If you are right, and evolution is the only answer, then we will all just be dirt-food when we die. But if you are wrong, and the intelligent design people are right and there is a God, then you’ll be in a tough spot.
By the way, did you ever read what the Kansas School Board had proposed? It doesn’t sound like it from your letter.
California Boy
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
God might be dead – the FSM is not!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
penis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a Roman Catholic, and I personally think things like ID belong in church, not school. Like it has been said before, Science is the “how,” and religion is the “why.” They don’t need to clash with one another at all. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must partake in his noodly body and blood. When I die, I want a spot reserved for me on the banks of the beer volcano. Go forth and be touched by His Noodly Appandage, RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am surprised by your connection between evolution and lack of an afterlife. We strongly believe in an afterlife, hence the beer volcano and the stripper factory but I am digressing. I am sorry to break it to you but if you truly fear “becoming worm foodâ€, you really can not stop decomposition despite your belief system.
May you be blessed by his noodly appendage!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Should I believe in a god ‘cos if I don’t then I’ll be in a “tight spot” when I die? Leave aside what happens to my corporeal remains (which will provide nutrient in the soil, thus – I hope – helping to grow the wheat, which shall then be milled into flour, before becoming pasta), and also which god I should be scared of (a muslim god, a catholic one, a smiting one, a nurturing one, an elephant-headed one ?), and even whether this god would be impressed by someone who gives into threats. The only immortality I aspire to is that conferred by having children and having had an influence (positive, I hope) on others around me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why is so much emphasis put on the afterlife? God has been a part of my life for 15 years now (He was always a part of it, I didn’t recognize that until 15 years ago). Since then, life has been good. I have been good, not perfect, but good. Our faith is not just about the afterlife, but life more abundant here and now. I’m sure glad no one ever told me, “worship God…. or else!” I would have NEVER done it for that reason and I don’t blame anyone here for feeling the same way.
Also, God is not a man, but rather masculine. There’s no denying that throughout history (until recently thankfully) women were not really in charge of much. Men were leaders and for the most part they were stronger. God leads us. He is stronger than us. He takes care of us. He loves us. That is why God is a he.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You know, I’m getting pretty sick of these so-called “Creationist Scientists” picking and choosing the bits of science that seem to collaborate their theory, and dismissing all others, for example, the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. Some (such as Dr. Gish, head of the creationist science institute (or whatever it’s called, I don’t really care)), misquote or mangle other bits of science to make it seem like it supports their theories (Dr. Gish misquoting the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (he is over eighty though, bless his blasphemous little heart). He quotes it as “All things tend towards entropy.”, when it is in-fact “IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, all things tend toward entropy”. What’s the big deal, you ask? It’s only three words, right? But there is a big difference: In Dr. Gish’s quote, creationism is possible, but in the true law, it is not). As energy cannot be created or destroyed, then ‘God’, in the act of creating the Universe (or Multiverse, as is the theory held be some, which explains Dark Matter), must have either destroyed, or severely diminished itself in the process. But anyway, to come back from my rant to the original point I was trying to make, what’s so strange about the idea of a Flying Spaghetti Monster creating everything? I can see how some people would find it ridiculous to think that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being could create everything, whereas the Christian theory of ‘God’ creating everything is perfectly correct, I mean, God is omniscient, omnipotent… and omnipresent…(Uh oh! Major logic flaw alert!!!) Until someone can show me indisputable evidence that God created the Universe and not the FSM, I think I’ll stick with the latter (at least then I can enjoy myself, and eat delicious pasta, of course). Come to think of it, I’ll probably stick with the FSM anyway, and then when I go to hell, I can smack Satan in the face; nick (steal) his pitchfork; and rule hell the way it should be ruled (competently, and with a vast-ranging scheme of public-works (put out that damn fire, for a start, and possibly build several lakeside condos, thereby increasing the economic stability of hell and establishing a tourism trade, bringing more wealth and power to me!!!!). But that will never happen, of course, for the FSM is the one true path to salvation (methinks I have heard that elsewhere…oh well).
All praise Him, and His Noodly Appendages!
RAmen!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe in the monkeys. It is so clear they are our cousins, that when I was 7 I thought if Darwin had not figured it out first, I would have.
For how long are we going to be caught in 4,000 year old myths of Sumerian-Egyptian origin? It is just silly.
One more thing: show me an “agnostic American” and I’ll show you a “coward American atheist”… Civilized people of the world are laughing at us.
Long live Darwin!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Pastor Disaster:
You should try reading some pre-history.
Most societies were not patriarchal, but lead by females. It is not until empires emerge through violence that men become the rulers. This happened recently in the 99K years of homo sapien sapien existence.
You are surrounded by a current world that only seeks and teaches history based on patriarchies.
Women are the creators of human life. WOMAN = CREATION.
God (if she exists) is female.
Too bad I’m an atheist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wouldn’t want to be you when you stand before the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If you are right, and God is the only answer, then you will be saved and we will all burn in hell. But if you are wrong, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster people are right and there isn’t a God, then you’ll be in a tough spot, a verry tough spot indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And on the outskirts of all this, The Church of the Subgenious shall continue to eat popcorn and fart obnoxiously.
-LOVE!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HAha, this is funny People are fighting over their beliefs. They all give their own good views except for some people and the people who think their atheist (they don’t realize that atheism, the belief in not beliving is a paradox in itself, if they would I’m sure it would make their heads implode) For all the different religions fighting you guys have to realize that either there is 1 god… 1 universial god that you all belive in. There are multiple gods that all work togeather. Or look to science to give a theory.
Religion is funny in that all religions say their religion is the correct one. Who’s to say who is right and wrong? You can never know unless you have actually seen this 1 god. Or the multiple gods. (Which with the 1 god, the certian people like Christians, and Mormon, and those other door-to-door-converters, belive in the same god, yet for some reason say that their god is more correct than the other god which just happens to be the EXACT SAME PERSON, except interpreted by some guy)
Which brings me to the cult that lives around me.. They are called the Ramah Cult. 20 somthing years ago, a islamic man named somthing Ramah came to a town which is like 10 miles away from the city of which I live. He claimed to be a Reincarnation of Jesus. And thus converted a bunch of families into beliving him. Thus making it possible to sleep with which ever woman he wanted to, the belivers of this allowed it because they thought that this islamic man who was obviously muslem (even states it at one point in the documents he wrote on his now known as a religion) He now owns part of the town, because family that own certian stores are in his religion and have vowed to allow use of what ever building he wants. You can kind of call it a syndicate. The Rama Syndicate.
Now I used to be a Christian and when I heard of this man I thought. How can people be so stupid to be tricked into one mans scheme to get power? How can people be so ignorant that they can belive in somthing that is so obviously a lie? I pondered that, then realized that the religion that I belived in was nothing better than that. One or more people thinking they can create power by making a book and selling it as the words of the “Ultimate creator”.
I would like to know if anyone would be able to answer this. Or if anyone would like to show their views to me. Email me at Killer008r@hotmail.com or Killer008r@gmail.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i think all you “super christians” should leave this guy alone. hes entitled to his opinion no matter what you whack jobs say. why dont you stop being christians and start becoming americans, and give the man his 1st amendment. which i think is freedom of speech and if its not then let the man speak his word. if you dont like it dont read it. if you cant handle what he says, dont read it. if your too much of a baby to let someone criticize what you believe in then dont read this and stop whining about it cuz hes just gonna leave more posts and piss you guys off even more. so leave the flying spaghetti monster guy do his work and go back to yours. tornadov15@hotmail.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love how the religious types keep changing their explanations after each new SCIENTIFIC discovery!
Only the FSM explains it all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Popping in regardless of context:
I find it highly amusing that at the top of my browser it says this:
“I wouldn’t want to be you when you stand before God at Church oof the Flying Spaghetti Monster”
XD
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the 13th century scientists were being ex-communicated from the church for saying there could be other planets out in space. It was heresy, because the Earth is special, it is where “God created us”. In the 13th century, ex-communication was a big deal, since everyone was christian. you were basically shunned by society. Anyway, now we know that there are countless planets throughout the universe.
In the 17th century, Galileo said that the Earth revolves around the sun. He was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life by the church (thankfully the church doesn’t have that power today). The accepted view at the time was that all things revolved around the Earth, since “God created us” here on Earth. Today, we know that Galileo was correct, and even the church accepts this. In 1996, the Pope issued an apology and pardon for Galileo. Too bad it was 300+ years too late.
Today, we see a repeating cycle. Evolution is being cast as the spawn of Satan, and yet there are books coming out by christians like this one: “http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents- Evidence/dp/0743286391/sr=8-1/qid=1158901596/ref=pd_bbs_1/ 002-3017616-5175261?ie=UTF8&s=books”. It at least shows that some christians are starting to support evolution. The repeating cycle is in the 13th century the issue was “other planets”, which the church eventually came to accept the science. In the 17th century the issue was “the earth revolving around the sun”, and the church eventually came to accept the science. The issue now is evolution. It is only a matter of time before the church accepts the science supporting evolution. FYI, Pope John Paul supported evolution over ID (smart man!).
To speed this process along, I’m handing the above book out to all my christian friends, and even offering to buy another copy of the book to donate to their church’s library. At least then the christians will get their science right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FSM is like a Chinese Buffet for the mind! I mean, you wouldn’t want to eat it every day, but when you do it’s something you really enjoy!
>>They’ve got the different entrees that are identical except for the sauce. The zealous cursing Christian could be the General Tso’s Chicken. The sincere and polite Christian could be the Honey Chicken. And the guy concerned enough about your immortal soul to chime in but not concerned enough to go beyond a web posting could be the Sesame Chicken.
>>They’ve got the exotic food that you don’t get anywhere else. FSM could be the sushi you don’t eat regularly but it’s fun to look at. The Viking Guy could be the fried chicken that doesn’t really fit in to the whole “Chinese” buffet concept, but it’s there anyway. The arm-chair theologians on both sides could be the food that’s not the main course, but is intrinsic to the whole Chinese Buffet experience (like the pork fried rice).
>>They’ve even got the foods that you simply can’t pass up. The t-shirts and jewelry could be the almond & fortune cookies you have at the end of the meal to finish things off.
What would we call this place? How ’bout the “WHY THE HELL CAN’T THEY UNDERSTAND IT’S A FRIGGN JOKE PAGODA”? After all, you can’t spell ‘pagoda’ without God.
I’m getting hungry, I’m gonna go eat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously, I am speechless to the ignorant. This God guy/girl whatever is a real reality killer. Who has seen him. People say they talk to him, but ironically this only happens when they are alone. Well I have the answer. For all those that have spoken with god, I hate to disappoint you but it is just the voice in your head.
When the time comes you will feel the wrath of the all powerful Spaghetti Monster and you can confess your “sins” to him. Until then keep your Bible loving shit to yourself and stop trying to tell other people how they have to live and filling their heads with a false sense of hope. Miracles can only exist in the presence of luck!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All hail my fellow pastafarians! I was wondering if anyone could answer this question: Does the beer volcano have subsidaries, such as vodka springs or pina colada geysers? I am hoping the answer is yes, because while i have not yet drunk beer,(underage) it doesn’t smell very nice. All hail the Noodly One! Yarg!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Religion is funny” -Messiah
Yeah, I’ll go with that! If you don’t think so, you should read “Under The Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer, which details the founding of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), among other things. Well, it would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic and. . . stupid. Or maybe it was supposed to be a big goof, just got out of hand. . .I mean, magic rocks in a hat? Ph-leez.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I could personally go for a Margarita Spring.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As the world lay into keneticism, His Flying Pasta Divine Self floated invisibly before the world. He passed in and out of normal matter, but with nothing more than ease. He saw the rise and decline of the Pirate, as well as the rise of Christianity. To counter this, he made a prophet his own, named Robert, and set Bobby forth to spread his word. Bobby spoke to the FSM, “My Lord, what is it that these Christians need?” The FSM thought for a moment, then spake, “Bobby, what these Christians need, is exactly what they do not understand. They must be let alone, as to carry out their purpose, which is to be misguided, as an example for Pastifarians everywhere.” Bobby nodded his head in enlightenment, and ate a Communion of Spaghetti and Meatballs. Afterwhich, the Spaghediety Himself disclosed the centuries-long hiding place of the Arc of the 10-I’d-Rather-Wish-You-Didn’ts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
DIRT DOESNT EAT WHAT A NOOB
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To the OP – “I wouldn’t want to be you when you stand before God,” begs a number of questions. For example, I always imagined myself reclining on a giant manicotti before Him, rather than standing. Either way, I think you make a very good point. It’s best that I be me, and you be you when the time comes.
You said “If you are right, and evolution is the only answer …”
I suspect that evolution is the only answer to a number of questions – for example, What word is spelled E-V-O-L … oh you get the point. But I’m not sure what question you have in mind, to which it ain’t the answer.
Evolution is just a word used by scientists to describe what we observe about the nature of living things … species change over time (for various reasons) and sometimes they become other species. It’s not the Evolution part that bothers your Intelligent Design gurus …. it’s the “for various reasons.”
When you do finally stand before Him, ask him about the various reasons. I don’t think He will be offended, in fact I think He would be delighted to know that one of His children is capable of thinking for itself. You’ll probably get yourself brownie points.
Btw – if by “dirt-food” you mean that my body will be decomposed and digested by worms, fungi, and soil-dwelling bacteria or other microorganisms, and then recycled into the environment to provide nutrients for say … a giant redwood tree, and thus to all the living creatures which depend on that tree, then I must say cheers for the happy thought. I really can’t imagine a better after-life, short of the beer volcano.
Arrr, may ye be touched by his noodly appendage,
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
AN OBJECTIVE COMPARISON BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND FSM-
I think that the only way to settle these arguments is to objectively compare the two religions. Firstly; Christianity has one God. FSM; also has one deity. The All Powerful Holy Be Thy Name Flying Spaghetti Monster. In this sense both churches are monotheistic. (Well, except in Christianity God has a kid who gets some attention also.) Therefore we have to analyze both claims, in deciding which one of these two deities are authentic, or to put it scientifically “for real”.
The basis touted by the school of ID is that creation itself is so intelligent and intricate that an intelligent being MUST have created it. And therefore this intelligent being MUST have been the God described in the Bible.
FSM has a different reasoning however. IT IS INDISPUTABLE YOU FOOLS! HIS NOODLY POWERS CREATED THIS UNIVERSE! SHIVER IN HIS AWESOME PASTATIOUS PRESENCE!
Christianity is a religion that calls upon mankind to do good deeds. If man does not perform these good deeds he will be roasted alive for eternity. Good deeds include refraining from pre-marital sexual intercourse, masturbation and eating rabbits. (Refer to text in Bible)
FSM does not have a whole bunch of rules that confuse you. One has to only wear pirate regalia and have faith in HIS CARBIC GOODNESS. Which sounds entirely logical and acceptable to me.
In essence the only logical conclusion is that a Flying Spaghetti Monster did indeed create the universe, and if you do not agree with me I will poke you in the eye. Or bite your toe off.
Ramen.
p/s: to the Christians that are taking this forum seriously, thank you. It is highly entertaining, and it feels good to know that there are still a whole bunch of idiots out there to make fun of when I am bored.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This makes sense:
FSM is made from two meatballs and pasta. He is good for you, contains vitamins.
God is everything (according to some) and some say he is a guy with beard. Everything is not good for you. Guys with beard are absolutely not good for you.
The noodlier the better. RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What problems do all of these people have with the FSM, i mean, think about it whts the difference, the oly real one is that they image of god had a beard, and ours is pasta and meatballs, thats the onli fundamental difference, of all the religons they could have picked on its us, stupid naive christans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
eh hehehehheheheh sorry I was too busy laughing at how much this guy cares about random people hehehehe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Praise noodles! RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As the poet and philosopher Mark Knopfler said, in his treatise “Industrial Disease”, “Two men say they’re Jesus; one of them must be wrong.” To each his own philosophy and belief, I say.
The esteemed Sister Mary Margaret, God or Whoever rest her soul, was quizzed by her seventh-grade class about the nature of belief, to wit, “What if you die and there’s nothing, no afterlife?”, she replied, “Well, then the joke’s on me, isn’t it?”
The realms of faith and reason may cooexist on this plane, but never (current evidence or lack thereof withstanding) shall the twain meet.
Peace. Shalom. Pax. Paz. May the Word be spread and heard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You guys are perhaps the most intelligent people I’ve had the pleasure to happen upon on the internet.
I do hope this is taught in schools someday…which is quite plausable.
I see the light and smell the truth…keep the faith!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There seem to be roughly two types of people in the world with two different attitudes toward ambiguity and the unknown. When confronted with great mysteries like 1) where did we come from? 2)what is the “right” way to act/behave? 3) what is the “meaning” of life? there are those who follow pre-established thinking and there are those who create and explore for themselves. Clearly, the creators and explorers are the minority and have been througout history. The questioning minority seem to be a good argument against evolution. Wouldn’t conformance trump questioning individuality? The herd imparts protection and comfort – you get your beliefs and take your marching orders from your parents, friends, your political party, your pastor, or king, and you are much less likely to be ridiculed, become an outcast, or be burned at the stake. What kind of chance of survival does a creature that leaves the herd have versus one that stays within the fold? And yet these black sheep still persist throughout the history of mankind. How is this so? Why doesn’t this penchant for risk-taking and self-elimination wipe out the independent thinkers? How do you become popular and pass along your genetics if you are in jail, stoned to death, or excommunicated? Where is Darwin’s theory now? Obviously, there is a divine hand at work. God, or at least God’s favor exists. Could there be anything but Godly approval of the free-thinker and challenger of the status quo for such rebels to persist? Can it be that those who suffer the distress of distance from the herd move closer to Godliness with every departing step? Could you be closest to God when you ask things most likely to blaspheme and disturb the majority? How do we know the earth is really flat? Why are pigs bad – what makes their meat really unclean – aren’t goats kind of dirty too? If God is good and likes goodness why would God make Ghandi burn in hell and send Pat Robertson to heaven? Why is God afraid of/ashamed of women showing their faces, arms, or other body parts – are women defective – (kind of like unclean pig flesh)? Why should I pay such great attention to a holy book that’s been modified extensively by the hand of man and ignore God’s direct creations – nature, the heavens and earth? What is up with this carbon-dating thing – didn’t mommy and daddy tell me the holy book says the earth is only a few thousand years old? What would Mohammed look like and why would any decent person want to kill someone if they drew a picture of him? Why can only those with a penis become holy leaders – if God is a male, is he gay?
Ask questions like this and you are in deep trouble with society but far closer to whatever truly is Godliness. Religion, our attempt to put the universe into a tin can, has consistently gone stale century upon century. Might as well call whats in the can today “spaghetti.” May the rebel spirit of the FSM protect you all from the “righteous” herd – RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a Christian. To reply to people who say that if God was a merciful god he wouldn’t send them to hell just for not beleiving he exists, I say that God is merciful to those who believe in him. For judgement is without mercy. He is a just god.
Before people start to call me a hating Christian I would like to say that I can’t stand it when other Christians ruin it for the rest of us when they judge others and condemn others to eternal damnation. It puts a bad light on a belief that is not about judging others at all. It is completely the opposite. Jesus accepted people inspite of their faults. Most of the people that he hung out with were thieves, adulterers, and tax collectors.
BTW I think FSM is the funniest thing in a long time I frequent venganza.org often.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is God Really There?
A Look into the Traditional Arguments for God’s Existence
Nicholas E. Craig
There isn’t a Bible verse that explicitly argues for God’s existence. The Bible assumes that God exists. The following arguments, then, are not primarily exegetical, but rather philosophical in nature. However, the Bible is amazingly accurate when it touches historty and the sciences, both natural and behavioral, and that argues strongly for it’s validity and God’s existence.
I will now put forth four of the five traditional arguments for God’s existence. I have omitted the ontological argument. While it has appealed to some of the finest minds in Western history, usually mathematicians like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, it fails to persuade me. This, however, is probably more indacitive of my simplicity than the potentency of the argument.
· Cosmological argument – Something has existed forever.
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.†(KJV)
Millard Erickson wrote, “In the realm of our experience, everything we know is caused by something else. There cannot, however, be an infinite regress of causes, for if that were the case, the whole series of causes would never have begun.†Therefore, there must be a sufficient original cause or an “uncaused cause.†Epicurus showed an understanding of this when he stated, “Something obviously exists now, and something never sprang from nothing.†No matter if you’re a theist, atheist, or agnostic, you must admit that something has always existed. A.J. Hoover wrote, “The choice is simple: one chooses either a self-existent God or a self-existent universe – and the universe is not behaving as if it is self existent. In fact, according to the second law of thermo dynamics, the universe is running down like a clock or, better, cooling off like a giant stove. If the cosmos is running down or cooling off, then it could not have been running and cooling forever. It must have had a beginning.â€
Virtually all scientists believe that the universe began to exist at a finite point in the past. Virtual particle fluctuation has been used to explain the spontaneous appearance of matter; however, those virtual particles still need a place to fluctuate and thus space itself still needs its origin explained. Further, as B. DeYoung has pointed out, virtual particles, if real, form as matter and antimatter in equal amounts. However, our universe appears to consist almost entirely of ordinary matter. Antimatter is distinctly rare.
· Teleological argument – Design declares a Designer.
Psalm 19:1-3, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork. Day by day they pour forth speech, and night-to-night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words where their voice is not heard. (MKJV)
The universe as we know it is extremely complex; it possesses highly organized and integrated order. The teleological argument declares that such magnificent complexity must have been designed. For example, when you see a painting you assume there was a painter, and when you see a building you assume there was a builder. Likewise, when you see the spectacular design of our universe you assume that there is a designer.
Some one once said that the world, with all its complexity, having begun from a chaotic explosion, is like a tornado ripping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 in mid-flight!
Murray Eden, a statistician at MIT once used high-speed computers to ask a question: Beginning with chaos at any acceptable amount of time up to eight billion years ago, could the present complexity come by chance? The answer was and is absolutely No!
“Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they, by chance, fell into ten rows of five oranges? The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling; let alone ten rows of five.
Maybe you’ve heard William Paley’s famous illustration. It goes something like this: imagine you’re walking along and you find a watch. You pick it up, pry it open and see all the various parts moving around inside. Would you say to yourself, “This watch has been here forever.†Or would you assume that the watch is the result of an explosion? No, you would assume that some watchmaker made it.
In fact, when you think of an explosion, what comes to your mind? – Destruction. The Big Bang Theory assumes that all the order in the universe arrived from an explosion; that’s like some one setting off a bomb in Home Depot and the explosion creating a neighborhood of homes.
God’s creation is incredibly complex, and evidence for its intelligent design is everywhere.
“I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.†– George Gallup, statistician
Give your neighbor a high five… when you struck hands, through a complicated process, the neurons in your hand sent a message to your brain, which returned a message to your hand telling it what it felt! All that occurred in the instant you struck hands!
Socrates once argued for the intelligent design of the universe by citing the eye as evidence.
Consider the eye:
1. It has 40 million nerve endings.
2. Its focusing muscles move an estimated 100 thousand times a day.
3. The retina contains 137 million light sensitive cells.
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.†– Charles Darwin
If man cannot make the human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance?
Maybe you’re thinking, “Natural selection isn’t really about chance (except for the random mutations of genes), and in his book Origin of Species, Charles Darwin argued and proved that natural selection was quite capable of creating the intensely complex structures of the human body.â€
Okay, let’s assume that natural selection occurs, and I believe it does. (Of course, as a progressive creationist, I believe that natural selection is the means by which God has providentially equipped His original creations or “kinds†to survive and adapt in a fallen world – a world, which is now separated from God because of the original sin of mankind. This separation has been observed and is commonly known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is now subject to the uniformity of causes in a closed system. The system is not sealed shut, however. It is open to the hand of God, and thankfully God often reaches into our system. With His perfect will and wisdom, God is providentially guiding our system to His desired end.). However, even if Darwin’s natural selection, as opposed to the progressive creationist interpretation of natural selection mentioned above, were proven to be correct, mankind would still be lacking an ultimate explanation. Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne observed that the laws of Darwin’s evolution are “consequences of the laws of chemistry governing the organic matter of which animals are made. And the laws of chemistry hold because the fundamental laws of physics hold.†Swinburne then asks, “But why just those fundamental laws of physics rather than any others?†To really see the brilliance behind Swinburnes question one needs to have an understanding of what some have called “the cosmic coincidences†or “the anthropic principle.†This concept will be briefly discussed in what follows, but at this point it will suffice to say that if the basic laws of physics were slightly different life could not exist. Darwin’s natural selection might be capable of explaining intensely complex structures, but it cannot provide an answer for why the perfect conditions for it (natural selection) exist. Hoover explains it this way, “Proving that watches came from a completely automated factory with no human intervention would not make us give up interest in a designer, for if we thought a watch was wonderful, what must we think of a factory that produces watches? Would it not suggest a designer just as forcefully? Religious people have been overly frightened by the theory of evolution.â€
· Cosmic Coincidences & Anthropic Principle – Life requires specifics.
The anthropic principle states that the age, size, positioning, and a list of other particulars about our earth and universe must be exactly as they are in order for life and more specifically, conscious observers to exist. In other words, Earth is not only perfectly suited for human safety, but the universe is also curiously well suited for viewing and analyzing.
Job 38:4-6, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone.†(NKJV)
No one can deny that our universe is perfect for the production of life. Acclaimed scientist Richard Morris, although he remains agnostic, admits, “Our universe does seem to be fine-tuned for the production of life. The existence of life in our universe seems to depend upon a number of improbable coincidences.†Further, he admits that life could not exist “if the laws of physics or constants of nature (for example, the speed of light and the strength of the force of gravity) were just slightly different….â€
Hoover observes, “The earth must be just the right size, its rotation must be just right, its distance from the sun must be within certain limits, its tilt must be correct to cause the seasons, its land-water ratio must be a delicate balance. Our biological structure is very fragile. A little too much heat or cold we die. We need light, but not too much infrared. We live just beneath an air screen shielding us from millions of missiles everyday. We live just ten miles above a rock screen that shields us from the terrible heat under our feet.†He then asks the pertinent question, “Who created all these screens and shields that make our earthly existence possible?â€
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.†– Albert Einstein
We will need to examine a few short Scriptures to feel the full force of the last argument:
Romans 1:20-21 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (NKJV)
Paul is saying that people sense God is there, but they reject this knowledge.
Romans 2:13-15 For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness…). (NKJV)
Paul is saying that knowing the law is not what justifies people. The law proves to us that we are guilty and points us to Christ (Galatians 3:23-24). People without the law also know that they are guilty because they have the internal law. Which leads us to the last traditional argument:
· Anthropological Argument – An absolute moral standard requires God’s existence.
C.S. Lewis wrote, “Human beings, all over the earth, have this curios idea that they ought to behave in a certain way.â€
Lewis called this “the Law of Human Nature.†All people inherently believe that some things are absolutely wrong and some things are right. Inside of the human psyche are two buckets. In one bucket we put the things, which we consider good, and the things, which we consider bad we place in the other bucket. The question pertinent here is not what goes into these buckets, but rather, where did these buckets come from?
Some will say that these “buckets†have been learned. They will argue that people learn right and wrong, good and bad from their parents, school, and so forth. This would mean that there is really no such thing as evil; and morals are relative to each situation and person. However, if you ask, “Is murdering innocent people wrong?†will anyone respond, “Depends on the situation.� This is an extreme example, but it proves that there is an absolute moral standard. And if there is an absolute moral standard, there has to be a God. Why? Matter and energy are silent; matter and energy do not care if someone is murdered.
Maybe you’re thinking, “We as people establish the absolute moral standard. We as highly evolved beings have learned and taught ourselves that we should do what’s best for the masses and the preservation of life. We as morally conscious beings not only are capable of and have established that standard, but by the wisdom of the majority, we will continue to do so.â€
Sounds good, but lots of innocent people have been murdered for what was deemed best for the masses. In fact, if there is no God, and we, as people want to do what’s best for the masses and the preservation of life, we should kill innocent people. The guy who came up with the phrase “survival of the fittest†was named Herbert Spencer. He once wrote, “The poverty of the incapable…starvation of the idle and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong…are the decrees of a large far seeing benevolence.†His ideas, which have their roots in Darwin’s natural selection, eventually played a huge role in the rise of National Socialism in Nazi Germany. Francis Schaeffer has pointed out that to the Nazis some people “were an unwanted burden on society – parasites who consumed more than they gave.†Considering the rising population and the inevitable depletion of our natural resources, wouldn’t it be best for masses and the preservation of life if we kill the elderly, handicap, mentally ill, and anyone one else who isn’t making a strong contribution to the whole?
Obviously, that type of thinking is purely evil. However, it has been thought. People who considered humanity capable of deciding what’s best for humanity have thought it. My reason for mentioning this type of thinking is to illustrate that just because the majority says a thing is good or bad doesn’t make it so. The majority is incapable of inventing the absolute moral standard because our standard will always be relative and arbitrary; it will be anything but absolute. Some will say that humanity is constantly learning, and making improvements in the area of morals. However, this only serves to further substantiate the point: If we are improving, we are getting closer to perfection. Perfection is the absolute moral standard, which proves God’s existence.
“The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard…you are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality.†– C.S. Lewis
Is murdering innocent people wrong? Yes. How do we know that it’s wrong? How do we know that it’s absolutely wrong? We know because there is an absolute moral standard, and if there is an absolute moral standard, God must exist.
Not only do we know that there is an absolute moral standard, but we also know that we’re guilty of transgressing it.
Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
Imagine we are born with a tape recorder around our necks, which records our every word. Now imagine that when we die God will play the tape for us. Throughout the tape there will be places where we said that a person did a particular thing, which was wrong. However, there would be times in our own lives when we did the same type of thing. Thus, we will be guilty by our own standards. Not to mention God’s perfect standard.
Ask anyone and they will tell you that they are not perfect. We know we have done things that are wrong. We know that we are guilty. And the Bible confirms what we know in our hearts…
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Conclusion:
Those are four of the five traditional arguments for God’s existence. Based on these arguments for God’s existence, all people everywhere can be sure of two things: (1) There is a God. (2) We are guilty of transgressing His Character. At this point, it is important to note that sin is not the transgression of an arbitrary law established by God. No, sin is that which is contrary to the person, character, and nature of God. God is holy. In other words, God is, as Millard Erickson has put it, “allergic to sinâ€.
Thankfully, God doesn’t just give us natural revelation, which proves our guilt. He also gives us special revelation, which instructs us in the way to a full pardon from that guilt. That is what Jesus’ death on the cross (as elucidated in the Scriptures) was all about.
Resources:
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology – A.J. Hoover
Introducing Christian Doctrine – Millard J. Erickson
RE 331 Notes – Dale Younce
Evolution: The Evidence For and Against – Ray Comfort
The Big Questions – Richard Morris
Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis
How Should We Then Live? – Francis Schaeffer
Creation and Quantum Mechanics – B. DeYoung
I am certain that I have articulated ideas in the course of this sermon, which are not original to me. If I have presented any authors ideas without documentation it is simply due to a lapse of memory. As I read, I often assimilate ideas and unfortunately I cannot recall where I discovered certain concepts. It is not my intention to publish this work or receive any credit for the ideas here proposed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘all people everywhere can be sure of two things: (1) There is a God. (2) We are guilty of transgressing His Character.’
Funny, I read the whole thing and I’m still not sure of that. Huh. Go figure. By the way, huge-ass posts like yours’ll be read by about point two percent of anyone who visits a site like this……the only reason I read it is ’cause I’m extremly bored right now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reply to Nic the verbose; Can’t believe I am actually doing this, but reading these tired old sophisms really pisses me off. Migawd!, what a performance! Damn near every discredited cliche ever propounded, from Plato’s “first cause” to the misunderstood Second Law of Dynamics to the impossibility of the eye! Stupifying!! While I can’t and wouldn’t want to match you in quantity, that is really not necessary to roll this crapola up like…like…A STRAND OF SPAGHETTI! So;
Cosmological argument; Why can’t there be an “infinite series of causes”? Who sez? And if there was a definite beginning point, why not the Big Bang, huh? That is where all the evidence points. And if you just Have to believe a “creation story” in an old book, why not Gilgamesh or the “hero twins” in the Popul Vuh? Or Corn Woman? Or…
teleological argument; fails. The existence of an “intelligent designer” implies the existence of a designer of the intelligent designer, and that implies…. Like, infinite progression. duh.
(If you are seriously interested in a refutation of the “irreducable complexity/intelligent design” argument, see Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” or “Climbing Mount Improbable”. Given aeons in which to operate, random mutation and natural selection are perfectly capable of evolving eyes and have, in fact, done so over forty times!)
Anthropic principle; Well, OUR particular form of carbon-based life originated under OUR particular conditions, and requires them to go on existing. It seems entirely plausible, however, that there may be silicone-based life or life based on other compounds elsewhere in the universe(s?). (I believe that this argument would be called “begging the question”)
Anthropological argument; Oh, come on! Absolute, inate, universal moral standards? You can’t be serious. How about Amerind tribes whose greatest compliment to an enemy and offering to their God(s) was to eat all or part of that enemy? How about the “people of faith” all over this globe who are busily engaged in killing, torturing and raping each other ( and each other’s children) to the extent of their abilities to do so? Universal absolute moral standards? Gimme a break!
Coupla other points; Pascal’s “gambler’s reason” for believing in God is 100% hollow, as is the whole idea of “redemption through belief”, because they assert the idiotic idea that one can choose to believe or disbelieve in something. To think about this proposition is to see the hole in it. One can choose to PRETEND to believe, so as to get on well with his neighbors, but not to actually believe. Either you believe something or either you don’t. As to the question of how anyone can go on with life believing that it is no more than a temporary visit to consciousness, well, Hell, it is the only game in town and it can be real fun sometimes, if you don’t let theology get in the way. And incidentally, I am personlly a devout Bokonanist, so I can’t be accused of prejudice in favor of the FSM. (Frisbeetarianism has a lot to recommend it, too.)
a
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It truly is sad to see that people ACTUALLY believe in a flying spaghetti monster…if anyone actually does believe in it. However, what is even more dismaying to me is the fact that Christians who are taught to love their brothers and their sisters would come here and do exactly the opposite. People say I will laugh when you try to get into heaven and get sent to hell, or you will burn in hell, or curse at them with obvious hate. With this attitude and complete disobeyal of our christian teachings and morals it is easy to understand why people turn away from the christian faith…it is because of the self-righteous, arrogant present-day christians…Ghandi said, “If all Christians lived and loved as they were taught, there would be no more Hindu’s in India.” Some of you will probably start hate-mailing me now and that is fine, for what I said, I believe…Stop hating, pointing out people’s flaws and JUST LOVE…share God’s word…do what he commanded…Live as God wants…Stop aiding in the destruction of the Christian faith. PLEASE LOVE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jon, I like your message about people loving each other, but you lost me at “share God’s word…do what he commanded…Live as God wants.” Was that directed at me or the not-so-truly-Christian commenters spewing frothy hate in response to this silly and genius idea? If it is directed at other Christians, great! If it’s directed at me, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I don’t want to share your God’s word. I see nothing wrong with living the life Jesus taught, but I take strong exception to anyone’s assumption that I’m doing it because their deity is commanding it. If you want to love me, that’s ok, but love me as I am, not as you want me to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just thought i should point out that captain intelligent design should rethink his terms, based on the fact (as farfetched as it may be) that if aliens created us, this would fall under ‘intelligent design’.
keep thinking and stop bitching :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am Zook the keeper of the spaghetti sauce. I am here to testify on behalf of the great Noodler himself. He has told me through a message in my alphabet soup that he is angry for the continual attempts to disprove him most obvious omnipresence and demands a monument be erected so those that are truly faithful may travel to this new Mecca of homage. I have begun the great task of building this accolade to our great creator. Other must also fulfill the edict of the great noodle and build shrines in their own towns until our scientific enlightenment is spread to everyone worthy of the great un-kept secret of the pirates and the spaghetti monster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Cosmological argument: First of all, you misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics (as noted). Secondly, scientists have posited numerous theories which would give our current universe a starting point, such as cyclical expansion/contraction or the “Big Bang” theory, whose extrapolated consequences at the very least are supported by observational data… which is more than can be said for God. As for matter/antimatter discrepancies, look up “CP violation”.
2. Teleological argument – You devoted a hell of a lot of text to this section, including disproven and oft-repeated arguments like a tornado creating a 747, the irreducible complexity of the eye, etc. What proponents of these arguments often fail to realize is that IMPROBABILITY does not imply IMPOSSIBILITY. The fact that these events are unlikely to occur is the reason that there is no life on Mars (or any other planet in our solar system), very few Earthlike planets in our observational range, and as of yet, no known extraterrestrial life. There is no point at which the existence of an all-powerful being becomes more likely than the tiniest possibility of chance. Look at some of the websites Duns mentioned for a more thorough debunking. Darwin himself may have not known the mechanisms through which the eye could be evolved, but then again, he wasn’t infallible (his idea of inheritance through pangenesis, for example, was completely inaccurate).
3. The argument that Earth is “uniquely suited” to human life is logically flawed: it assumes that our current form was mandated before the Earth was created (or given its current climate); thus it assumes intelligent design in an argument for intelligent design. There are life forms on Earth that thrive at 40 degrees below zero and above the boiling point of water; if, for example, humans were amphibious and Earth was covered by vast swamps, the same argument could be made. It depends on nothing unique to our current form, and is equally well explained by the evolutionary principle that species will adapt to their environment. Furthermore, several of the quotes are dubious in the portrayal of their source. Albert Einstein saw god as “an impersonal mind or force”, definately not the Christian god; he was not an adherent of any major religion. Richard Morris argued that although our particular form of life may not exist should “physical constants” change, there is no way of knowing what *other* life forms would have arisen in our place.
4. The “Anthropological Argument” and the existence of an absolute moral standard is one of the poorest arguments I’ve ever heard. Human beings have evolved as social creatures, and it is an evolutionary benefit (and thus more likely to be passed on to one’s offspring, and be better represented in future generations) to get on well with one’s peers, by living as peacefully as possible among others. And, frankly, there is no absolute moral standard. An example of an “absolute” standard would be, for example, “it is wrong to kill”. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Yet our government, and many others, endorse the death penalty. The entire legal system exists because there is no absolute standards! Humans realize, and have realized since long before the time of Jesus, that the punishment for a crime must depend on the circumstances surrounding it. When is murder “less wrong”? Is stealing food to feed your family just as bad as stealing an old woman’s purse? There are no absolutes. Oh, of course you could take the easy path and say “it’s all just as wrong in the eyes of God”, but that’s assuming that you have the ability to judge as God does. What would be the greater sin, stealing food or allowing your family to starve? Or if the Nazis came to your door and asked if there were any Jews hiding on your property, would it be more wrong to lie, or to have them killed? Absolute morality creates so many catch-22s that it’s not even worth discussing. Using an “extreme example” to try and prove that there is no moral relativity is just wrong. Asking people “was Hitler bad?” will give very one-sided responses, but does that mean all people are innately “drawn” to judge character in a certain way? Will everyone answer the same if you ask “was Reagan bad?”
Furthermore, the Nazis were a prime example of the self-correcting nature of human morality; from time to time, there will obviously arise groups or individuals whose morals put them at odds with the rest of society; human society removed them from the gene pool. Your “absolute morality” is just what evolution has determined to be best for society; the Nazis espoused a view that contradicted this, and were brought down. Survival of the fittest.
As for comparing to some “Real Morality”, Lewis doesn’t make a solid case for his viewpoint. When I look at two cars and decide which one I like better, is there some “Real Car” to which I’m comparing them? If there is, it’s only in my mind; in addition, it would be the result of my experiences and preferences in life, not God’s car.
Bah, it’s too late for me to be arguing this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Y’all certainly going to hell, all of you, starting with Christians and ending with the Noodlies for blasphemy.
You don’t realize (or pretend that you don’t!) that FSM was itself created be the King of all kings (and queens, and jacks), namely the King of Spades.
Grab a card with His image and start praying at once. Maybe there is still time. If you don’t have a proper playing card just grab a spade, it will work.
Blessing to y’all!
PP
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, I am sure the God will thank Bobby for his service and, perhaps, even greatly appreciate for his enlightning letter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well Bobby, I can say this much for you. Remember the movie Perfect Storm and Bobby tells Christina, it’s never goodbye, it’s only love…say no more. It is goodbye too. Some people think they are so friggin smart. Smart asses is more like it.
And when you skip over the ocean like a stone Bobby, some day you are going to sink. Think about it. Nothing lasts forever. There are many songs sung and to be sung Bobby and I am sure I put in my fair share of lyrics that will never get sung to the right one. So much for love and lyrics just plenty of laughter. So you can say I won’t let you leave my love behind and when you look behind, see what an ass you are. Find out the phone number of Roxanne or someone who gives a damn. Find your animal house and make it a caddy shack and par for course and no interruptions some where some how and scream out FOUR in holy power of awesomeness.
GOOD FOR YOU and don’t start with me, you will not win. The woman has a mouth on her. Dang, and she doesn’t let you have the last word either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Love is when you say tha that that’s all folks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Will the
Antibiotic resistant bacteria have to stand before God too?
or how about the opposable thumb?
or the whales pelvis?
OMFSM
I’m doing it again
bashing my head against a brick wall
I gotta go and call my sponsor–as I am in the 12 step program to stop bashing my head against a brick wall
I stopped bashing my head against a brick wall about 2 years ago…
OH take the words bashing my head against a brick wall and replace them with debating evolution and then you’ll get where I am coming from.
Some one get me a marinara IV stat!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People just dont understand that the concept of evolution is also constantly under evolution….which means if you are attacking the theory today, you’ll have to change your attack! MWUAHAHAhAHAHA!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow! I didn’t expect to elicit such great responses! Thanks.
First, I would like to apologize. My previous post was a bit lengthy.
Dear Duns & Think,
How have I misunderstood and consequently misapplied the second law of thermodynamics?
Does all the evidence really point to the big bang? Or does all the evidence subjectively interpreted point to the big bang?
Why not the big bang theory? – According to the big bang theory the distribution of galaxies in the universe should be essentially uniform. However, recent research has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very “clumpy” universe. Further, if the big bang theory is true the background radiation left over from the big bang, should not be smooth (because the universe is clumpy), but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. However, the background radiation is smooth. (See http://www.icr.org/article/343/)
I think it would be worth your while to read this article, also. It is extremely hostile toward Christianity and the concept of special revelation; however, it does a good job of establishing the existence of Something. (http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/27)
I think you both dodged the anthropic principle argument. We aren’t just talking about a complex environment inhabited with life; we are talking about an environment, which houses conscious observers who not only gather info and interpret it, but also develop intense epistemologies about the gathering process.
The point of the anthropological argument is not to say that everyone everywhere has a similar moral standard. The point is to prove that everyone feels certain things are out of bounds. A glance around the globe will reveal that the standard is existentially relative. But what is right or wrong is not the point. The point is we all feel certain things are absolutely wrong.
Think wrote, “Human beings have evolved as social creatures, and it is an evolutionary benefit (and thus more likely to be passed on to one’s offspring, and be better represented in future generations) to get on well with one’s peers, by living as peacefully as possible among others. And, frankly, there is no absolute moral standard.”
I said that the murdering an INNOCENT person is absolutely wrong. Do you disagree Think? What if that person was a loved one? According to you logic it’s not really wrong, and your interpreting it as wrong is just your inability to deal with the real (Remember that matter and energy are amoral; they could care less about morals. Further, you must refrain from personifying natural selection.). You say getting along with your peers is a “benefit”. What if the majority evolved into a position where they felt that murdering innocent people was a benefit (It really isn’t hard to imagine. Our natural resources are running low, and the average life span is ever increasing.)? Then what?
Can you prove that getting along with other is a benefit? I agree; however, my conclusions are logically consistent with my presuppositions. I’m afraid yours are not.
Thanks for the responses. I truly appreciate your opinions. I also appreciate your pointing me to new topics and websites. I like to learn.
I hope I have not come across as a jerk. I really do respect your perspectives.
Sorry for my verbosity,
nic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yum, this religion is so enlightening. Maybe it is incredibly outlandish, but I find Christianity(which I’m a part of) and other religions like Mormonism and Hinduism equally illogical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The point is to prove that everyone feels certain things are out of bounds. A glance around the globe will reveal that the standard is existentially relative. But what is right or wrong is not the point. The point is we all feel certain things are absolutely wrong.”—wrong. Hitler had no problem killing millions of people. You and I would say that’s horrible, he would say it’s perfectly a-ok. Whether he or us is right is ultimatly a matter for god/whatever to decide, I would say.
“
“What if the majority evolved into a position where they felt that murdering innocent people was a benefit (It really isn’t hard to imagine. Our natural resources are running low, and the average life span is ever increasing.)? Then what?
Can you prove that getting along with other is a benefit?”–yes, because getting along with others leads to less chaos and more order, which benfits society, no matter the resource situation.
It’s nice to come across someone who knows the difference between debating and ranting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0