Flying Spagetti Monster Theory of Intelligent Deisgn

[Sgent]

Ok, I know this is old, but I was ROFL when I read this. Its an open letter, so no copyright issues (link and attribution at bottom).

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

<break>

See the response of some of the Kansas BOE, scientific diagrams and proof, etc, at Flying Spagetti Monster

[buddysmellgood]

1. I am dousing myself in sauce and parmesan cheese in his honor right now.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. is that why you smell good?

Hey, whatever gets you though the night.

[buddysmellgood]

38. Praise be spaghetti

[gmoney]

2. I believe!

[SidDithers]

3. May you forever be touched by his noodly appendage. nt

Sid

[johnfunk]

42. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New Intelligent Falling Theory

Major Faith-based scientific breakthrough via The Onion!

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ''Intelligent Falling'' Theory
THE ONION
17 August 2005

KANSAS CITY, KS--As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2">>

[SalmonChantedEvening]

4. For it was written in Book of Marinara Chapter 4 Verse 18

"I am with thee, even as thou twirlest me about with thy fork, and I will be with thee even as the sauce splashes upon thy bib. For I am Agita and Semolina, the antipasto and the espresso."

[omega minimo]

5. Is this like String Theory?

[SalmonChantedEvening]

8. It's a Pastability, yes...

*runs*

[omega minimo]

10. The universe is made of

Angel Hair

:loveya:

[SalmonChantedEvening]

13. This is quite a raviolation for me.

"And the Angel Hair came down upon them, and they were sore Alfredo"

[omega minimo]

19. Penne for your thoughts?

:hippie: And I say to you, Asiago, and it shall be given you; seek, and basil find; gnocchi, and the door shall be opened to you.

[Liberal In Texas]

6. Please please...SPAGHETTI.

OK, I'm not trying to be the speller police, but it just reminds me of the freepers. DU has a wonderful spell check, it is your friend.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Don't Loose control of yourself ,there.

You're going to loose your mind, that way.

And then, if you're not careful, your pet cat may get lose.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I have been touched

by his noodly appendage.

[leeroysphitz]

36. You should file a complaint...

[kodi]

9. i must be a heretic, i worship lasagna

.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. BLASPHEMER!

GET HIM!

[kodi]

18. all i said was that lasanga was good enough for Jehovah!

[Throckmorton]

33. Stop it, Stop it now,

you are only going to make it worse.

Oh, great Spagetti Monstor, please have mercy on this pagan, any pasta in the cafeteria will do, heritic.

Oh, and sorry about the unpure act with the Raditore, I was drunk, I swear I was.

[DivinBreuvage]

11. LOL! Aren't religious people stupid!

It's a wonder the human race even survived through those thousands of years of delusions to see the blessings of eugenics and the hydrogen bomb. And what's even worse is, they never stopped -- people have been making up crap about that hoodoo for thousands of years, and they're still doing it, and there's absolutely nothing to support it all, except what they claim to feel or perceive! Stupid idiots. Feelings and perceptions are not valid scientific tools!!!

I hate their superstitious piffle. Gods, like other made-up fables like "love" and "justice", are mythical concepts created by the weak-minded to tyrannize over enlightened minds like ours that are so much more superior. I feel really good about myself when I laugh at them, don't you?

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Um, Religion has killed a shitload more people than science, pal.

Do the math.

And you know what? I don't give a flying philadelphia spaghetti Monster fuck WHAT you believe, what your "feelings" tell you about the universe- just keep it out of MY kid's public school science class.

Oh, wait, we can't do that, now, can we?- you know, we love you so much we can't allow you and yours to think for yourselves.

Give me a break.

[DivinBreuvage]

21. Um, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on this one, "pal".

First of all, I can assure you that I believe religion has no place in the classroom either. In fact your assumption that I do believe such a thing is a mighty big leap of imagination for a disciple of "science" such as yourself to make. Clearly you didn't waste any time examining any evidence, but got riled by my post and, carried away by your emotion, seized on the first thought that popped into your head. Not rational or scientific at all, my dear. Shame, shame, shame.

Secondly, from your use of the word "pal", you appear to assume I am a man... an assumption which is particularly unfounded and unscientific since you could easily have checked my profile and seen that I am, indeed, female. Shame, shame, shame.

But to your "argument". Of course, you've already firmly established, through a sound, incontrovertible, scientific approach (not at all founded on such nonsense as your personal, subjective impression, oh no), that I'm a kooky religious person, so I can't be trusted. We must therefore rely on your own eminently rational and scientific research.

Give us, then, the numbers on how many people Adolf Hitler, with his "scientific" approach to "unworthy" or "parasitic" life, killed. I'm not talking about war dead -- just about the people who, from his social Darwinist view, were unfit to live.

Add to that the number of dead killed by Lenin and Stalin in their openly atheistic, "scientific" approach to "engineering" humanity.

Then present your numbers for the dead killed by religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Lets start with the inquisition, and then move on to all the wars fought

in the name of "religion".

Lenin and Stalin as atheists, perhaps. Scientists, hardly. Hitler, I don't think so. He used the overwhelming Christianity of the majority of the German people just like he used a lot of things. Of course, the standard defense of Religious folks (And lets not kid ourselves, in the west we're pretty much talking about Christianity) is, anyone who did terrible things is not a "real" Christian. Just like the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church over the years don't constitute "real" Christianity. While I agree the behavior has nothing to do with the words of Jesus, this is, of course, a tautology- anything that doesn't fit in as "Christian" behavior can't be the responsibility of Christianity, etc. etc.

Obviously you can throw numbers and I can throw numbers. For instance, Soviet Communism only lasted about seven decades- the Inquisition lasted several centuries. I stand by my claim. The carnage wrought by religion dwarfs the carnage wrought by "science". If you disagree, fine. But you must know we scientists are notoriously stubborn and wrong-headed about "evidence" we don't like, you know, things like people's feelings and faith.

And speaking of evidence, the only evidence I had to go on regarding your views was your snarky response to the FSM joke- which contained several sideways slams at atheists and secular humanists, you know, those folks responsible for Nazis and the bomb, and stuff. If that led me to make "assumptions" about your views, hey, my bad.

But as far as the deaths from religion far outweighing those caused by science... even if they don't- and I would add that the designers of the atom bomb were overwhelmingly believers in "God"- what, precisely, is your point? That it's impossible to be a moral person without belief in "God"? That the evils of the world all grow out of the scientific method and atheism? Please, elaborate. Really.

And if you had read the OP and understood the context, you would understand that religion in the classroom is precisely the basis of the entire FSM premise- that's the whole JOKE. No one is running around "making fun of" religious people just because we can't stand the fact that they get together in Churches and believe in things we don't, all the hyperbole from the right about the "oppressed Christians" in this country to the contrary.. no, the problem IS that things like "intelligent design", which are NOT based on science and the scientific method, are being shoehorned into public school science classes. I don't have any interest in marching into fundamentalist churches waving dinosaur bones or sky scans of the 3 degrees of leftover microwave radiation from the big bang.

If the religious folk could just leave the rest of us the fuck alone and accept that what is in my head is my business and what is in theirs is theirs, there wouldn't be a problem- (of course, about 50% of the political debate in this country would vanish overnight, as well.)

Lastly, where I live, "pal" isn't gender-specific. But I apologize for calling you "pal", if it bugs you.

[DivinBreuvage]

29. Since you took the time to write a thoughtful post , I will do the same

And thank you, by the way. I enjoyed and appreciated your response. I've seen your name many times before on DU and I generally like what you have to say. Please understand that when I argue with you on this particular topic I am simply enjoying the argument and the exhiliration of wrestling with a capable mind; I'm not really trying to beat you down or attack you.

First of all, you title your post "Lets start with the inquisition, and then move on to all the wars fought in the name of 'religion'."

Okay, let's do that. Post your numbers. You're the scientist, I'm not. You made the claim, and I quote, that "religion has killed a shitload more people than religion." That's not a matter of opinion; numbers can be measured; your statement is either true or it's not. You made the statement, so it is incumbent upon you to substantiate your claim. I know that you, as a scientist, fully appreciate the validity of my statement.

You then attempt to dodge the Bolshevik question by saying that Lenin and Stalin were not scientists. On the surface this is indeed true: neither Stalin nor Lenin had training in chemistry, physics, or any other natural science -- in fact Stalin trained at a seminary, although he abandoned religion long before he came to power -- but you neglect to admit the impact that scientific thinking really did have on the authoritarian mind in the early twentieth century. The Bolsheviks did indeed use scientific reasoning to justify their exterminationist aims, just as American and German eugenicists did.

A Nazi film is still extant in which laboratory scientists examine a battle between two beetles and comment on how the natural law of life is for the stronger to overcome the weaker. Of course the Nazis also performed (and filmed) perfectly legitimate (although perhaps unethical) scientific experiments on concentration camp prisoners and POWs. Stalin demanded the title of "Coryphaeus of Science". Science was taken as seriously by these people as religion was taken by the Inquisition; it served as their justification to commit the crimes they did.

Your argument that "the standard defense of Religious folks is, anyone who did terrible things is not a 'real' Christian" is indeed true. However, the opposite equally applies: the standard defense of scientific folks is that "Bolshevik and Nazi scientists were not really scientists" -- anything that doesn't fit in as "scientific" behavior can't be the responsibility of science, etc. etc.

You say: I stand by my claim. The carnage wrought by religion dwarfs the carnage wrought by "science". ... you must know we scientists are notoriously stubborn and wrong-headed about "evidence" we don't like, you know, things like people's feelings and faith.

Fine. Post your numbers. All you have done thus far is make unsubstantiated claims, with no research or factual material whatsoever. You, indeed, my dear, are the one asking me to take you on feelings and faith.

Then you say: But as far as the deaths from religion far outweighing those caused by science... even if they don't-

Whoa, wait a minute, you've already asserted as a fact the statement that religion has killed more people than science -- and now you're hedging!!! Why, then, did you make such a statement in the first place? Are scientists allowed to lie, or just spout nonsense off the top of their head? If so, please, elaborate. Really.

For the record, in response to your question, I believe that both atheists and religious people can be moral people, good people. I believe that both atheists and religious people can be evil people. Good people use religion or science to do good things. Bad people use religion or science to do bad things. I think it is silly and wrong for religious people to dismiss out of hand the great illumination that science brings, and I think it is silly and wrong for atheists to dismiss out of hand thousands of years of human experience, since, after all, atheists generally don't dismiss equally unscientific ideas such as love and justice. You're all broken, all of you!

As for the rest of your post, you know damn well, if you have any intellectual honesty at all, that some atheists or "skeptics" make fun of believers in religion or any other "unscientific" topic such as UFOs, Bigfoot, or whatever. It happens even here on the good old DU. And it is equally true that some religious people want to impose their evil, hypocritical, and abhorrent views on all the rest of us. I say again, you're all broken, you're all the same thing, you're all humans.

Finally, you say: And if you had read the OP and understood the context, you would understand that religion in the classroom is precisely the basis of the entire FSM premise- that's the whole JOKE.

I did read it. I did understand it. But the joke was executed in a supremely incompetent fashion. You see, if you want to expose the foolishness of teaching "Intelligent Design" in school, it is ridiculous to try to make your point by concocting puerile crap like the Spaghetti Monster, because the adherent of ID, or anyone else who is sympathetic to religion, can simply say "Everybody KNOWS you just made that nonsense up!" and so most people will laugh at you for a fool and miss your point. If you want to hit them where it hurts, bring up a religion with a pedigree and with a billion or so believers -- talk about the Islamic, or the Hindu creation story -- that's what really exposes the phoniness of the issue.

Good grief, if you scientists can't even figure something like that out -- well, I'd probably still want one of you to operate on me if I had cancer or something... but I ain't gonna be opening up the candy box.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Numbers

Okay, Okay.

The death toll from the Inquisition is somewhat in dispute, it would seem. The Catholic Church (for whatever reason) doesn't seem terribly interested in detailing such things.

I found this, from the online malleus maleficarum:

. Estimates of the death toll during the Inquisition worldwide range from 600,000 to as high as 9,000,000 (over its 250 year long course); either is a chilling number when one realizes that nearly all of the accused were women, and consisted primarily of outcasts and other suspicious persons. Old women. Midwives. Jews. Poets. Gypsies. Anyone who did not fit within the contemporary view of pieous Christians were suspect, and easily branded "Witch". Usually to devastating effect.

In the interest of balance, I will note that Wikipedia posits the toll from the Spanish Inquisition as relatively low, although they do not attempt to lay out a death toll for the various other inquisitions total.

Death tolls for the Crusades are equally hard to come by, but here's one possible source:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#European

Crusades (1095-1291)

* Estimated totals:
o Wertham: 1,000,000
o Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841): 2,000,000 Europeans killed. <http://www.bootlegbooks.com/NonFiction/Mackay/PopDelusions/chap09.html>
o Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 5,000,000

There's also a header under "General Religious Mayhem":

# General Religious Mayhem:

* From Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual (1897)
o 7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters in Spain.
o 2,000,000 Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives opposing the introduction of Christianity.
o 1,000,000 in the Holy Wars against the Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Huguenots.

# Witch Hunts (1400-1800)

* Wertham: 20,000
* Jenny Gibbons <http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/fmuntean/POM5a1.html> cites:
o Levack: 60,000
o Hutton: 40,000
o Barstow: 100,000, "but her reasoning was flawed" (i.e. too high.)
* Davies, Norman, Europe A History: 50,000
* Rummel: 100,000
* Bethancourt: The Killings of Witches, lists 628 named and 268,331 unnamed witches killed as of Dec. 2000, and estimates that between 20,000 and 500,000 people were killed as witches. <http://www.illusions.com/burning/burnwitc.htm?>
* M. D. Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual (1897): 9,000,000 burned for witchcraft.
* 5 Jan. 1999 Deutsche Presse-Agentur: review of Wolfgang Behringer's Hexen: Glaube - Verfolgung - Vermarktung:
o estimates cited favorably
+ Thomas Brady: 40-50,000
+ Merry Wiesner: 50-100,000
+ Behringer, at lowest: 30,000
o estimates cited unfavorably
+ Gottfried Christian Voigt (1740-1791) extrapolated from his section of Germany to calculate 9,442,994 witches killed throughout Europe. From this came the common estimate of 9M.
+ Mathilde Ludendorff (1877-1966): 9M
+ Friederike Mueller-Reimerdes (1935): 9-10M
+ Erika Wisselinck: 6-13 Million

* MEDIAN: Of the 15 estimate listed here, the median is 100,000. If we limit it to just the ten estimates that are cited favorably, the median falls between 50,000 and 60,000.

Some of that may overlap with the Inquisition/MM numbers, certainly.

# France, Religious Wars, Catholic vs. Huguenot (1562-1598)

* Robert J. Knecht The French Religious Wars, 1562-1598 (2000): Deaths during the wars estimated at 2M to 4M

Now, fuck a duck, we're only dealing here, partially, with Europe in the past millenium... (with the Crusades) I haven't gone into the deaths caused by Islam, Biblical wars, or the years between Jesus and the year 1,000. Honestly, it's not worth it to me to sit up all night trying to prove this particular point. But logic states that if the Scientific Method as we understand it has only been around for 500 years or so, and religion (in whatever form) has been around for a lot longer with a pretty impressive list of wars and persecutions to its name, even if you accept that Hitler and Stalin were the responsibility of "science" (which I don't) it's clear, to me, that the numbers in the religion column are going to have it beat by a mile.

Whoa, wait a minute, you've already asserted as a fact the statement that religion has killed more people than science -- and now you're hedging!!! Why, then, did you make such a statement in the first place? Are scientists allowed to lie, or just spout nonsense off the top of their head? If so, please, elaborate. Really.

For the record, in response to your question, I believe that both atheists and religious people can be moral people, good people. I believe that both atheists and religious people can be evil people. Good people use religion or science to do good things. Bad people use religion or science to do bad things. I think it is silly and wrong for religious people to dismiss out of hand the great illumination that science brings, and I think it is silly and wrong for atheists to dismiss out of hand thousands of years of human experience, since, after all, atheists generally don't dismiss equally unscientific ideas such as love and justice. You're all broken, all of you!

I hedged because it occurred to me what a massive pain in the ass excessively arguing the point would be. I was right.

But, I will grant you, it's a nebulous question, and I typed that line on the fly; I'm not prepared to do a thesis on it at one in the morning, so if that means I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, hey, I can live with it.

For the record, over here, I don't think it's "silly and wrong" to believe whatever you choose to believe about the universe; but, personally, if you want to talk about thousands of years of human experience, much of it is contradictory. As I alluded to before, plenty of people have believed in God(s), plural, just like many have believed in one, singular. Most of the monotheists I know don't treat pantheism as an equally plausible alternative to monotheism. Many monotheists accept that the major religions are loosely talking about the same chap (the word not intended to be overly gender specific referring to the deity, but most of them do think it is a "he") but many, many more are convinced that they, and they alone have the one direct line to the TRUTH, and everyone else is deluded.

Therefore, when you talk about that which atheists "dismiss out of hand", what are you talking about? Which God? All of them? The belief in any invisible beings with magical powers?

To this, I will add- I am by no means, personally, a strict materialist. For purposes of political discussion in this country, particularly now, I classify myself as an "Atheist", because if the choice is a simplistic, binary one, that's where I'm at. Today. As I alluded to before, I really think my beliefs are pretty much in line with Taoism, but overwhelmingly my attitude towards reality is, I believe in using useful mental or semantic maps to describe the territory of what is "out there", but I try to recognize, and remind myself, that they are maps- and crucial, to my way of thinking, is the idea that the map -whatever it may be- can be updated or thrown out depending on new or contradictory data.

As for the rest of your post, you know damn well, if you have any intellectual honesty at all, that some atheists or "skeptics" make fun of believers in religion or any other "unscientific" topic such as UFOs, Bigfoot, or whatever. It happens even here on the good old DU. And it is equally true that some religious people want to impose their evil, hypocritical, and abhorrent views on all the rest of us. I say again, you're all broken, you're all the same thing, you're all humans.

Well, I try not to do that. I elaborated in one of the threads you may be referring to, that I have had experiences in my life that I can't explain via what is known as "common sense". (For the record, I don't believe they require a mystical, all powerful creator, either) But I wouldn't float them willy-nilly and expect not to encounter the occasional "bullshit". I don't run around spouting off about them, or using them as the basis to try to convince anyone else about things like, say, quantum interconnectedness or a collective consciousness.. But more importantly, the value those experiences had to me are not dependent; whatsoever! on how anyone else feels about them, or whether or not they "believe" that they happened.

Some religious people are able to approach their faith this way. But many, many religious people are not.

I don't bag on people's faith, I really try not to- but, again, in areas where these things intersect with public, political life in the USA, yes, things like creationism or intelligent design are (in my mind, at least) fair game.

]I did read it. I did understand it. But the joke was executed in a supremely incompetent fashion. You see, if you want to expose the foolishness of teaching "Intelligent Design" in school, it is ridiculous to try to make your point by concocting puerile crap like the Spaghetti Monster, because the adherent of ID, or anyone else who is sympathetic to religion, can simply say "Everybody KNOWS you just made that nonsense up!" and so most people will laugh at you for a fool and miss your point. If you want to hit them where it hurts, bring up a religion with a pedigree and with a billion or so believers -- talk about the Islamic, or the Hindu creation story -- that's what really exposes the phoniness of the issue.

Good grief, if you scientists can't even figure something like that out -- well, I'd probably still want one of you to operate on me if I had cancer or something... but I ain't gonna be opening up the candy box.

Well, first off, I've been saying for a LONG time, hell, if they're going to teach one person's interpretation of "Creation" in science class, they have to teach them ALL. The Hindu, the Islamic, The Yanomamo creation Myth. Turtles All The Way Down, and the ravings of the schizophrenics on the street.

But that's the beauty of the FSM thing, which, while you found "incompetent", I found hilarious. Because from a scientific perspective, there IS no difference between the Hindu Myth, The Genesis Account, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster- because until there is evidence to back up ANY of them, they aren't science. Why is something that came from an old book intrinsically more weighty than something that you can say "but you just made that up"? Many of us get that feeling when we read big parts of the bible. That's the point.
The FSM uses absurdity to show that religious people are demanding special scientific treatment for ideas that don't deserve it.

That's not to belittle faith, only to hammer home that religion doesn't belong in science class, not until it can be verified through the same scientific method that every other assertion is; at which point, it, too, will become science.

I don't want to hit anyone where it hurts. I just want to leave science and science classes to the scientists.

And trust me, if you get cancer, you don't want anything from me beyond a get well card. We may all be broken (actually, we're all perfect, its the remembering that fact that's the hard part) but I'm not the guy to fix us. I can change the oil in my car, that's about it.

Peace.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. So, do you believe in ALL the gods?

You Know, Odin, Apollo, Zeus, Dionysus, Quetzlcoatl, Tlaloc, Ra, Nuit, Eris (a personal favorite of mine)...

Or is there only one, particular one to which you would like to grant a special dispensation to be included in Public School Science Curriculum?

[DivinBreuvage]

22. LOL! I'm not sure ANY of them exist

My point is, that you people who get all bent up against the gods -- and you, impeachdubya, clearly do, since you've whacked me with two posts already -- are just exactly the same as all those who get bent up for the gods. All of you put your emotion and your beliefs before observation.

You yourself are making erroneous speculations about me based on nothing but the emotional response you generated within yourself from my post. This is not scientific at all.

I fully agree with you that religion, "intelligent design", etc. should not be taught in school. But I do think it's silly to see people such as yourself run down people who believe in religion, when you yourself behave in exactly the same way.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. I never claimed to be a scientist.

Hell, I'm something of a Taoist, actually.

But I was going on your original post, the tone of which led me to what I think were some fairly reasonable "assumptions".

I don't "rail against" Gods. I rail against creeping and not-so-creeping theocracy, which (in case you hadn't noticed) we happen to be fighting in a big way in this country... right now. Fighting it in Congress, Fighting it in the White House.

Fighting it in School Boards.

These things aren't political because I want them to be political, or because I "hate" religious people. Hardly.

But if you really can't understand why some of this stuff might piss me off, I would respectfully suggest that you get out more.

[DivinBreuvage]

30. Well, you did in post #25, where you said

"But you must know we scientists are notoriously stubborn"

Which is it, guy? I've been drinking, don't mess with my head, I can't figure out your contradictory nonsense in my weakened Bushian state. But I can bomb Iran at the drop of a hat, you betcha!

Anyway, I get feisty and combative when I'm on the liquor. I definitely agree with you that some people need to keep their religion out of other people's lives, and that a theocracy is abhorrent and unAmerican. Here comes the "olive branch", in other words, you know (to use a Judaic metaphor).

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Oh, man, I know better than to argue with someone who's got a good heat on

The short answer? I was being facetious with "we scientists".

And I haven't drank for years, so I have absolutely no excuse for my feistiness and combativeness. :party:

[Modem Butterfly]

34. What the fuck?

I mean, what the fucking fuck?

[buddysmellgood]

39. I wouldn't laugh. Too many die in the name of god.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

12. dupe n/t

[ironflange]

14. Thank you!

I was having trouble thinking of a new sig line.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Et Spiritus Spaghetti, Al Dente Fettucini, (R)amen.

Praised Be His Noodly Tastiness.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. HE IS RISEN! Or, you know, boiled for 10-12 minutes until sticky.

Here is incontroverible photographic proof of the FSM. His holy visage appeared... at the bottom of this pot!

It's a miracle, I tell you!!! A MIRACLE!

(So... how much do you think I can get for this cookware on EBAY?)

[DanCa]

24. Okay last time I am posting this too. The boss on ID LOL.

They prosecuted some poor sucker in these United States
For teaching that man descended from the apes
They coulda settled that case without a fuss or fight
If they'd seen me chasin' you, sugar, through the jungle last night
They'da called in that jury and a one two three said
Part man, part monkey, definitely

Well the church bell rings from the corner steeple
Man in a monkey suit swears he'll do no evil
Offers his lover's prayer but his soul lies
Dark and driftin' and unsatisfied
Well hey bartender, tell me whaddaya see
Part man, part monkey, looks like to me

Well the night is dark, the moon is full
The flowers of romance exert their pull
We talk awhile, my fingers slip
I'm hard and crackling like a whip

Well did God make man in a breath of holy fire
Or did he crawl on up out of the muck and mire
Well the man on the street believes what the bible tells him so
Well you can ask me, mister, because I know
Tell them soul-suckin' preachers to come on down and see
Part man, part monkey, baby that's me

[NuttyFluffers]

35. Aldente' my bretherens! I too have been touched by his noodly appendage!

I have abided by the mandates of our Great Delicious One and have begun to wear the sacred pantaloons and billowy shirt raiments, along with the feathered foppish hat (at a most divinely proscribed rakish angle). I notice that the air around my area has noticeably improved due to my devotion of pirate rituals; naturally smog is scared away by suitably convincing "arg, ye mateys!" incantations, as our Starchy Benefactor has illumed upon us. So doth the garish rags and haphazard weaponry believers, soon we may revert our sickened world to its glorious, healthy origins -- with booty and rum for everyone! Preserve well and prosper, brothers!

[Viking12]

37. Welcome to all Pastafarians!!

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Pastafarians.

:rofl:

I hear photoshop calling on that one.

[Tsiyu]

40. I was really upset when the Flying Spagetti Monster

usurped the Cosmic Muffin.

But antigone382 and I had a discussion last night and realized the two deities CAN co-exist in sort of a symbiotic yin/yang reign.

One is the sun; the other the moon.

One represents the power of pasta

The other the comfort of pastry



I feel much better today...