and I, and any others I don't recall, filed this theory under "for the birds".

Just because you and Duke dismiss it doesn't make it "for the birds".

Is it really so hard to accept someone saying they don't know?

 

[blaaah]

If you say so, but I do think there could be a supernatural being, I've even tried my hand at trying to communicate with him/it/them whatever it is. Call it prayer, meditation, whatever you want to label it.

I do not have a denial of technology or discovery at all, I fully embrace all technological advances and I love hearing about new discoveries...it's why I attended university for what I did. Just because I do not have a stance on a supernatural being does not in any way make me technophobic.

You stance is that we will never know,there might be or there might not be. And that the human brain can't work it out.
All you know of is how the human brain is right now. In the future we may have colonised not just the whole solar system but deep space and parts of the galaxy, and maybe not wholly the same species as we are now. Our brains may not be single brains but a whole network of billions of billions brains linked together processing information. And anyway why do you think we must do the hard work? Lets say there was a supernatural force it might visit Earth tomorrow and explain and show everything it knows and take the planet on a day trip to Jupiter and back again and say that was just for starters. Are you saying that if that happened it's not proof of a supernatural force?
Your predictions of never finding out are you firm beliefs, that is your religion you hold dear, if there was a Church for the religion of "I tell thee you will never find out" you would attend it.

 

[Joey D]

You stance is that we will never know,there might be or there might not be. And that the human brain can't work it out.
All you know of is how the human brain is right now. In the future we may have colonised not just the whole solar system but deep space and parts of the galaxy, and maybe not wholly the same species as we are now. Our brains may not be single brains but a whole network of billions of billions brains linked together processing information. And anyway why do you think we must do the hard work? Lets say there was a supernatural force it might visit Earth tomorrow and explain and show everything it knows and take the planet on a day trip to Jupiter and back again and say that was just for starters. Are you saying that if that happened it's not proof of a supernatural force?
Your predictions of never finding out are you firm beliefs, that is your religion you hold dear, if there was a Church for the religion of "I tell thee you will never find out" you would attend it.

I wouldn't subscribe to any church, I don't believe in organised religion, that is something I can say for sure. However, that's not to say I wouldn't attend a place of worship, mainly because I enjoy experience things like that.

But ya, I'm going to continue on taking the stance it's unknowable and just bow out of the discussion since it's not going any where and it's being talked in circles.

 

[blaaah]

I suppose we can agree on that then.

 

[Dotini]

Flying Spaghetti Monster alive and loose in Austria!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".
Niko Alm first applied for the licence three years ago after reading that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for confessional reasons.
Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism.
The Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.
The idea came into Mr Alm's noodle three years ago as a way of making a serious, if ironic, point.
A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted faith whose members call themselves pastafarians.