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 |
J,
You wrote, “There is no good evidence for god. There is plenty of good evidence for a universe that exists without one.†– Surely you understand that Natural Selection, DNA, and many other things suggest a designer just as strongly to some scientist as they suggest the opposite to others. Science tries to be objective, but that is not possible. Humans cannot be objective. We are always standing somewhere. We always have to filter everything through our individual lenses (frames of reference).
/
You also quoted one of you professors as saying, “In the Garden of Eden, you shouldn’t have to wear a crash helmet.†– Imagine this (This illustration will be weird. I’m trying to illustrate something that has no parallel.): A man buys a woman. She has never seen anything. She has never experienced any sort of relationship. She has never communicated with another human. The man takes her to a house, which he has built. There is no possibility of escape. There are literally no windows to the outside world. He enables her to see and communicate. He lives with her all of her life and they relate to one another.
/
Is this a real relationship? A better question is this: does she really love him? How can he know? She has had no opportunity for any other experience.
/
Know maybe you can see that perfection is more complicate than your professor has understood. Only the artist can say with certainty that his work is perfect. Why? Because only He knows what he intended to make. Perfection for God was co-existing with persons who had a choice to exist with Him and trust His understanding.
/
Lastly, you wrote, “There’s no need to argue meaningless questions about meaning with you.†– I really have never intended to argue this beastly topic. My friends have simply chosen to close their eyes to the logical conclusions of their atheistic presuppositions, and so they send me their erroneous attempts at establishing meaning within the atheistic framework. I debunk those attempts and try to re-iterate my original point, which is this: If there isn’t a God there is no real and absolute meaning to life; there is no meta-narrative. That should be obvious. Why is that hard for people to accept? Because we desire to be logically consistent individuals, and we hate feeling the tension our inconsistencies cause. You see we all sense with certainty that some things are overwhelmingly beautiful, and other things are intrinsically ugly. No atheist can explain why she or he feels this certainty, but the Bible says that when unbelievers “by nature do the things in the law…†they “…show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness….â€
/
I think it’s obvious that my time here is over. I have enjoyed it. I truly appreciate those of you who took time to reason with me.
/
Here is the absolute last thing I will write on this website:
I do desire for atheist to come to know and relate with God. However, I am fine with letting you be. Why did I even come in here, you ask. I like to learn. Listening to the perspective of others enhances my understanding. It is like wise beneficial for you to hear my perspective, no matter how simplistic it may be.
/
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic,
Morals change and are an ever evolving set of beliefs, there are huge amounts of examples, Slavery being one.
The advantage of Atheism is the fact that we have no static belief system, so we are able to adapt and evolve are moral view points as more evidence or different evidence and view points present themselves.
.
While the church ethics do adapt, especially the Catholic church which is trying its best to keep its “flock”. It only actually changes when backed into a corner,
.
If you talk about atheist ruling then look no further than the Netherland and Japan. The Netherlands especially is one the great places of freedom of expression, sexuality, etc. Japan is another country which is interesting they have the lowest crime rate in the world and this is alot to do with the respect that the law has, as it is based on the Moral majority not a book editored by some power hungry madmen.
.
If myself Spider, The Aussie, J and One eye Jack (I use these guys as I have read a lot of there posts over recent days) where to sit in a room for a while we to come up with a set of laws, despite us all being different personalities and from different backgrounds we would probably agree on 95% of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic,
.
That is a good, modern explanation of Christian obedience. I used to make the same rationalizations. Can you admit that what you outline is an ideal that has been and is still abused? God’s commandment for a wife to obey her husband has been used to justify mistreatment of women throughout history. It is only through modern tempering of Christianity that women have been put forth as equals while trying to reconcile that to their role as subservient.
.
Despite this attempted reconciliation, it fails. So long as one person has the authority to make the final decision and the other must abide by it, they cannot be equals. It may work for the reasons you stated, “…someone has to make a decision or they will sit still, or worse they will separate”, but it does not work because they are equal. My boss at work may listen to my input on a decision and may give great weight to my opinion. He may even make decisions in my best interest that result in more work for him (a concept that will likely give most of us a chuckle), but in the end he makes a decision to which I must resign myself. It may be a healthy work relationship, but it is not a relationship of equals.
.
Frame it however you like. When one person (or deity) has the final authority and the other must obey, you cannot say they are equal. You must use different words.
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Le sigh.
.
Nic has gone home. Too bad. At least he engaged in some sort of reasoned discussion.
.
I guess that just leaves us with the “U fAgZ R sO gAy! U WiLl BuRn iN HeLl! Ha! I WiLl LaF aT U! FuK U FaGz! P-owned!” people. Sigh.
.
Pass me some pasta. I’m in need of some Noodly Goodness.
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay…
I’m no longer a man of my word; I’m back.
NowtheworldhasMeaning,
You did not answer my question, and if you read my last post J very THOUGHTfully you will see that you are now arguing for my side of this beast. And in reference to Japan, I ask you this: If the majority in Japan decided it was right and good to bomb the UK, would it be?
I don’t mean to be offensive, but stop typing and just think for a little while.
Oneeyedjack,
If I ever said that we are equals with God, I apologize. I know for certain that I said He has called us friends. What I’m trying to emphasize is that obedience to God is not slavery. The word obedience certainly carries some negative connotation. Here is a very very simplistic explanation of what obeying God is like: Imagine you invented a machine with wheels. You designed it to roll. Now Imagine your invention decided it wanted to fly. Suppose it went to the top of a very tall building and decided to fly. What is going to happen to your invention when it rolls off the side of that building? That’s what it’s like when we try to run our own lives. God created us for a purpose. It’s only natural that we should let Him show us what we’re made for and then comply and be great at what we are created to be.
Lastly, yes I can certainly admit that MOST of God’s commands have been and are still abused by people professing to be Christian. I am ashamed of our collective behavior in the past; I’m often embarrassed by our collective behavior today. But more often than that I am ashamed of my own past and present behavior. I do not say that to sound humble. I say that because I sincerely do not want to point out specks and over look planks.
Goodbye for real this time…I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah I liked him, I think he may have had the fealing that we were ganging up on him. But as he has been the only person for a while to give across an intelligent and well thought out discussion we all jumped on it.
.
I may not have agreed with a lot of what he said but I did have a (grudging) respect for him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can accept that, Nic. To admit that the relationship between man and God is not one of peers or equals was my point.
.
Good luck in all your endeavors.
.
OEJ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And in reference to Japan, I ask you this: If the majority in Japan decided it was right and good to bomb the UK, would it be?”
.
Depends where you where sitting at that moment, obviously from the view point of the Japanise it would be moral. If you are in the UK then prehaps it will not go down too well.
.
In reply to that is it OK for the church to dictate that gay people should not be allowed the same rights as straight people? Based on what there interpratation of a book that may or may not be the will of a being that may or may not exist.
.
At least with the atheist method we would have to take responsibility for our own actions, I really do feel that homophobic people hide behind the bible. And lets face it exactly the same thing went on years ago with racism. And before that the slave trade was endoresed and justified by the church. A government run by the laws of a holy book in other countries are not fairing to well either, what a disgrace Afghanistan was under the talaban (not that it is a bag of fun now).
(as a side note nature is full of same sex intercourse, dolphines, Ducks, Monkeys, Dogs)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic–
“you deviation from God’s design”–I’ll say only this. In order for this ‘deviation’ to take place, there are two possibilities. One: god created us to be perfect, but we ended up not perfect, which means god made a mistake. Two: god gave us the chance to not be perfect, which means he is in some way at fault for sin.
–
“The Bible says that women should be submissive to their husbands. Does that mean that the man is greater than the women? Not at all! Jesus was obedient to the father, yet they are equals. The Bible says that men should be the head of their household, but it also says that men should love their wives as they love themselves. Here’s the point: In a healthy relationship, as outlined in the Bible, both the husband and the wife should make decisions. However, when they come to split, and they cannot agree, the wife should let the husband make the decision. “—NO FREEKEN WAY. If my future husband and I can’t agree on something, then darnit, we’ll compromise. I am NOT going to just bow down to my man because we can’t make up our minds. I don’t do submission, sorry.
Not to mention, using that senario…..it’s like saying you treat a white person and a black person equally, untill the time comes for the final descision. Then you let the white person choose. Fair? I think not.
–
Ah, leaving again? A shame. I will say this: for all your arguments that athiests can’t really live moral lives and this and that, I think you’ll find that many do live quite happy, fufilled moral lives. And some don’t. And some uber-god-happy folks live complete wrecks of lives. I find your ending statement, that you wish athiests would find god, interesting to say the least. Why should you care, as long as that person is content and not going around stabbing people? Do I care if you’re Christian? Not in the least. What I care about is what you, armed with your faith, use it for. Different things work with different people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21% ”
.
“Out of convicted rapists, 57% admitted to reading
pornography. 95% admitted to reading the Bible.”
.
http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html
.
0.2% of the prison population are atheists (in the US). The godless criminals must possess such diabolical cunning that they are almost never caught.
.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/rabbi_avi_shafran.php —> please read this if you get a chance great insights to how atheists are viewed and some funny replys to those views, I love the fact that a generation of Jewish children now think that I am “Diabolically cunning”
.
Atheist are statistically more likely to follow the law of the land, showing strong moral fibre!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you Oneeyedjack. I wish you the best, as well.
NowtheworldhasMeaning,
The respect (grudging or otherwise) is mutual.
You wrote, “Is it OK for the church to dictate that gay people should not be allowed the same rights as straight people?” – Yes and no. I’ll try to explain my answer in less than two million words. I sincerely believe in the separation of church and state. I do believe that the Christian worldview is correct in what it asserts. However, I understand that the rest of the world may not agree with me. I demand that the rest of the world have that right. God will eventually settle all things; they are, after all, His to settle. Right now God has basically left us to our selves. His Holy Spirit is immanently at work in the world, but mostly on the individual level. That is, God is providentially at work (the Great Chess Player), but for the most part He allows the world to run its course. I say all that to say this: Presently the majority opinion has to rule (pure democracy or republic). It’s not capable of defining anything, but that’s the only way to allow everyone her or his freedom of choice. So no, the church doesn’t have that right, except when it is the majority.
On a personal note, I love gay people. I really do. I think homosexuality is a sin. I think stealing is a sin. I think the way I get mad and want to slap people who drive way under the speed limit is a sin. My point is this: God wants us to try to live life as it was designed to be lived, but sin is a part of us now. It’s hard to deviate from the things that are so inherent to our nature. I know that full well. God knows that. It’s not about living a perfect life; it’s about admitting you’re imperfection and trying to do right. Today, sexuality determines so much in our society. We often define who we are based on our sexuality, but there is much more to us than our orientation, etc. However, considering the present state of how we view our selves, I feel especially empathetic to the homosexuals’ attempts to comprehend the Christian God.
I recently met a Homosexual musician. I will not say his name, but he is signed to Tommy Boy Records, and his music is fabulous. When I spoke with I could sense the image of God. When I heard his music that image became even clearer. He understood my worldview. He knew my position on homosexuality, and yet we had a very good time together. I would like that to be the typical Christian/homosexual encounter. It’s not. I think both sides feel threatened by the other for some reason. Homosexuals need to give Christians the opportunity to interact with them. Christians need to recognize the difference between a sin and an individual created in God’s image. This web page is a good example of our society. You have people with different opinions. Some are trying to articulate their perspectives and listen to counter points; others are just trying to mask their insecurities with insults.
It’s been real. Here’s to hoping the Japanese stay friendly to the UK!
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gill,
You wrote, “In order for this ‘deviation’ to take place, there are two possibilities. One: god created us to be perfect, but we ended up not perfect, which means god made a mistake. Two: god gave us the chance to not be perfect, which means he is in some way at fault for sin.” – I’ll give you the same explanation I gave J a few posts back. J quoted one of her or his professors as saying, “In the Garden of Eden, you shouldn’t have to wear a crash helmet.†In response, I wrote, “Imagine this (This illustration will be weird. I’m trying to illustrate something that has no parallel.): A man buys a woman. She has never seen anything. She has never experienced any sort of relationship. She has never communicated with another human. The man takes her to a house, which he has built. There is no possibility of escape. There are literally no windows to the outside world. He enables her to see and communicate. He lives with her all of her life and they relate to one another. Is this a real relationship? A better question is this: does she really love him? How can he know? She has had no opportunity for any other experience.”
/
Perfection is very complicated. Only the artist can say with certainty that his work is perfect. Why? Because only He knows what he intended to make. Perfection for God was co-existing with persons who had a choice to exist with Him and trust His understanding.
You wrote, “If my future husband and I can’t agree on something, then darnit, we’ll compromise.” – Awesome! That’s how my wife and I make decisions. I don’t think the Biblical concept of submission has anything to do with your racial illustration. Here’s the bottom line: When you get married it is very likely you will encounter a situation in which you and your husband cannot find a decent compromise. If you do the “Christian” thing you will say, “Love, let’s do whatever you think is best.” and if your husband does the “Christian” thing (loving you as Christ loves the church) he will sacrifice his desires and you will win! Christianity teaches that women and men are equal just as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. While Jesus was on earth He esteemed women extremely highly, even by today’s standards. Christians should model His behavior; we usually don’t.
/
I really do have to go. Nowtheworldhasmeaning suggested that I was leaving because I felt ganged-up on, but that’s not it. I just that with all these interesting people stimulating my mind as they do, I end up spending hours in front of this page. My wife says I need help. I love you all. I gots to go!
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic,
.
I know how you feel. This place is tearing down my life…! Still, if feels so worthwhile!
.
Two posts – this and another.
.
This is a quick response to your response to One Eyed Jack (Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pm) about the origin of ethical systems – particularly atheistic ones:
.
Firstly: why is it obvious that cannibalism is bad? Who does it, in fact, harm? I agree that many cultures – such as ours – find it abhorrent. But even we can think of situations in which it might seem justifiable – seen ‘Alive’, anyone? This is a poor example.
.
In fact, all four of your examples are dodgy. The – very obvious, I would have thought – chief answer to ‘where do I get my morals from?’ is ‘How would *I* like to be treated by everyone else? Do I want to be robbed, raped or murdered? No. I see that the world is filled with humans who, I assume, think like me. Just for good measure, why don’t I talk to them and find out? … Oh, I was right, *they* don’t want to be robbed, raped or murdered either. So, those things are *wrong*.
.
As theories of morality go, this is hardly brain surgery. Also, they fit perfectly with natural selection. We individually prosper if we live as a society; our society prospers if it adapts ethical codes that protect its individuals. Ethics promote survival and procreation and are therefore positively selectable in Darwinian evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a (LONG) response to your own response to me. In particular, it addresses the bit of that response that you have also copied to gill.
.
(Apologies for occasional drops into sarcasm or aggressive language. A personal weakness – doesn’t mean I don’t like you!)
.
You said:
.
‘Science tries to be objective, but that is not possible. Humans cannot be objective. We are always standing somewhere. We always have to filter everything through our individual lenses (frames of reference).’
.
This is a cop-out of the highest order. Picture the scene:
.
‘Nic, is the kettle boiled?’
–‘I’m afraid – OW! My bloody hand, that’s hot! – I’m inescapably subjective and therefore not equipped to offer an answer that you can confidently expect to agree with. I suggest you touch it yourself while I find the bandages.’
.
Or:
.
‘Did you, Mr Nic, stab this woman to death?’
–‘No.’
‘These five people say you did.’
–‘Their opinions are subjective and in no way superior to my own. Which is that I didn’t, by the way.’
‘And you were caught on camera.’
–‘Footage interpreted, of course, by more subjective human beings…’
.
And so on. You seem to be very fond of theories, but you are unjustifiably pushing this one to an extreme at which it becomes worthless. Please don’t forget that theories are meant to describe reality, not to allow the people who state them to circumvent it.
.
I agree that no scientist can be free of subjectivity. Any decent scientist would also agree with you. This is why the scientific method emphasises repeatability and peer review. If *my* science is poisoned by my biases, *your* science is there to keep me in check. Somewhere along the line, the truth – or the closest thing we can get to it – is determined.
.
Your metaphor in response to the Garden Of Eden thing. (Dear any reader who isn’t Nic, please see my post from Oct 17th, 2006 at 8:57 am and Nic’s from Oct 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm if you need to catch up). Okay, I’m with you so far. So, what this man does, then, is take his bought woman outside. He gradually introduces her to world and sees how her understanding grows. Right?
.
What he emphatically does not do is pop down to the nearest high security jail (or death row, if you live in a country that allows that sort of thing), request access to the most depraved evil-doer he can find, break them out and give them the keys to his house. It’s *Satan* we’re talking about here, Nic, not first day at kindergarten. He (god) deliberately threatens Adam and Eve to maintain the weird state of innocence you describe, then allows the evillest, blackest, most vengeful thing in the cosmos in to say hi. With no warning. This is akin to teaching your toddler to walk by throwing them onto a busy motorway. And then damning them to hell when they get hit by a truck.
.
Later in your post:
.
‘Because we desire to be logically consistent individuals, and we hate feeling the tension our inconsistencies cause.’
.
Yes, we do. We certainly do. But *your arguments* are not logically consistent. An example is that you do things like equating the above quote with the below one:
.
‘If there isn’t a God there is no real and absolute meaning to life; there is no meta-narrative.’
.
That’s right too. But a ‘meta-narrative’ and an externally bestowed ‘absolute meaning’ are not the same thing as being ‘logically consistent individuals’. There’s no necessary link here at all.
.
You stated that natural selection and DNA seem to you to point towards god rather than away from him. A logical overview of natural selection would discern that it describes a process of complexity arising from simplicity. This logical narrative is utterly shattered if a hyper-complex starting point is then assumed for kicking the whole process off. (A hyper-complex starting point like god.)
.
You’re a human being. You want a human-shaped existence. I sympathise. But, as a human, you’re bright enough to see that there really, logically, isn’t one. We’re privileged to be here, privileged to be alive, privileged to share our existence with so many other living, fascinating, similarly privileged creatures. Don’t break down the wonder by short-circuiting the logical beauty of it all.
.
Ah. Have I found a sense of beauty you don’t instinctively share? Or can you feel it, in there, somewhere…
.
Your closing sentiments:
.
‘I do desire for atheist to come to know and relate with God. However, I am fine with letting you be. Why did I even come in here, you ask. I like to learn. Listening to the perspective of others enhances my understanding. It is like wise beneficial for you to hear my perspective, no matter how simplistic it may be.’
.
Nick, here I have no argument with you. Shame if you have to leave (at this rate, I might have to, too) but do drop in. And please try not to be blinded by philosophy. Models are helpful, but not when they get bigger than the things they are modelling.
.
I wrote the above, and then read through umpteen other posts beneath. I think this is all still relevant. Mainly, though, whether you stay or go, Nick, you are a pleasure to debate with. (Frustrating, sometimes, but you may get the same sense with me!) You certainly manage a calmness that I find it difficult to emulate at times. Cheers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One Eyed Jack,
.
Don’t despair! Even if pleasant and cogent Nic does have to go, there is still Christian to talk to, at least!
.
Oh, he’s posted on the Richard Dawkins thread, in fact. Best have a look…
.
(If theists do only pay us a fleeting visit, maybe we should go to them. Must make time!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PS, Nowtheworldhasmeaning:
.
‘If myself Spider, The Aussie, J and One eye Jack (I use these guys as I have read a lot of there posts over recent days) where to sit in a room for a while we to come up with a set of laws, despite us all being different personalities and from different backgrounds we would probably agree on 95% of them.’
.
I think we should do it. There’s a noodly new world order in there somewhere…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I defenetly want to get in on this noodly new world order.
Nic, I’m starting to wonder if we’re even arguing about religious stuff any more, hah. Either way, it sucks that you’ve got to leave, intellegent debates are fun. (I’m starting to get the sence that I’m the youngest person on this site!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey I’m up for it…
.
Let’s see if we can get bobby to start a new thread dedicated to the legal issues, atheist style.
.
If that fails, i’ll post my hotmail, but being a public forum, i would like to avoid that for a while.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J
….(If theists do only pay us a fleeting visit, maybe we should go to them. Must make time!)
Here is the address of a site nic posted somewhere sometime when referring to his lack of debate on ID.
Institute of Crestion Research
http://www.icr.org/
It is a creationist site. ( which differs slightly from ID) I’ve been there a couple of times reading some of their “news” on scientific developments.
Here is a bit from one of these articles
Fighting Against the Forces of Darkness
by Lawrence Ford
………“Although the theory of evolution might seem highly improbable, it [is] not impossible,†Dawkins reportedly declared to his audience. Forget the science; let’s talk about those right-wing Christians who believe in God and creation.
But is the Christian community prepared to discuss these larger issues of philosophy and worldview? The Enemy has no plans to step aside just because we have better scientific facts than they. He is committed to getting his message out to anyone who will listen.
Are you?
(lol)
Somehow I don’ t think any of us would have our opinion published there though. Would love to find one of these sites democratic enough to do so. Probably as much chance of that as winning the lottery.
FSM is the only truely democratic religion.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The article was having a go at a Richard Dawkins speech. I also read one there about bird flu, which contained a lot of the correct terminology, (I guess in an effort to convince people that they really are scientific) but ended by saying that it is in gods hands. Yet another article states that the theory of evolution was responsible for the Colombine High School massacre.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Any of you guys found a fun christian site for us to raid?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, you can have fun not being us after we die, but for now, excuse me while I go live my life the way I want to, thanks. And by the sounds of it, I don’t think I’d want to go to your Heaven anyway. According to your book of babble-ness, all of my friends and favorite bands are going to be in Hell, so why would I want to be anywhere else? I already have a room reserved, please don’t feel free to visit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ NTWHM… yep :P
A Fundi Myspace….
Go to you have GOT to be kidding me (i think that’s it… the one by the rKticK FoX… henderob posted his site address.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, The Aussie,
.
Just had a scan through that thread – couldn’t spot a post by henderob. If you’ve got the link, I’d be delighted if you could share…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nickiee,
.
Wow! The Institute of Creation Research! Just saying the name is so much fun! Sounds like something from a Far Side cartoon. I wonder what sort of experiments you can use to Research Creation.
.
It’s a pretty site, though, I’ll give them back. Sort of a afraid to dig deeper, but I’ll have a look…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ooh, powerful arguments abound at the ICR site! Pour example:
.
‘While evolutionists continue to debate the form and function of this newly-discovered fossil, creationists continue to base the model of man’s origin on Genesis 1:26-27.’
.
It’s just one unshakeable conclusion after another! They’ll have me back in the Christian fold before I know it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J
Yeah I didn’t stick around too long. Too freaky!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s hilarious! Terrifying, but hilarious! I can’t believe they come here and find the FSM strange, if they’re used to that kind of bent and fractured crazy moon logic.
.
Maybe, actually, just maybe it’s because the FSM actually makes *too much* sense…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry… I eat my words. I could have sworn it was on one of those page. Give me a minute, and I’ll try and find it…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FOUND IT!!!!!!!
Had to google… but thats okay, ’cause I hit the christian jackpot baby!
.
Ever wonder why the christian’s arguments seemed so strange, and flew in the face of common logic?
.
Here is your answer :p
.
http://www.homeschooldebate.com
.
And his myspace-esque page…
.
http://www.xanga.com/RkticFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
O.. M.. FSM…
.
Well, at least I understand what makes RkticFox tick, now… hymns in four-part harmony and family prayers *whilst on vacation*, ffs?????
.
And he listens to Kenny G – ’nuff said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent research skillz, The Aussie! Well done, that pirate.
.
Aw, bless him. I don’t think I could, in good conscience, sail a trojan galleon full of explosive Pastafarians into RkticFox’s own page. He’s only 16, bless his little cotton landlubber socks. Give him a couple of years – ’till he can handle his own cutlass, at least.
.
On the other hand, I think I’ll be taking a look at that homeschooldebate page. Might be a perfect spot for some booty plundering…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thats you guys. Its all in The Plan.
http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/god_larson.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Classic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@J I agree J. Save it for the ones old enough to know better. Bet most of their sites are strictly moderated.
.
@ faghettini Thats a good one. :)
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Faghettini – nice one. But don’t you mean ‘It’s all in The Pan’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think your website is kick-ass -. I’m 12 years old and I will tell my science teacher to consider this alternative teaching in West Palm Beach, Fl where I attend school… All hail the FSM!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I spoke too soon in calling the ICR site hilarious. It’s deeply, offensively, morally abhorrent. It gets worse with every page I read. And there’s no obvious discussion forum for each of these horrendous articles.
.
Not laughing anymore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
morally abhorrent? Let me guess, they’re not being nice to people who don’t pray to Jesus every day?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s far more disturbing stuff than that around…
http://www.answersingenesis.org lists “events” around the UK (that’s HERE, where I live, not off in whacko-land, ffsms!), which are basically creationist wingnuts preaching wingnuttery at the faithful at various community centers and churches.
.
I’m up for protesting this when it comes to my town (Coventry, Nov 19th) and a few others around the midlands – anyone wanna form a raiding party, m’hearties?
.
I’m thinking pirate costumes, FSM flyers and cries of “Blasphemy! Arrghh!!!” whenever ID is mentioned.
.
Either that, or big, BIG placards in big, BIG letters: “TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN = CHILD ABUSE”
.
Either way, the local press’d love it, and it’d raise the debate… contact me via m’website if interested.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Davey, I will see whether I can fit a trip to Coventry into my mid-November schedule. After all this time arguing via keyboard, it’d be nice to get out and savage some child abusers in person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Gill,
.
‘morally abhorrent? Let me guess, they’re not being nice to people who don’t pray to Jesus every day?’
.
Fair guess! What really irks me, though, is the way they polarize the argument, so it’s between accepting the Truth of Our Saviour Jesus Christ, or collapsing into some dark pit of sin and depression with no moral foundation, no value to life and no reason for being, in which maniacs shoot schoolkids and teenagers hang themselves in despair.
.
Encouraging people to see their options in those terms is completely immoral and, in my opinion, actually evil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Davey, again,
.
The grand Godist tour of the UK seems a bit afeared of the North. The closest they come to me is Congleton next March. They drop in to Birmingham and environs several times over the coming months, however. Oxford is also on the list (5th March) – I wonder if Richard Dawkins is back from the US then? Perhaps we could persuade him to don an eyepatch for a night…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I can offer all righteous pirates a billet fer the night, and a sup o’ the grog cask. Form a disorderly rabble just here, please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh my, oh my, oh my. I am listening to the samples of Carl Denby, one of the men doing the speaking on this Answers in Genesis tour (not at Coventry, though). He recounts how one time, when he was a young Christian, someone who had read Ken Ham’s book ‘The Lie: Evolution’ pointed out to him many examples of how evolutionary theory and the Bible cannot be made to agree with each other.
.
So far, so good. What’s amazing is that Ken Ham, Carl Denby and friends all therefore throw out evolution in order to concentrate instead on the ‘historical’ document that is the Bible.
.
If I go to one of these talks, I’m going to end up burning something down.
.
Now they’re explaining that evolution isn’t ‘real’ science. Sorry, not explaining – just stating.
.
Where do these flunatics come from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(Not sure what a ‘flunatic’ actually is, by the way. Perhaps like a lunatic, but more highly contagious, preying on the weak and responsible for millions of deaths?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken Ham’s convincing and responsible education technique (quoted at Wikipedia):
.
“Boys and girls,” Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, “you put your hand up and you say, ‘Excuse me, were you there?’ Can you remember that?” The children roared their assent. “Sometimes people will answer, ‘No, but you weren’t there either,’ ” Ham told them. “Then you say, ‘No, I wasn’t, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.’ ” He waved his Bible in the air. “Who’s the only one who’s always been there?” Ham asked. “God!” the boys and girls shouted. “Who’s the only one who knows everything?” “God!” “So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?” The children answered with a thundering: “God!”
.
This is all so terrifying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh Shit J, that scares the crap out of me.
.
The one advantage of that is the fact that none of those children will be going to are top universities to study Biology so in effect only people who whole heartedly agree with evolution will be studying and making advances in this area.
.
If things like this carry on though they will be contesting other theories soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
NTWHM and all,
.
The theories should be safe enough – no amount of rabid half-brained rantage is going to knock the down in scientific terms.
.
But the scientists don’t run the country, the scientists aren’t the people you bump into on the street. The more this kind of debasement of understanding goes on, the more wrong-headed, misguided and closed-minded the population. And in a democracy, popular opinion means prizes…
.
…and so we find outselves in a situation in which IDers can slip their bullshit into schools whilst our governments find ways to protect those who act out their lives on foundless, archaic laws from hearing the scorn those ‘laws’ deserve.
.
Damn straight this is scary. I will not be stepping outside without my cutlass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By the way, I have just bought Ken Ham’s (apparently life-changing) book ‘The Lie: Evolution’ from Amazon (alongside three of Dawkins’ earlier books to make myself feel clean again). When it arrives, I will be going through it with the care it deserves (which may turn out to be a shredder). If any parts of it prove especially quote worthy, I may share them. I’d quite like to feel well practiced in gutting this text before doing so in front of Ken’s disciples.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0