Topic: Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation
Shades of Pale
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Well Wizard, (as to its not being an attack on religion) demeaning the God of a religion is the surest way to offend the followers thereof. Since creationists are all sorts of denominations of Christian, and this likens their God to something utterly stupid and arbitrary, I commented. It does seem it would be a lot more funny if they came up with something completely new that actually mocked poor arguments, but that's just me.
The rest of your post, I really agree with.
IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:Originally posted by Shades of Pale: Well Wizard, (as to its not being an attack on religion) demeaning the God of a religion is the surest way to offend the followers thereof. Since creationists are all sorts of denominations of Christian, and this likens their God to something utterly stupid and arbitrary, I commented.
I disagree. I think someone who is offended by this on the grounds that it demeans religion is going out of their way to be offended by this on the grounds of religion.
In the first instance, there is no specific mention of the Judaeo - Christian God in the text itself, nor is there a specific parallel drawn between the Great Spaghetti Monster theory and the arguments propounded by creationists. Any parallels between the two that you have seen, you have inferred from the context. To wit, it isn't likening the Judaeo-Christian God to something stupid and arbitrary. You're the one who's doing that. I'm not disputing that the way in which the piece is written is intentionally manipulating you into seeing the parallels between the Great Spaghetti Monster theory and the arguments propounded by those in favour of the teaching of intelligent design, but that's neither here nor there. The fact remains that the mockery inherent in the piece requires a creative act of interpetation on the part of the reader.
quote: "It does seem it would be a lot more funny if they came up with something completely new that actually mocked poor arguments, but that's just me.
Any argument for the existence of God is, by definition, a poor argument, because the existence of God defies rational explanation. That's why 'faith' is an important thing. And that's why God has no place in Science, a subject which tries to define the world by rational explanation. And I think this article is very funny, actually.
I feel I should mention that I'm a practising, and moderately devout, Catholic, who believes in God, but thinks that he's big enough to look after himself. I think that practising religionists should be protected from persecution and disenfranchisement. But not from satire.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shades of Pale: Since creationists are all sorts of denominations of Christian, and this likens their God to something utterly stupid and arbitrary, I commented.
While you don't explicitly state it, your comment "creationists are all sorts of... Christian" could pretty easily be inferred to mean that those who believe in any creation story are Christian, ergo the Flying Spaghette Monster theory is a direct attack on Christians. However, without even getting into any of the other creation stories of other cultures, the creation as told in Genesis is also a core tenet of Judaism and Islam...
Arts "awaiting the return of the Great White Handkerchief" Myth
-------------------- Stupid, stupid rat creatures! - Bone "The missionaries told us not to cut ourselves. It displeases Jesus." - Elsie Clews Parsons, Kiowa Tales, quoted in The Mourner's Dance, Katherine Ashenburg Posts: 695 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:Originally posted by Troodon: Intelligent people who are creationists? In the modern world, that's an oxymoron.
That's a little harsh. Of course intelligent people can be creationists. You're not disallowed from general all-round intelligence by believing one stupid thing. Look at Newton and his alchemy, or Yeats and his occultism or Benjamin Franklin and the Hellfire club.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troodon: Intelligent people who are creationists? In the modern world, that's an oxymoron.
That's a little harsh. Of course intelligent people can be creationists. You're not disallowed from general all-round intelligence by believing one stupid thing. Look at Newton and his alchemy, or Yeats and his occultism or Benjamin Franklin and the Hellfire club.
While generally I agree with you, I did qualify my post with "in the modern age". While being a creationist did not make one stupid 150 years ago, today, I consider creationism to be on the same level as geocentrism, alchemy, or astrology.
As for why creationism is stupid: it is a ridiculous, unfalsifiable belief that not only provides no useful information about the world, but instead prevents useful information from being discovered. The only thing that makes creationism different from the "spaghetti monster" theory is that people came up with it thousands of years ago and many still believe it today. On its own merits, however, it makes no more sense.
Edit: I am using rather imprecise definitions of "intelligent" and "stupid", ones that I would use in informal conversation but not in a scientific paper.
-------------------- Fools! You've over-estimated me! Posts: 3745 | From: New York City | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troodon: [QB] . . . I consider creationism to be on the same level as geocentrism, alchemy, or astrology.
As for why creationism is stupid: it is a ridiculous, unfalsifiable belief that not only provides no useful information about the world, but instead prevents useful information from being discovered. [QB]
That's a little drastic, but since you qualified it as your opinion, no offense taken here.
-------------------- "Chuck E. Cheese called. They want their band back."
posted
I have always held a beilief that if god exists, then god must be a part of the universe, for the universe, by its very definition, encompasses anything you can label aswell - i.e. god.
However, this proves that god is not something to be taken entirely on faith since it must be contained within the universe and hence can be defined within those limits. Of course that has problems too, but in the end, I think it is more likely that god is omnipotent spagetti than something to be taken entirely on faith.
Of course, if god were simply a paradox, then god can be proved and taken on faith at the same time, since it is both true and false. Oh, nothing and everything, I hold out out my hand and offer it to you.
Actually, god may aswell be spagetti, which reminds me, has anyone seen that hilarious film documenting the life of a spagetti tree, and how the people wait for harvest time to carefully and respectfully collect the spagetti for the local italians to then boil up and add an apprpriate source to - done in the style of an old english documentary. It should be taught in schools!
-------------------- Disclaimer: ...Oh, sorry, did I say that out loud? Posts: 173 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Shades of Pale
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Dara, I don't expect to be protected from satire
I do reserve the right to be pissed off by it though In this case, it's the lack of funniness that is the greatest offense, IMO
IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my contribution: "Gas clouds are made of soft mints" Until I point a telescope at a gas cloud, do some calculations based on wavelength, density, mass, acceleration and goodness knows what else, it's just a theory, and an unaccepted one at that. And that's why "Gas clouds made of soft mints" is not taught in schools.
Since Darwin made his theory, there have been many many scientific experiments which support it. That's why evolution is taught in schools.
As an aside I also disagree with some of the ideas in ID, which for example seem to say "This is so incredible, there's no way nature could have come up with this by iteslf". As someone said, this is just filling in the cracks, and to me seems to underestimate The Amazing Power Of Nature (tm)
Posts: 625 | From: Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I am a Christian, although a non-denominational one, and I thought the letter in the OP link was hysterically funny. I am also a blonde and think dumb blonde jokes are funny.
My bottom line is that I think some people are way too ready to be offended at the first opportunity, and should just lighten up a little!
LtCol "touched by his noodly appendage" Carter
-------------------- Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage. Lao Tzu Posts: 1544 | From: Northern California | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troodon: As for why creationism is stupid: it is a ridiculous, unfalsifiable belief that not only provides no useful information about the world, but instead prevents useful information from being discovered. The only thing that makes creationism different from the "spaghetti monster" theory is that people came up with it thousands of years ago and many still believe it today. On its own merits, however, it makes no more sense.
It is a belief system. Is it really required to make sense to those who do not believe in it? It certainly does not prevent the advance of science, as history has shown us.
quote:Edit: I am using rather imprecise definitions of "intelligent" and "stupid", ones that I would use in informal conversation but not in a scientific paper.
That excuses it.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: It is a belief system. Is it really required to make sense to those who do not believe in it? It certainly does not prevent the advance of science, as history has shown us.
Dovetailing on that point (with apologies to Angl for taking it out of context), it does prevent children from advancing within science when belief systems are taught as such.
Were Kansas debating whether to teach intellegent design in social studies classes, we wouldn't have the pleasure of reading about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and we wouldn't be debating the appropriateness of its composition.
Shades calls the piece a strawman. It's not. The author is not challenging ID creationism itself, he's simply demonstrating the fallacy of teaching it as an established theory, exclusive of other cultural theories of creation. I, for one, appreciate that he does so with humor, rather than indignation.
[Edited for twice-premature submission]
Posts: 472 | From: Brooklyn | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: It is a belief system. Is it really required to make sense to those who do not believe in it? It certainly does not prevent the advance of science, as history has shown us.
Dovetailing on that point (with apologies to Angl for taking it out of context), it does prevent children from advancing within science when belief systems are taught as such.
Oh heavens yes. Fortunately, few creationists want that to happen. The ones you hear about are the Vocal Minority.
quote:Were Kansas debating whether to teach intellegent design in social studies classes, we wouldn't have the pleasure of reading about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and we wouldn't be debating the appropriateness of its composition.
So true. Though perhaps ID would be better taught as literature. Science fiction, perhaps.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Drag, the Magic Puffin
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by Shades of Pale: I find it offensive and insulting. And I'm not even a creationist.
How interesting. I do believe in a type of intelligent design, and I find it hilarious.
IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Noemi: OK then, what about my push for teaching the earth was created from the body of the dead giant Ymir?
Noemi
And not Yggdrasil? Blasphemer!
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: Though perhaps ID would be better taught as literature. Science fiction, perhaps.
See? That's what I get out of a Brooklyn public education. Litertchya? Science Fictchion? Fuggetabahtit.
Interesting point, though: Lots of friends went to Catholic and yeshiva after-school programs, where Genesis was part of the curriculum. I recall no conflict when our public school teachers explained Big Bang theory to us. Funny, that.
Posts: 472 | From: Brooklyn | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
damsa
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by Shades of Pale: Dara, I don't expect to be protected from satire
I do reserve the right to be pissed off by it though In this case, it's the lack of funniness that is the greatest offense, IMO
i think you are missing the point. ID is not an old theory that's been in the bible for thousands of years. It's a new theory that was brought to combat the teaching of evolution of schools which is actually a 20th century invention.
I've met smart ID people. ID people concede that there is micro evolution. Their major contention is the whole monkey into man thing. Which could only happen if there was a god. But as far as science goes it is as deficient as the spaghetti monster theory.
I thought it was hilarious. Believer's in creationsim are not stupid, but I think treating ID like a science is.
IP: Logged |
quote:If for the next 5 thousand years not only does the spaghetti monster survive as a mythos, but continues to be written about on an extremely significant scale by entire tribes, grow into entire governmental systems (the OT law was a whole system of government, a theocracy) have countless people live and die for devotion to it, and encompass 2 billion followers worldwide despite the best efforts of empires to squash it early on . . .
. . . then it will rank with the Old Testament as an equally invalid explanation of natural phenomena.
posted
Which is relevant to the point being made how?
IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:Originally posted by Shades of Pale: Which is relevant to the point being made how?
Quick housekeeping point: Generally speaking, it's a good idea, if you're posting a post specifically querying or rebutting a previous post, to use the 'quote' button, so that people know exactly which previous post you consider irrelevant. Rather, as in this case, just have "Which is relevant to the point being made how?" at the start of a new page, which means we have to scroll backwards to find out what you think is relevant. I'm guessing that you're referring to snopes' post, and I disagree that it was irrelevant. However, I'm intrigued to know why you think it should be.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
notacoolname
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
ID taught in the science classroom (as opposed to social studies or religion class) is harmful; it states "I can't understand how this works, so it must be the work of God- the end." The gaps in knowledge are the end of inquiry not the begining. If you already know the anser (God) you don't need to look further. It also is a very sneaky way to get religion in the public schools. You can believe whatever you want, and teach your children whatever you want, but you shouldn't be teaching all children your myths, especially as science. And...the phrase "it is only a theory" really gripes my ***; gravity is only a theory - but you still fall down. ( the word you want is hypothesis)
IP: Logged |
posted
That is fantastic, I think I'm going to be laughing at the phrase "Noodly Appendage" all day.
I don't see what some people are getting pouty about, surely it's more specifically aimed at the nut jobs who want creation to be taught in science class than christians or creationists as a whole
Although I guess there's an emerging hyper-political correctness nowadays where Christianity is concerned.
Posts: 1710 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Look It Up
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by notacoolname: ID taught in the science classroom (as opposed to social studies or religion class) is harmful; it states "I can't understand how this works, so it must be the work of God- the end." The gaps in knowledge are the end of inquiry not the begining. If you already know the anser (God) you don't need to look further...
I couldn't agree more. The place for intelligent design is in religious instruction. Let children learn about it from their religious congregations -- not in public schools.
It's certainly not science. It doesn't belong anywhere near a science class.
IP: Logged |
Shades of Pale
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
notacoolname, just wondering...where did you get this from: "I can't understand how this works, so it must be the work of God - the end." There may be some ignorant creationists who say that, but I've yet to come across it elsewhere. From what I can tell it has little or nothing to do with actual intelligent design theory. It has nothing to do with any design theory I've read, at any rate.
IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. Appending divine intervention to evolutionary theory does not necessarily preclude further research. But it's still scientifically pointless, and doesn't belong in a science curriculum.
Posts: 472 | From: Brooklyn | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:Originally posted by Shades of Pale: notacoolname, just wondering...where did you get this from: "I can't understand how this works, so it must be the work of God - the end." There may be some ignorant creationists who say that, but I've yet to come across it elsewhere. From what I can tell it has little or nothing to do with actual intelligent design theory. It has nothing to do with any design theory I've read, at any rate.
Irreducible Complexity , which as I understand it is a fundamental of Intelligent Design basically holds exactly that. It says that certain complex structures are too complicated to have evolved naturally, particularly ones which seem incapable of being broken down into smaller structures (and I imagine the Bombardier Beetle features in it somewhere) and must therefore be the work of a higher power. notacoolname's summary may have been overly dismissive, and may betray disdain for the ID proponents, but it's fair for all that.
However, in order to conform precisely to the strictures of ID, I would suggest he rephrases it from "I can't understnd this, therefore it must be the work of God - the end" to, perhaps, "Can't you see? This is far too complicated for it to be the work of anyone but God - the end." Hopefully, that clarification will satisfy everyone.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, I just found this thread through the Chow in the religion thread. I'm not sure if it's courteous to pull up an old thread or what.
I'd just like to say I grew up in a very strict religious environment, was nurtured on Chick tracts and Crusaders comics (anyone remember those two guys? AWESOME!!!) and Creation Science seminars taught by professors at our local christian college.
That said, I find this site completely inoffensive and hilarious. Maybe the thread is too old for this to be relevant, but I thought I'd make this post since I'm trying to decide on whether to spend next weeks allowance on the I Want To Believe tshirt or the Pirate/Global Warming mug.
-------------------- "I have a cunning plan" Posts: 287 | From: Bloomington, IN | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh... HERE it is!!! I live in Kansas and just today read the open letter to the state board of education in regard to FSM... I LOVE IT. In fact, I converted today.
I knew there must be a snopes thread on it, so I've been searching religion, and then science and thinking... Where else could it be? Humor - where all having to do with intelligent design should be!
Posts: 624 | From: Kansas | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Warning: long diatribe coming! OK, here goes...
I'm a Christian. I even deliver a sermon twice monthly at a lay-led music and worship service. By definition, I'm a "creationist" who believes in the idea of "intelligent design." HOWEVER --
There is VERY LITTLE that is INTELLIGENT about the "creationist" and "intelligent design" so-called theories being spouted by the fundamentalist whack-jobs who are attempting to legislate their narrow view of Christianity into the public schools.
I choose to believe that an intelligent creator, as any intelligent being, would DEVELOP a creation over time, constantly revising and hopefully improving the creation. Therefore, evolution makes perfect sense as a process of "intelligent design." The atheist critics who ask why an omnipotent god would need this fall into the same trap as the fundamentalists who argue against evolution -- the assumption that the Christian God acts only in perfect ways upon the world.
Heretical to say otherwise? Read the bible. There are myriad examples of God changing his (using the male gender only because it's common usage; don't get me started on that!) mind or course of action. The methodology of God seems to evolve throughout the bible, from the "jealous God" of Moses to the loving God of John.
I bear atheists and agnostics no ill will. There are more than enough inconsistencies in the bible to call into question the validity of Christianity. A Christian who hasn't experienced many sincere moments of doubt probably hasn't paid close enough attention to the scriptures and tenets of Christianity. In the final analysis, however, I'm inclined to believe in a higher power because of my own experiences in our remarkable world. I do bristle somewhat when belief in a higher power is chalked up to stupidity or naiveté by a non-believer, but I respect differing opinions expressed intelligently.
I do bear a great deal of ill will toward so-called Christians who selectively use biblical passages to advance their own political agendas, conveniently ignoring any writings or factual evidence which run contrary to their pre-formed ideas of what God wants and how God works. I don't presume to know the mind of God, but I'm pretty sure that the Asshats (I believe that's the preferred term here) don't either.
So, in conclusion, I thought the Spaghetti Monster was hysterical. Thank you for your time.
-------------------- [God said] "I'll just sit back in the shade while everyone gets laid; that's what I call intelligent design." - Chris Smither, "Origin of the Species" Posts: 411 | From: Fairfield, CT | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- I like to go down to the playground and watch the kids run and jump and scream, because they don't know I'm only using blanks. Posts: 942 | From: Illinois | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
ETA: Now it's just a matter of time before Pat Robertson weighs in...
-------------------- [God said] "I'll just sit back in the shade while everyone gets laid; that's what I call intelligent design." - Chris Smither, "Origin of the Species" Posts: 411 | From: Fairfield, CT | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
zakor
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
It's the ID people demanding EQUAL time, as their alternate theory, in some sort of Affirmative Action But For Theories (something which conservatives are notably against, mind you, they think that ID should have EQUAL TIME.
I wonder, should the a$$holes at Stormfront, a KKK website, get EQUAL TIME for WWII history, for their theory that the Holocaust didn't exist? Of course not, but, it's the same logic.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
In this case, it's the lack of funniness that is the greatest offense, IMO ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
That is fantastic, I think I'm going to be laughing at the phrase "Noodly Appendage" all day.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
