you have completely pissed us off

Published by henderob October 23rd, 2006 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism).

Please do not take any offensive “hate mail” written by Christians as an example of Christianity. We are not very good Christians; we who use words of hate. You must understand, however, that you have completely pissed us off. This site is just stupid. The concept is stupid. I can give you evidence against evolution if you so desire.

I do sort of agree that ID should not be taught in schools, but neither should evolution. It is wrong that evolution, classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, is taught as a fact. Teaching evolution in schools is just as offensive to us as teaching ID in schools is to you. We are all people.

The majority of Christians do not want to press our beliefs upon anybody else. The same cannot be said for scientists, it appears. Plus, while Christians want to bring wayward people to God for the wayward people’s sake, scientists want to study and elaborate on evolution because they think they can discover something wonderful and get rich off of it. So, there is still a difference between the two sides.

I think this whole fight is futile. It is written that God’s children will be hated by all, and I can see that’s the way it’s going. Everybody hates Christians…

-Yet Another Christian

531 Responses to “you have completely pissed us off”

1. 381 - November 1st, 2006 at 5:15 am - nikkiee Says:
   
   

   @Joe Blow
   That sounds like a good old traditional Australian name?

2. 382 - November 1st, 2006 at 5:54 am - Jingles (formerly The Aussie) Says:
   
   

   Ahhh… old three oars and superglue… that was a very disturbed young man.

3. 383 - November 1st, 2006 at 6:10 am - nikkiee Says:
   
   

   Yeah Dunc
   http://www.venganza.org/2006/08/03/your-god-is-a-homo.htm
   Such a beautiful portrait of a the balance of our poor christians!

4. 384 - November 1st, 2006 at 3:03 pm - Elle Says:
   
   

   “Scientific things such as gravity, electricity, nuclear technology have all been proven. You can show me those right now and I will believe they exist. What you can’t show me is evolution on a fast scale. I want to see it now, if you have it. If you can put a prehistoric worm into a cage and increase the speed of whatever process you believe evolution occurs in and change it into a much more superior being throught natural processes, I will believe that evolution exists. Please understand what I mean when I say evolution is a theory. I mean it is purely theory and nothing more. It is not proven.”

   Dear Seth

   I realise you may not see this reply as I’m a few days late in seeing your comments, but still I would like to answer you.

   There are several experiments that show evolution in action, many of which are taught as part of A-level (ages 16-18) biology here in Britain. They are all a variation on taking short lived creatures such as fruit flies and putting one set of them in certain conditions whilst a second set live in controlled conditions. Within a few generations (say, a month) you can see that the flies have adapted to the new conditions whilst the control flies have stayed the same. Evolution in action.

   Of course it is still a theory since we are not long lived enough to see evolution in action on a large scale. All we can do is collect quite staggering amounts of evidence that evolution is likely to be true. Much the same method was used to prove the earth was round until we had satellites that could go up and take pictures of the globe.

   On a personal note I have great respect for Christianity as a religion. It teaches love, peace and understanding of your fellow human. I regret to say that in the vast majority of cases I do not see this taxing relgion being followed. I’ll not name names or point fingers, or even tell you that you are wrong. As your own god said ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ (forgive me if the quotation isn’t quite right, it’s been a while since I checked the wording).

   I hope your religion brings you comfort.

   Regards

   Elle

5. 385 - November 2nd, 2006 at 2:58 am - Stinky_Pants Says:
   
   

   Somehow, somewhere in all the discussions that have taken place on this subject, a simple observation has been lost. If, as both Christians and Pastafarians believe, a single, supernatural being that is omniscient, omnipotent and ubiquitous both created and controls the universe, then that Supreme Being (be it God or the FSM) would also have known that His children would some day create an alternate explanation of the Universe, other than the way in which He created it.

   So, the question is, why would an all-powerful and all-knowing being allow a rival to be created, knowing that acceptance of that rival would lead to His own demise? Is it simply a test?

   Or, is it evidence that the notion of a Supreme Being was created by mankind in an effort to provide explanations for things we could not understand? As we come to learn and understand more about the world around us and the mechanisms by which it works, the need for religion diminishes. If a primitive man were to see a jetliner in the sky, he might believe it to be a God simply because he had no means of explaining it. Much the same for those who see evidence of God in the seemingly impossible behavior of cell masses or anything else. Just because we don’t have the scientific explanation today for an observable phenomenon doesn’t mean there isn’t one at all.

6. 386 - November 2nd, 2006 at 4:14 am - Davey Jones' Slacker Says:
   
   

   @Stinky_Pants:
   I’m in general agreement with everything you’ve written above, except for one point:
   .
   “If a primitive man were to see a jetliner in the sky, he might believe it to be a God simply because he had no means of explaining it.”
   .
   I’d suggest that you don’t need a *primitive* human for this to happen - just a regular, modern human that’s been isolated from the modern world. The phenomenon of “Cargo Cults” shows this principal in action.

7. 387 - November 2nd, 2006 at 7:47 am - Stinky_Pants Says:
   
   

   @DJS

   A good point. Agreed.

8. 388 - November 2nd, 2006 at 2:09 pm - Ashes Says:
   
   

   I think that the answer as to why an all knowing all powerful God would allow a rival to be created is the free will aspect of Christianity. If God were to prevent the development of this alternative theory, and any other alternative theory, then the action would circuitously remove the individuals ability to decide. If the person is given only one explanation, and there has been an artificial change to ensure that only one explanation survives, then the decision has been made for them, disjunctively, to either accept the theory or have no answer.
   This flows from more of a deist perspective on God. However, it also comports with the general overtone of needing faith, an action which necessarily has no factual evidence.

9. 389 - November 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pm - Stinky_Pants Says:
   
   

   If God is all-knowing, he knows what your choice will be before he even creates you, yet creates you anyway. Then, sets you on your way to discover what those choices will be fore yourself, even though he already knew. If so, it would at seem that your decisions are pre-determined, aleit unkown to you. If you accept that God, or FSM, or anything else, is all-knowing, don’t you have to accept that the course of life is predetermined?

10. 390 - November 2nd, 2006 at 2:23 pm - Nowtheworldhasmeaning Says:
    
    

    Stinky_Pants
    .
    I agree with you totally, Free will or a father figure?

11. 391 - November 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pm - MaxPower Says:
    
    

    nikkiee and henderob,
    Thanks for setting me straight about henderob, and my apologies to him/her. I admit, I am a new member of the Church, and my zeal for the FSM (bless his holy name) caused me to snap at one of our great profits. Very sorry henderob.
    nikkiee : the “you ignorant slut” is an old Saturday Night Live line, from the days of Dan Akroyd, Gilda Radner.
    Elle : I respectfully disagree about the definition of theory, proven and proofs. Technically, theories are what Scientist use to model natural phenomena : gravity, electricity, etc. No theory of nature can be proven. Proofs are exclusively in the field of mathematics and logic. Science can only give us models on how to predict natural phenomena. One might argue the “quality” of a theory : the amount/quality of it’s data, it’s reproducibility. Evolution may still be more debateable as a theory because it is harder to reproduce or predict. But it is not in a different classification in science as “only a theory” vs “proven”. It may seem nitpicking semantics, but Science and Math try to be precise. Of course, until the FSM gives me guidance on our past, I will steer clear of the whole subject of creation vs evolution.
    Finally, Christianity may teach good values such as love your brother. But it has inherent flaws that make it extremely dangerous. Christianity does not allow its members to question whether Jesus and Jehovah are God or not. You must accept it. At that point, you are on a higher moral ground than others. You have a God, you can know what he wants, you will see no reason to compromise with evil, e.g.: secularists, the church across the street. Christianity should teach love, but should not insist it is the only moral possibility. Only the FSM is the source of morals anyway. That should be obvious.
    May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless us all and give us guidance. Ramen.

12. 392 - November 2nd, 2006 at 7:12 pm - Mike Says:
    
    

    I’d love to hear your evidence against evolution. I’m sure it holds up against radioactive dating and concrete scientific proof, just like all the other ‘evidence’ people seem to show me. Just as long as it isn’t a clip of ‘The Flintstones’ again, I’ll be fine…

    Also, people like you, with no sense of humor whatsoever, are the reason people tend to hate all us Christians. :)

13. 393 - November 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 am - nikkiee Says:
    
    

    Don’t hold your breath Mike. You’ll turn blue!

14. 394 - November 3rd, 2006 at 2:44 am - Graustein Says:
    
    

    I’m by no means devout. I observe the Jewish holidays like Yom Kippur and Pesach (’Passover’ in English), but I do it for spiritual reasons, not religious ones (yes, there is a difference). I don’t say these things “because the bible tells me to”, I say them because I’m not trying to impose my beliefs on others. I’m merely suggesting a compromise scenario between creationism and evolution. (I personally believe in evolution)

    “one fruitloop belief system begat another”: Maybe. Yes, Judaism begat Christianity, but you missed the point in what I was trying to say. (and I’d hardly call a religion based on respect and compassion “fruitloop”) It was just a friendly reminder to all those Anti-Semites out there (Don’t pretend you don’t exist, you Fascist Neo-Nazis), many, if not most, of whom are Christian, that the religions are MORE OR LESS THE SAME!!

    When you get down to it, what are Judaism and Christianity and all those other religions really all about? In the immortal words of the great rabbi Hillel the Elder:

    “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; The rest is commentary. Now go and study it.”

    (for those who don’t know, this was the response Hillel gave to a Pagan who said he would convert to Judaism if he could summarise it while standing on one leg).

    That, my friends is what religion is really all about. Love thy neighbour. I personally don’t believe in God, but what I DO believe in is religion, and its power.

    Peace out! ..\/.(^_^)

15. 395 - November 3rd, 2006 at 2:54 am - Mad John Kidd Says:
    
    

    “The most wonderful thing is that God can see them; but they cannot see Him.”—Guru Nanak

16. 396 - November 3rd, 2006 at 3:16 am - Davey Jones' Slacker Says:
    
    

    Hi Graustein, good to have you back,
    “That, my friends is what religion is really all about. Love thy neighbour.”
    .
    You can do that without the religion, surely?
    .
    You seem about as close to *not needing* religion as you can can get - why not go that one step further, and make the world a better place?
    .
    Y’see, although I can’t find much by way of fault in your personal position, I will say this: By maintaining a personal morality like that, but still doing it within the framework of an organised religion even though you don’t need to, you’re perpetuating that religion. And the next wave of kids that get indoctrinated by that religion might not be as smart/resourceful/have the strength of character that you have. And that’s where your next generation of belief-mongers come from, and that’s why so many old conflicts/hatreds/feuds keep right on going, generation after generation.
    .
    If you can maintain your morality and sprituality from a secular (or at the very least a non-organised-religion) standpoint, you should. If everyone like you (and there are probably more people like you, of all faiths, than there are “hard-core” believers) did that, the churches, chapels, synagogues and mosques would empty.
    .
    Peace, dude.

17. 397 - November 3rd, 2006 at 12:09 pm - MIke Says:
    
    

    To whoever wrote this fuck off, all u christians do is point the finger and try to push your goddamn religion and beliefs and morals on all of us! we dont look at the world from ur perfdect christian viewpoint and u should never try to push ur BS on people because all it does is push them away! This website is a joke and a good one at that, because we have successfully pissed soo many people off! UR god will perish and we will laugh

18. 398 - November 3rd, 2006 at 7:42 pm - Dork_Vader Says:
    
    

    This is seemingly a well-thought-out piece of writing, until one notes that (s)he utilizes poor word choices “stupid” (Yet Another Christian, line 4), and commits the the fallacy that is the last line “everybody hates christians” (Yet Another Christian, line 17). That is obviously wrong as that person is most certainly a christian, and for it to be true, they would have to hate themself, which is not the case. Not only that, but assuming it is a broad generalization, it is also false as for from “everybody” hates christians.

    Not only that, but the phrase in the second paragraph: “scientists want to study and elaborate on evolution because they think they can discover something wonderful and get rich off of it.” (Yet Another Christian, lines 12-14), is most definatly not true. As far as scientists go, there are certainly a few seeking profits, but many work only to serve to further expand human knowlege of our world. Is that so wrong?

    In any case, whether you Believe in god or not, the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) seems to have origionally started as a convincing movement to “do something” about the way science was taught in Kansas. If the school supports teaching Christian Beliefs, then to be fair to all religions, they must also teach about the FSM. To carry this further, to be fair to the people of Haiti, they should also teach about Voodoo. Therefore since all religions, Major or no, cannot be included, then the schools Need to teach the Scientific approach to how we got here. It’s a science class, not world religions. Therefore it is the job of parents and/or spiritual leaders to teach althernate, and not necessarily scientific theories.

19. 399 - November 3rd, 2006 at 11:21 pm - Whathellman Says:
    
    

    Funny, did you know that the idea that the earth orbits around the sun is also a “SCIENTIFIC THEORY”? A theory is not a hypothisis, it’s an idea that has stood the test of time, has a whole ton of evidence that has been tested with the exact same results, and can evolve as new evidence comes to light. That is exactly what evolution is doing.

    ID is not a theory, it is a conclusion that was formed before evidence, and the “evidence” is all based upon opinion and conclusions that are not directly linked to the facts that attempt to prove them. Let me give you an example, a famous argument from ID is that it’s illogical for their not to be a creator. That’s opinion, not evidence. Some evidence that I heard was that the great flood with noah’s arc created the grand canyon when that’s obviously impossible if you look at the geological formation of the canyon.

    The scientific method is as follows (in order): question, hypothesis, testing, observation, analysis, conclusion. This allows for a system of tests and evidence that can be repeated and allows any naysayers to prove the facts for themselves.

    The ID method is as follows (in order): Question, conclusion, evidence. The question is answered before evidence comes into the question by the ID “scientist”. He already knows the answer, whereas a true scientist is there to answer the question, not to justify his predetermined conclusion.

    ID is not a science, it is not a scientific theory, it is not a theory. It is a hypothesis that has yet to have any true supporting evidence or repeatable tests. Evolution has been tested by many generations of scientists with a whole mass of evidence from fossils to geologic formations to patterns found around the globe to DNA testing. THAT is science, and because of that, it should be taught in a science class. ID is not a science, and should not be. Keep science to the classrooms, keep religion in the religious sanctuaries. Separation of church and state is the issue here.

20. 400 - November 3rd, 2006 at 11:39 pm - nikkiee Says:
    
    

    The authors of ID, themselves know it is rubbish. But it sounds scientific to followers largely ignorant of what, in fact, constitutes the basis and reason of scientific research. ID is seen as a political party, by the religous organisations, to further gain and keep a wider slice of control.

Leave a Reply