57 Responses to “Hello. I am Graham Holiman,”

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

1. 1 person Sep 20th, 2006 at 11:19 pm

   thank you for writing the one and probably only thoughtful and well laid out comment in this entire website
   also thank you for not screaming and turning ur caps lock on like some of the other motherf**ckers that post coments here
   also thank you for using smart and agreeable logic in your comment

2. 2 Vinnie Oct 14th, 2006 at 6:04 am

   Yes, thank you, but you’re still dead wrong.

   1) “you have cleverly implied an argument without ever saying it outloud”
   not true, isn’t opening a website and sending letters to school, spreading the word and creating a case enough for you? Pastafarians dont go around imposing their will and beliefs on others like people from other religions do. The argument is implied as U say, there’s no need to go shouting about.

   2)”So FSM could use exactly the same physical evidence as ID does with no problems.”
   Of course! that’s the all point of it!
   what we argue here is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence at all to sustain ID and if u allow it to be taught at school together with science u should then allow any Mambo Jambo non-science as well, like spagettimonsterism! is it clear now? did u read the letter to the school at all?

   3)”you are influencing lives to treat heartfelt eternal matters as worthless and lighthearted”
   Yes, so? that’s what we think and as long as we dont offend anyone I cant see anything wrong with it. The fact that someone is feeling offended doesnt mean that we actually are offensive, we are just expressing an opinion and our belief in a smart and funny way. You dont have to change your mind if you dont want. Christians, Muslims and other religion are doing the same thing towards other values and other heartfelt ideas.

   4)”When your time expires and He withholds your breath, the state of your soul at that time will determine whether you join Him or go to a godless eternity. This is spiritual reality and a wise, prudent person would be respectful enough to leave it alone. Stay as you are and these words will become part of your eternal memory.”
   That’s just your opinion, who says that it won’t be you at the end of your days confronted with another god? why not budda? hallah? FSM?
   A wise person would leave himself an emergency exit…

3. 3 SaucyWench Oct 14th, 2006 at 6:39 am

   Graham, you lost me at “you will someday stand before him….blah, blah, blah, friggin’ blah.” That is not what this is about for me. This is about Christians imposing their beliefs in what is supposed to be a free country, where church and state are separate. Church, represented by ID, does not belong in public schools in this country. That’s not just my opinion: it’s part of why this country was founded. It’s not even in the fine print of the documents that set up how this country is supposed to function: it is one of the main tenets of American freedom. If representatives of one religion, even Christianity, are surreptitiously teaching their brand of creation mythology to impressionable children, church and state aren’t separate. Evolution does not preclude ID, therefore, as far as I can tell, it does not necessarily contradict the existence of a creator. If I’m understanding it correctly, proponents of ID claim that evolution has been somehow orchestrated by a divine being. That’s great, but it’s not science, and it doesn’t belong in science curricula.

   As an aside, I was raised an athiest because my mother, born and raised in the Bible Belt, had a southern Babtist upbringing in the bowels of Appalachia. She suffered terribly in the name of their God. My opposition to Christianity does not exist in a vacuum. I, however, am not an athiest, and I would like to believe that there is a creator responsible for all that we can sense, from gamma ray bursts to newts. Any creator I would be able to believe in would not allow its followers to commit such atrocities as the ones perpretrated against my mother.

4. 4 nyx Oct 14th, 2006 at 9:04 am

   Graham, I take great offense to you calling my years worthless just because I refuse to accept a MAN who died 2000 years ago as my lord and savior. I personally do not believe there is any sort of afterlife, so these “worhtless years” are all we have. I am making them meaningful without the help of an imaginary bearded white man or the overexaggerated myth of a man who lived and died, once again, 2000 years ago. I don’t want their help, or their blessing. I don’t believe they exist, but that does not give you the right to call my years worhtless, Graham.
   .
   This has been said many times before, but if your God gave us free will why would he punish us for using it? That just makes your God look like an asshole, along with many, many other things he supposedly does and/or did. I’ll take Pastafarianism and godlessness over eternity with an asshole any day.
   RAmen

5. 5 Fumelo Oct 14th, 2006 at 11:25 am

   Heather, et al,

   This is long, but I hope it makes sense:

   I will do my best here to make clear the foundational flaw in your (and other Intelligent Design defendants and those of strong religious faith) argument. I do not intend this as an attack on you, your beliefs or convictions. I am merely trying to articulate the essential barrier to understanding. I’ve been reading the posts on this site, as well as years of self study in religions, physics, and cultures. I have been seeking truth in my life, and although I claim no knowledge of absolute truth, I do think I have a very strong comprehension of what may be true about what reality might be.

   If I may provide a simple definition, religion is a set of beliefs about reality. I would argue that science is as well, but I will explain the difference later. Both develop their structure from observation, initially. People observe their environment and attempt to understand it, to derive understanding of the world around them. Early man was necessarily intimately in touch with nature but believed himself as separate, different. He projected his self-awareness (or ego) onto the natural world, and understandably assigned powers and awareness to the forces in nature. The heat and brightness of the sun must be a great fire being; a terrific storm must be the wrath of an angry entity. As such, he began to develop rituals and concepts in order to understand and communicate with these beings, to hopefully elicit some sort of control over the world. This was early science: attempting to explain and create order to the world around them.

   Religion was the early science. It helped explain the world. It helped find food, gave meaning to life, and helped provide order in the growing population. People needed to live together in order to survive, so they needed rules to help live together productively. A sense of right and wrong developed to facilitate this. And to give power to this sense, there had to be consequences. This gave even more weight to the idea of deities. If you were bad, your actions would bring about the wrath of some being that had the power to punish you. Likewise, if you were good, you would be rewarded. As populations grew and societies became more complex, so, too, did the complexity of religion.

   Now, we get to the crux of the thing. Different peoples around the world developed different paradigms about reality. A paradigm defines how you comprehend and process the information you receive from the world. If you hold to a certain paradigm, you can only understand information in a way that fits within your paradigm. You use the tools you have to put together the pieces of data into a picture of understanding that makes sense to you. This makes your understanding of the world very subjective. Religions were the paradigms for societies for thousands of years. The Greeks had their many human-like gods, the Egyptians were deeply intimate with the afterlife, and Native Americans felt a paternal connection to the natural world.

   Something interesting happened, though. Some people began to attempt to understand the world in an objective way. They wanted to get to the smallest part, breaking down things and events into the most essential elements. And their findings had to be repeatable within the same conditions – either by being able to do it over and over again or by someone else coming up with the same conclusions given the same information. This was the beginning of logic and reason. 1+1=2. Always, every time, by anyone. This was the beginning of empirical science.

   Now remember, religion had been the only source of understanding. But this new way of thinking began to contradict what everyone “knew”. As we can see from history, this was very disconcerting and uncomfortable. Those in power (religious leaders) saw this as a threat to order, understanding and their power. Many were prosecuted or died because of this. But the science ideas worked and a new paradigm evolved.

   Science is a set of beliefs about reality, based upon observation, experimentation and peer review. It derives its ‘facts’ from the limited amount of data we can perceive using our very limited senses and understood by our underutilized minds. We have expanded our ability to observe through our technology and expand our knowledge through collaboration. Its strengths are repeatability, adaptability, and that a fact in one area is a fact in another (save for concepts that we don’t yet understand, i.e. quantum vs. relativity). Science is as objective as is possible. It can be scrutinized, changed with more knowledge, and applied to the physical world. Science’s weakness is that it often tends to deem the effect as the cause – it looks in the wrong direction at times. But the knowledge is never ending and as we learn more it is open to change.

   Religion is based upon subjective observation. At its core is the ‘fact’ that there is an entity that is the source of everything. From that concept derives many different systems of belief that were influenced by a society’s environment and culture. The validation of these different systems of understanding comes from their deep involvement in historical events and explanation of phenomena. Religion’s strength comes from its ability to provide order and meaning to life and a society and to provide a sense of community. It gives structure to our inner sense of something “more”, of the things we do not understand and cannot explain. Its weaknesses are its closed structure, difficulty in validation from objective observation, and that it fosters a sense of righteousness.

   Water. What did you think of or feel when you read that? Did you feel happy or excited, because you enjoy water activities, perhaps? Did you feel neutral – you drink it and clean with it, but otherwise have no thoughts or feelings about it whatsoever? Or did you feel a little fear or loathing, perhaps because you almost drowned once or had something destroyed by it? Any of those thoughts or feelings are beliefs, part of your paradigm. They are all different perceptions of the same thing. How you perceive water does not change the essence of what water is. Water is water no matter what you may think of it or how you feel about it. No one holds the absolute truth about what water is; all are valid and all can be supported by ‘facts’. But it’s still just water, hydrogen and oxygen combined in a liquid form at room temperature.

   Science will give you the chemical structure and physical properties of water. Religion will give you the meaning of water. One is objective, one is subjective. Both can be ‘proven’. But which is truth?

   Christianity is not an original religion. It is a derivative of many different belief systems that existed at the time and prior. Its holidays are strongly based on holidays of other belief systems, its paradigms are as ancient as the earliest religions. That there is a father-like god that created everything. That humans are unique and special and intimately connected and in communication with god. Good and evil exist and that humans are at the center of the war. That there is an afterlife. That we can be protected, or saved, through some proclamation or ceremony. That there was someone or some people who endured some sort of suffering that allowed subsequent generations a path to enlightenment or salvation. That its paradigm is the one true paradigm. I could go on. None of these ideas are original or unique to Christianity. In the broad landscape of world religions and belief systems, Christianity is unoriginal, primitive in its foundational structure, and wholly separated from what can be observed in the natural world. Plus, it relies on its own documentation to prove itself. An intelligent being who knew nothing of Christianity would not be able to come up with Christianity (or Jesus, Heaven, Hell, the need for salvation or God) through objective observation of the universe. Nor would this being be able to substantiate The Bible (or any other holy writings) from objective experimentation or observation, even with being able to observe the entire history of our planet and its inhabitants.

   Another point I’d like to make is what I find is completely missed often when I am presented with someone proclaiming that their system of beliefs is the only truth, especially when it involves a one supreme god. If there was such a god, a father- or mother-like god who was intimately involved in our existence and who created everything, especially humans, then why isn’t it completely obvious to anyone and everyone? Why don’t all facts point to this? I mean ALL FACTS, everything. I know that if I was the god who created a vast and complex universe, and then created one life-supporting planet in a solar system on the outskirts of an average galaxy that resided amongst other similar galaxies (a cluster) that also hung out with many other clumps of galaxies (to create super clusters) that were also in a random neighborhood of other super clusters in a odd web of matter strung out into an infinite space, then I inhabited that tiny planet with unique creatures (humans) that I graced with a soul (and only that creature, not the millions of other creatures I created) that was the crux of their existence for the purpose of them being aware of me and all my creation, then creating the circumstances that would force them to struggle with an opposing force (I will get into that later), as well as their daily survival, then I would make it so blatantly obvious that I existed and how to accomplish the goal of living properly and therefore being able to hang out with me when they die. I would not leave it up to a book written 1.) after thousands or millions (your choice) of years of human existence and 2.) before humans developed reason and logic and 3.) available only to a select portion of the global population. I would not leave anything up to interpretation. I would not stop communicating in a direct and obvious way to my chosen creatures a couple thousand years and billions of humans ago.

   Here’s another thing that never made sense to me: Let’s assume there is a God; a supreme being that created everything, time, space, matter and all the forces. This God must be omnipotent, meaning there is nothing that it/he/she did not create. In order for this God to be such, there can be nothing in existence that is not God. It would have had to make everything from Itself, as It is the originator of all that is. Let that sink in for a moment: There can be nothing that is not God. No Earth or stars, no wind or ocean, no heaven or angels, hence no evil or hell. God would have had to create Evil and Hell and therefore would have had to have Evil inherent within Itself. Even if this was so, what purpose would this omnipotent God have to allow a force almost equal to, if not completely equal to, Itself to exist? Imagine if all humanity throughout history and in the future, along with all the angels, chose Evil. Then God’s creation, Evil, would “win” the war and God would cease to be omnipotent. What then? Why would It allow such a conflict to exist, perhaps to Its own demise?

   I was shocked to hear of the Vatican changing the concept of Limbo. First, if any religion is based upon the word of God, then who are we to change how Its reality works? Second, the idea of Limbo is completely inane. I was raised Catholic and always wondered about the billions of humans who existed prior to the birth of Jesus or who were not “fortunate” enough to have been exposed to the concept of Christianity. All those Asians and Aboriginal peoples throughout the rest of history and the world – where did they go when they died? Why would God make it impossible for billions of his “creations in His image” to find the salvation He required in order to be allowed into His Heaven, no matter how in line with His doctrine they lived their lives?

   A Chinese man who lived and died a thousand years before Jesus and a couple thousand miles away from the Holy Land comes to the Pearly Gates.

   God says to him: You lived a very good life. You loved those around you, helped those less fortunate and never showed any selfishness.

   The man asks: Please excuse my ignorance, but may I ask who you are and where am I?

   God: I am the creator of all that is. I am God, the father. Behind these gates is my home, Heaven. Here you will find an eternity of peace and happiness and never know suffering again. You will be with those that you loved and that loved you.

   Chinese man: How wonderful! How might I be allowed in?

   God: You lived your life the right way and have earned your way in. But there’s one thing…

   Chinese man: Yes?

   God: What’s my son’s name, bitch!?!

   I do not know if there is a God. I do not know if we have souls. One could debate these concepts but both sides would end in a draw, since neither can be proved absolutely. I have my beliefs about these ideas, but they are mine and I do not assume to have a patent on the truth. I believe science is the best avenue for understanding ourselves and the universe we exist in. Our existence is better spent understanding ourselves, the world around us, and to try to better ourselves and our place in the universe. There is no truth other than that which we accept and can agree on. It’s all perception based upon five senses that can only perceive limited spectrums of energy and then deciphered by an organ in our head that is only being used, at the very best, at 10% capacity. We are alone in our own universes, but we are all in it together.

   So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

   R’Amen

6. 6 Fumelo Oct 14th, 2006 at 11:26 am

   I apologize for the lack of spacing and brevity above.

   Let the lashings begin.

7. 7 gill Oct 14th, 2006 at 2:31 pm

   RAmen, Fumelo. Great post, gotta agree with it.

8. 8 The Aussie Oct 14th, 2006 at 6:22 pm

   Awesome
   Honestly, I would like to see what coherent argument ANYone could come up with against your post. Im gonna watch this space, in the (probably vain) hope that someone like christian, zenith, or raised in the bible belt takes up the challenge.
   .
   .
   .
   I do have a question though.
   .
   How long did it take to write that?

9. 9 Nikkiee Oct 14th, 2006 at 6:50 pm

   Yes good post Fumelo. I agree that your wait will probably be in vain Aussie. I have seen no evidence in any of the fundi posts to suggest a command of english, grammar or objectivity that would allow their reading and comprehension of Fumelo’s post, let alone balanced reply.

10. 10 Nikkiee Oct 14th, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    Graham says
    “You forgot to look at why no one believes mankind was created by Spaghetti.”
    On the contrary there are many thousands of Pastaferians. You obviously have read any of the posts on this site!

    “But none of them point to Spaghetti as creator, so of course no one is truly going to believe they were created by Spaghetti”
    Have you not read our gospel?

    “Given 2–Everyone can see it’s rediculous to believe mankind was actually created by Spaghetti. …”
    No more rediculous than ID

    “why should the scientific evidence for ID be any more compelling than the scientific evidence for FSM?”
    I’ve yet to see some that hasn’t been denounced by scientific peer review

    “the scientific evidence for ID doesn’t point to any specific creator, but just to a creator in general.”
    Not!

    “I couldn’t fit a good look at it into this Email without losing your attention real fast. This Email is specifically designed to cover the FSM argument, not any scientific arguments.)”
    But you haven’t read it. Also where is said your said coverage of FSM argument. We are not arguing. We know.

    “Better yet, ask Jesus to help you to see the Reality of His death and His payment on the cross……….”
    Blah Blah, preach, preach

    PS I think they are sending in bigger cannons. Better spelling, better grammar but same rhetoric.

11. 11 Nikkiee Oct 14th, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    And is it Graham or Phillip?

12. 12 Nikkiee Oct 14th, 2006 at 7:27 pm

    Or the holy ghost?

13. 13 nyx Oct 14th, 2006 at 7:58 pm

    multiple personality disorder, perhaps?

14. 14 The Aussie Oct 14th, 2006 at 9:42 pm

    Maybe he’s trying to be funny?
    .
    Graham, graham, graham
    The holi-man,
    He claims we’re screwed, hot DAMN!

15. 15 Nikkiee Oct 14th, 2006 at 10:11 pm

    I think you’re right again Aussie.
    Graham/Phillip (and maybe the holy ghost) says
    “The fact that it ( he means FSM folks) will still be unbelievable is due to theology, not science.”
    Is he saying that religion is not unbelievable due to theology. lol
    If you mean by “screwed”, dead, then bring on the booty & alcohol (I don’t like beer but was informed by another post that alternatives are available)……… make mine a margarurita :P

16. 16 The Aussie Oct 14th, 2006 at 10:17 pm

    i was thinking more damned… but hey, i forgot about pissed :P

17. 17 Nikkiee Oct 14th, 2006 at 10:32 pm

    How about damned pissed?

18. 18 The Aussie Oct 14th, 2006 at 10:34 pm

    You know, that could just work… beer and strippers for EVERYONE

19. 19 Fumelo Oct 15th, 2006 at 7:54 am

    Again, sincere and deep apologies for the length. It’s hard to condense all the facts of thousands of years into a post.

    I think it took me about an hour, then a little editing. Wonder if anyone to whom it’s directed will read it.

20. 20 Fumelo Oct 15th, 2006 at 7:58 am

    Oh, and I be obligated to offer me gratitudes to both me maties, Aussie and Nikkiee, for their compliments.

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

Leave a Reply