Hey Bobby, just looking at your site, and I wonder to myself why you got so carried away with your whole FSM thing. I understand your point- religious fundamentalism is getting in the way of a progressive world. The fact that some schools only want to teach Intelligent Design is a bit scary. But then again, it’s probably difficult for you to try and teach your kids something that is being contradicted at school. And religion is not a bad thing in and of itself. A lot of people live good productive lives, and are even directed towards them by religious faith of some sort. Again, religious fundamentalism in all its guises is a bane, and it makes rational belieivers in God (among whom I count myself) feel defensive about their religions when there is actually no need to be. Kind of like the one kid in class who misbehaves and spoils it for everyone else.
This is precisely why I am writing. If your website offered a concise and clear explanation of why you think ID is an incorrect theory or should not be taught in schools, then maybe you’d actually be reaching people who disagree with you, rather than just those who already think the same things.
I think interested and well-informed debate between opposing viewpoints is fundamental for progress of our ideas and society, but that’s not what your site is promoting. Your site simply appears to be a way for you to prove your own popularity to yourself, and make a few bucks with merch and this book while you’re at it.
The fact that you decide to take an extreme approch to this matter is something which is all too familiar of late. I see America raging with political, moral, religious, and social debates. People are hugely polarised. But this isn’t getting anyone anywhere. People are standing on soapboxes as soon as they find something they disagree with just to shout "I disagree," and when asked about their beliefs they respond "I believe the opposite of what that guy said." People are not informing their ideologies with solid values, and so as soon as the argument is over nothing is resolved, and people are just floating around like helium balloons after a little kid’s birthday party.
The problem is that while they’re fighting, nobody sees the middle ground, and so the easy solutions get missed. I don’t think ID and Evolution are incompatible theories.
Look, it’s easy: all life on this planet evolved from DNA. DNA is a really really awesome molecule, because look at all the things it has adapted into to populate our planet! Someone really smart must’ve designed that stuff.
Or you can take it a step back, if you’re going with the ridiculous improbability of DNA forming by coincidence: Wow, a planet showed up with just the right conditions to create this awesome molecule…
or Wow, the universe has laws and constituents which are capable of producing all this life from such basic things…
The point is that nobody, not even the scientists, can explain the reason the universe is this way, or what happened at the moment of its creation. At that point, all we have is our best guess, our gut feeling, and at that point it really doesn’t matter what you believe.
The sort of intervention which the FSM is capable of refers to a very specific sort of belief in God, and pointing out that that particular sort of belief seems silly to you does not bear any relevance to the question of the initial creation of the universe.
Some people just don’t want to put everything down to "dumb luck" which is what science (for all the understanding it offers) ultimately does.
Whatever your opinion of religious faith, you have a right to express it, I’m just a bit puzzled by the way you chose to express yourself if you did actually want incite some sort of awareness or change about the matters which concern you. If you were just trying to piss a few people off and have a few people on your side laughing with you, then maybe you should have just pulled more pranks in high-school, or got the jocks together to beat up some freshman. That’s basically what your website acheives with its current content.
Of course, if you have no interest in changing people’s minds about these issues, then I guess I don’t have much else to say, except that your logic is horribly flawed at several points, even in terms of serving as analogous to what Christians say about creation.
Pach
| 
The biggest problem with your argument is just because scientists have not figured everything out YET, that is not an excuse to give up and take the easy way out by chalking it up to a god. They are continuing to learn more and more about the Universe every day.
Why stop learning now? Should we have stopped when we thought the sun went around the earth?
Come on already – everybody pick yourselves up, and let’s keep humanity moving in the right direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Some people just don’t want to put everything down to “dumb luck” which is what science (for all the understanding it offers) ultimately does.”
Pach … Luck? You call THIS world LUCK? Dumb, OK – but LUCK? Looking at the human race, DUMB and RANDOM is exactly what comes to mind … I mean, male nipples?? David Hasselhoff???? Bokdroolverspoeg????
Dirk
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
event with a small probability (DNA formation) * very very large number (planets and stars in the universe) * another very large number (billions of years) = certainty
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pach,
You’re very reasonable to seek a middle ground on this issue, however we have to consider the purpose of all involved before we can find that ground.
The purpose of the Church of FSM is to mirror through parody the circular reasoning and illogicism of the fundamentalist arguments for teaching Intelligent Design in schools. It is not a critique of religion itself, but a very focused imitation of one segment of religion. Through its imitation, the unassabilable connotations of words like God and Jesus and the Bible are lost, leaving the logical inconsistancies out to dry with no vague historical legitimacy to support them. Those in power might then see that the most adamant supporters of change stand on far less reasonable ground than once perceived, and think twice before implenting a new and controversial policy.
Critiques of Intelligent Design have already been wirtten by numerous scientists whose intellect far exceeds my own (and probably Bobby’s). Thus I think Bobby felt that leading by example would be the best way for him to contribute to the debate. The FSM exposes the unreasableness of ID by mirroring its very opponent. This allows Bobby to have a little more fun founding the church, and permits him to be just as fanatical in his new belief structure as his opponents are in theirs. The dry, yet logical arguments are already presented elsewhere if anyone cares to read them.
I too consider myself to be a rational believer in a higher power, but I feel far from threatened by Bobby’s church. With a proper understanding of its context and purpose, I simply applaud as he spreads his message to everyone who will listen. He’s got more guts and drive than most people, as is proved by running this campaign. I for one hope all his effort pays off, changing at least the few minds that matter most on those key school boards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You seem to miss the point of the FSM. There *are* things that science does not yet understand. Christians seem to think that means they can attribute all those things to God. But without any evidence, you can just as easily attribute them to *anything*, even something as ridiculous as the FSM.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As an atheist who wishes people would be a little more civil to each other, amen.
Though I think a possible answer to why he chose to take it so far is that, while a lot of us would like to have actual civil discussions, a lot of others (on both sides) would prefer the much more viscerally satisfying and less time-consuming act of name-calling. Since I like to think the best of people, I like to think that Bobby was frustrated by the discussions getting nowhere, and this spurred the flippancy. But, probably not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“DNA is a really really awesome molecule…”
Is there a more clear and obvious example of just how bad science education is in America?
There is no need for a “middle ground” when two sides are not equally valid. ID is bad science and bad theology dressed up to try to sneak under the Supreme Court ban on teaching creationism. That’s it. It has no validity, no evidence…nothing.
There is no need to seek a middle ground with pseudoscience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a fine attempt at a logical argument, Pach; however, you contradict yourself several times.
“If your website offered a concise and clear explanation of why you think ID is an incorrect theory or should not be taught in schools, then maybe you’d actually be reaching people who disagree with you, rather than just those who already think the same things.”
Replace ID with Evolution in that statement and you have exactly what ID is doing to evolution. By disproving evolution, ID believers are not proving anything.
“People are standing on soapboxes as soon as they find something they disagree with just to shout “I disagree,” and when asked about their beliefs they respond “I believe the opposite of what that guy said.” People are not informing their ideologies with solid values, and so as soon as the argument is over nothing is resolved, and people are just floating around like helium balloons after a little kid’s birthday party. ”
ID does the same. Evolutionary theory is full of empirical evidence showing how natural selection causes collective changes in life forms over time.
There are 4 fundamental aspects of science called the “Scientific Method”. They are:
1) observation of a phenomemon
2) Formulation of a hypothesis
3) Predict qnatitatively the results of new observations
4) Perform experimental tests of the predictions
Merriam webster’s dictionary defines science as “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method”
If a process can meet those 4 requirements then, by definition, it is science. Conversely, if ID doesn’t meet those 4 requirements then it, by definition, is not science.
ID is not provable. There is no experiment that can be performed to proove that all of nature is designed intelligently. Therefore, ID does not follow the scientific method.
Anyone who believes in God or a Flying Spaghetti monster is free to do so. In fact, it is their constitutional right to do so. However, to claim either of those theories are science is incorrect because they don’t follow the scientific method.
Simple. Q.E.D.
Speaking as a scientist, I believe masquerading anything that is not science as science in schools is dangerous. While you may not know how to teach your kids religion while school teaches them about science, that doesn’t mean you should change science.
Disillusioning children to believe ID is science only hurts them in the long run. What you can do to help is to teach them that there are sometimes differences between reality and belief. For instance, I can believe as hard as I want that I am Wilt Chamberlin, but that doesn’t make it so (because I’m not Wilt Chamberlain).
I believe in God, Jesus, and the whole 9. That doesn’t mean science doesn’t exist. My beliefs don’t make dinosaur bones disappear. Your children should understand that distinction.
If you truly believed that there was some intelligent designer, maybe he was smarter than you. Maybe he was so smart he invented something like evolution, gravity, and all those other “atheistic” scientific theories to do his work for him. Maybe he’s too freakin’ busy dealing with all the stuff in this huge universe that he just doesn’t have time to correct you for being wrong and smack you silly ID proponants in your hollow creationist skulls.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We’re in agreement that fundamentalism is harmful to just about everyone. After that, our one to one points of agreement fall off rather rapidly.
Science is not a religion, although there are people who believe in it religiously. Science is a mental tool, a way of thought, that is intended to make certain that we have the most up to date information on reality and how it works at any given time. To achieve that, it has to leave EVERYthing open to question, re-evaluation, and modification or being outright discarded when it no longer explains the facts.
The very first and most powerful tenet in many religions, however, is “Thou shalt not question.” When you get right down to it, the Bible should only be turned to in matters of ethics and morality; how the universe was created is the proper purview of science, which, in turn, has nothing to say on the subject of ethics and morality. Leave each to their individual areas of expertise, and you’ll find that the division between the two is purely artificial. They do not fundamentally contradict each other.
“Look, it’s easy: all life on this planet evolved from DNA. DNA is a really really awesome molecule, because look at all the things it has adapted into to populate our planet! Someone really smart must’ve designed that stuff.”
That’s not just easy, it’s lazy. Just because you and I can’t wrap our brains about those kinds of numbers and concepts doesn’t mean they don’t or can’t exist.
I don’t have the math, but yes, I suspect that you’re right: if all those billions of molecules had to try ALL of the combinations before a molecule could become self-replicating, it probably would take forever, even at the split-second speeds of most chemical reactions.
What people tend to forget is that some types of molecules had been filtered out as being impossible because of the existing environment: too much UV, not enough UV, too much heat, not enough heat, et cetera. All of those molecules are dead end trails and many would have broken the instant they formed and others could never be tempted to form in the first place. That filtering effect of the environment alone makes the task simpler, by eliminating perhaps trillions of choices. And, it took life as we understand it a billion years and more to form. One billion years is very approximately 31.556 times ten to the 15th power seconds, a very large number. If chemical reactions took an average time of a tenth of a second to try a combination, you can see there would be a lot of combinations tried. And with the filter of the environment already weeding out molecules that were unfit for that environment, there are a lot fewer choices to try.
Further, new molecule combinations tend to build upon older successful ones, so they don’t have to “re-invent the wheel” so to speak. So again, a filtering process against the unsuccessful molecules takes place, making certain combinations impossible even to try.
So, can you concede that under those conditions, the creation of DNA MIGHT not require an intelligent designer?
“Or you can take it a step back, if you’re going with the ridiculous improbability of DNA forming by coincidence: Wow, a planet showed up with just the right conditions to create this awesome molecule…”
You’re looking at it backwards. Instead of talking about how our planetary conditions were just right for DNA, and how improbable is that, consider the opposite: that under these conditions, ONLY DNA was favored; that under different conditions, a different life-creating molecule might have involved, instead.
So, instead of having to carefully create a universe to coddle DNA’s development, we have a situation where DNA was more likely to develop than other possibilities. And even then, if you consider a virus to be alive, you now have an organism that has NO DNA in it.
Again, this makes it possible for life to begin on its own, not because it had been coddled, but because this particular life could not have evolved anywhere else, and certain types of live cannot evolve here because our conditions are too hostile for those forms to ever exist.
“or Wow, the universe has laws and constituents which are capable of producing all this life from such basic things… ”
Again, you’re looking at it backwards. Instead of saying that the universe had to be engineered (which it might be, I suppose) to support a specific type of life, consider instead the possibility that in this type of universe, this was the most likely type of life to evolve. That in other types of universes, different life might have evolved instead.
I’ll conclude that in just about every field of study, you can see that our laws of physics have created a situation where the universe itself appears to want to become more complex from simpler forms: physics, where particles would rather form atoms, given a chance, and molecules from atoms. Biology, where simpler lifeforms became more complex over the billions of years. The stars themselves, where the local gravity gradients in dust clouds create stars with planets, the stars start to cluster, the clusters form a galaxy, and galaxies begin to form super groups of galaxies.
Please note that I am not saying that Intelligent Design is impossible, although I don’t personally believe it. What I am saying is that we can see where you can get to the same point without divine intervention. Just because there are more ways to skin a cat than just one, doesn’t mean that a particular one was used. We just have the skin and the cat, and there’s more than one possible pathway to have reached that point. Most of them inherently untestable, therefore they can neither be proven nor disproven.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Please note that I am not saying that Intelligent Design is impossible, although I don’t personally believe it.”
You don’t have to say it is impossible, all that is required is that people who insist it is true must produce actual, physical evidence to show it is true. That’s it. It’s not a question of possibility — it is the simple requirement that all scientific ideas must be demonstrated by corresponding physical evidence.
To date, ID has produced NONE — nada, zero, zilch.
It isn’t up to you to prove ID is wrong, it is up to the creationists to prove ID is RIGHT and so far they have completely and utterly failed to produce ANY evidence to do so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is no debate between two theories. There is science and there is this other thing that people get all worked up about. You can present your validation theories all day long, but that will NEVER turn ID into science. Your arguments are akin to the Christian argument that says “If you are right and I am wrong, then no big deal. But if I am right, and you are wrong, then you burn in hell. Do you want to take that chance?” To that I say “Did the pizza get here yet?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i had intended to respond to pach’s criticism but happily found that it had already been done from several angles and far more eloquently and logically than i would have managed. nice responses..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“DNA is a really really awesome molecule…”
“Is there a more clear and obvious example of just how bad science education is in America?”
Amen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have a question for all of those religious fanatics out there….(I heard this from my government/history teacher in high school)
If God is omnipotent, could He ever build a rock that He could not lift?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I completely agree on the polarization of America, but I would like to clear some things up. Evolution, although somewhat controversial, is way more than how the Earth was created. Yes, scientists (including me) use terms like “primordial soup†to describe the first chemical reactions, but evolution doesn’t stop there. When you learn about evolution in school, you learn about fossils, adaptability, specie dominance, and survival of the reproductively fit. You learn how species can mate to create a new species or how they can’t mate because of reproductive inhibitions. Most professors and teachers barely hit on how the earth was created. They’re (speaking for all the teachers I know) more interested in the rules of reproduction and how species have changed. And to anyone who has read Darwin understands that we never evolved from monkeys; we’re just related to them in a phylogenic and genetic way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Geez well to the OP all I can say is that congratulations youre much more reasonable than most people who send hatemail.
I havent read it all but I refer you to the Anthropic principle (is that how you spell it?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I think interested and well-informed debate between opposing viewpoints is fundamental for progress of our ideas and society, but that’s not what your site is promoting.”
To promote debate with ID is a ridiculous notion. It Is Not Science. It should not be in any science classroom nor any science textbook. It’s religion.
“The problem is that while they’re fighting, nobody sees the middle ground, and so the easy solutions get missed. I don’t think ID and Evolution are incompatible theories.”
Not only are they incompatible theories, they’re not even COMPARABLE theories. ID is “I have a hunch it’s this way cause I like how that sounds” and evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory (re: all but solid fact) based on huge mountains of unbiased empirical evidence from thousands of researchers throughout time, with more coming in every day.
Look, the problem here is that you are arguing that since there’s two viewpoints, they should be given equal debate time in the education of the public. Nonsense like that is why the media still thinks global warming is a 50/50 fencesitting issue but the scientific community has come to a concensus. It’s nonsense to say that just because a competing ‘idea’ comes along to challenge a scientific theory, that they should both be given equal weight. I’m afraid evolution has a lot of evidence for it right now and intelligent design has none, merely hypotheses (which is not science).
“Look, it’s easy: all life on this planet evolved from DNA. DNA is a really really awesome molecule, because look at all the things it has adapted into to populate our planet! Someone really smart must’ve designed that stuff.”
What designed ‘that stuff’ was vast amounts of time and innumerable amounts of test runs on genetic programs. You run a few trillion possible programs, some with different modifications here and there, and some run better or worse in the current environment. With time and innumerable more test runs, the ecosystem of genetic programs becomes more robust and sublimely complex creatures gradually show up, disappear, are replaced by more efficient ones, and so on. The “design” is indeed calculated and computed, and the calculation is done by ribosomes making proteins out of genetic code. Life designs itself, and the environment performs QA on the resulting programs and machinery.
“Some people just don’t want to put everything down to “dumb luck” which is what science (for all the understanding it offers) ultimately does.”
If you think evolution can be reduced to the phrase “dumb luck”, you clearly have a facile and superficial understanding of how evolution works.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To quote John, “i had intended to respond to pach’s criticism but happily found that it had already been done from several angles and far more eloquently and logically than i would have managed. nice responses.”
In addition, and a bit off topic, I keep seeing the word evolution used in the past tense. Why is it that everyone seems to think evolution has stopped? To think our misguided, matter-devouring collection of destructive civilizations are the pinnacle of evolution of all life in the universe is pure hubris, indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The problem with arguments like this, like arguments almost everywhere, is that while they may change a few people’s minds, there’s no huge collective of argument for a reasonable debate. If that occured, ID – and religious literalism as a whole, really – would be crushed instantly. Instead, we go on having these little battles everywhere, pitting the most rabid of both sides against eachother, changing few minds and merely dissolving information into the internet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From my point of view, it is a shortcut but I want a shortcut to the end of the start depending on how you want to see it.
I believe we were designed but, I want to know the logic… I want to be binary.
[Abstract maybe but the formula is there]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the forums are ever back up, rational and sane people on both sides of the religious/non-religious issue would be welcome. (They’ll be back, Bobby’s upgrading them. YAY! on behalf of the forum folks.)
We’ve moved beyond the yelling and such, and have a concerned and supportive ‘family’ that spend a lot of time on (1) helping kids deal with ID and Creationism really being taught in school and (2) dealing with the pressures of religious discrimination. We also have a lot of other serious discussions and a whole lot of fun. Some sheer lunatic fun…
But people who cannot properly spell “gnashing of teeth” probably won’t like it there…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I strongly disagree with you when you say that, “Religion is not a bad thing in itself.” Most religion is a body of primitive minds trying to understand the awesome complexity of the universe. Belief (or however its spelled) is religion, just like hope, and when someone has a belief that is different from another persons belief, there is always a power struggle between strong ideas.
I am only 15, but after weighing the pros and cons of religion, Im inclined to believe that the help that churches and other religious groups give others is somewhat dwarfed by the fact that, throughout history, uncountable people were slaughtered, enormous power was wielded by the WORST people to have it, and countless other atrocious crimes against humanity were all comitted in the name of Jesus, God, Allah, Yahwey, and even in the name of Buddha (probablly mispelled sorry). And all of those religions have good ideas that make society work (like being kind to others, no murder, no stealing). This is why they are so popular and coveted.
I got off topic sorry. Anyway, this is why I dont agree with you. However if you want to “enlighten me” I would enjoy speaking with you.
Live by jesus’ teachings, and dont be a hipocrite.
-Connor
P.S. What god would want you to worship him for like a 20th of the life he gave you? I like to think that god has a sense of humor, that thinks sex rules, and wouldn’t create a hell because hes |>awesome
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pach.
.
Did it ever cross you mind that prehaps Bobby keeps this site going as a common meeting ground for those opposed to such ideas. Non-theists dont have churches so a great way of keeping people informed (and entertained) is a website like this.
.
“just looking at your site, and I wonder to myself why you got so carried away with your whole FSM thing. ”
.
This is like me saying I wonder why you have churches and all met there when God can see everywhere so no special place of worship is needed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow… I haven’t seen this post before. Must return for well informed debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Scientists have explained why the universe is the way it is, it has to do with M Theory and the Anthropic Principle. It’s partly covered in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dirk Aug 2nd, 2006 at 11:03 am
“Some people just don’t want to put everything down to “dumb luck†which is what science (for all the understanding it offers) ultimately does.â€
Pach … Luck? You call THIS world LUCK? Dumb, OK – but LUCK? Looking at the human race, DUMB and RANDOM is exactly what comes to mind … I mean, male nipples?? David Hasselhoff???? Bokdroolverspoeg????
Dirk
.
Well said Dirk! haha,
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“offered a concise and clear explanation of why you think ID is an incorrect theory or should not be taught in schools, then maybe you’d actually be reaching people who disagree with you, rather than just those who already think the same things. “…ID is an incorrect theory because it is based on the assumption that the universe was created by, or helped along by a “god” like thing. To buy into ID, means one must buy into the idea that god exists. Evolution does not require anything more that proper chemistry and natural selection. I do not believe in god. I do not believe fosils were planted by “him” to trick me. I believe in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. I can test these things. You can say ‘well, god created them too..’, and it still is an argument based on assumption. I say FSM created you. You try and prove me wrong. My ‘bible’ says I’m right, your bible says you’re right. Try to prove your god exists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All points of view are valid. I am a moderate Flying Spaghetti Monster believer, but I accept that my position, of insisting on an idea’s validity through faith, rather than any evidence, fuels the problem of extremism as followers feel they do not have to back up their ideas with any concrete evidence, and once you start from that, where do you stop? I reason thus: the Universe must have started from something, ergo that something is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I do not believe that anyone can live without the FSM to give him/her meaning and purpose, and do not believe that if the FSM was removed tomorrow that there would be any values or ethics left in the world, as all goodness, Truth, Beauty and Liberty proceed directly from the FSM through Its Grace. (I’m a feminist FSM BTW) All other ideas can stand or fall on evidence, or contestability, but my belief in the FSM is sacred and unassailable, because you can’t DISPROVE that It exists. I don’t personally subscribe to any of that silly Einsteinian awe at the incredibleness of the universe (“so we shall know the mind of God”), as my belief is posited on an absolute, undeniable belief, that the FSM exists and created the world for Its pleasure, and constant pasta consumption. Scientists have to PROVE that the FSM doesn’t exist before I will listen to them, yet I can merely assert that because they can’t DISPROVE it, that the default position is, that IT EXISTS!!
Oh frabjous day! It’s so great to be a believer!!
Oh come, His Noodliness! RAmen!! xx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sure it would seem to make sense that rationally giving the myriad reasons ID is wrong. But I must ask you this, when was the last time you had a constructive, rational decision with any proponent of ID?
“I don’t think ID and Evolution are incompatible theories.” Still not understanding the difference between a necessity for supernatural causes and a complete lack of supernatural causes?
“DNA is a really really awesome molecule, because look at all the things it has adapted into to populate our planet! Someone really smart must’ve designed that stuff.” Kind of a big jump there buddy. Please tell me who designed the first molecule of Polytetrafluoroethylene. Perhaps you don’t have any use for lubricants though.
“the ridiculous improbability of DNA forming by coincidence” Go roll one billion dice and record the result of each. Show me the results. I will tell you that the odds of you getting those results after a billion dice rolls is so low that it could not have happened. Do you still believe that you had the same results from those billion dice throws?
“The point is that nobody, not even the scientists, can explain the reason the universe is this way” Their not supposed to. Look up science in a dictionary sometime, you will find that science studies how things work, not why they are the way the are. That’s the job of religion and philosophy.
“The sort of intervention which the FSM is capable of refers to a very specific sort of belief in God, and pointing out that that particular sort of belief seems silly to you does not bear any relevance to the question of the initial creation of the universe.” I believe the reason that the FSM came about (well, the reason I tell non Pastafarians anyway) was to keep the separation of church and state, not to explain why the universe began.
“then maybe you should have just pulled more pranks in high-school, or got the jocks together to beat up some freshman. That’s basically what your website acheives with its current content.” No, that’s the type of things christians do to non-christians. Also, it’s spelled “achieves”.
I am amused by the fact that these fundies are always pointing out that we have all of the bad logic, but then refuse to tell us what it is, or they try to tell us, but just say that our opinions don’t jive too well with the bible. I wonder why they never examine their own logic. I wonder…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nobody “rationally” believes in God, just like nobody “rationally” believes we didn’t land on the moon. You can’t rationally believe in something that is irrational in its nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0