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
You know, I’ve never understood why some Christians feel the need to tell those who follow the Noodley Way that we’re stupid, or that we’re going to hell, or that we’ve angered Christians, etc.
IF we have, then get over it, and ignore us. We don’t go soliciting door to door.
IF we’re going to hell, then why do YOU care? The souls in question are not yours, and most us take this as a joke. We do not mock religion, only idiots who are occasionally religious.
IF you’d putter around the forum, you’d notice an entire section devoted to the respectful discussion of theology.
And I have never, never, never met a scientist bent on making me an atheist, or on making me think that my beliefs are wrong. Science, in my experience, simply puts the info out there, and expects you to make your own choice. Bobby never forced you, or the School Board, to believe what he does. He didn’t hold them at gun point and forced them to teach evolution. He simply sent them a letter pointing out what he saw as the flaws in ID. YOU make your own choice, and leave it at that. And frankly, as the spawn of a line of scientists, I can tell you that if they wanted to be rich, they wouldn’t BE scientists, they’d in business or something.
Few here hate Christians, and they are generally accorded the same respect as all other religions. Bobby didn’t do this because he hates God, I’m pretty sure, but because he thinks ID is funny and idiotic. And yes, I suppose, it’s a dead-horse topic, but the debates are still interesting and educational, and that’s why they continue to happen.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
You know, I’ve never understood why some Christians feel the need to tell those who follow the Noodley Way that we’re stupid, or that we’re going to hell, or that we’ve angered Christians, etc.
IF we have, then get over it, and ignore us. We don’t go soliciting door to door.
IF we’re going to hell, then why do YOU care? The souls in question are not yours, and most us take this as a joke. We do not mock religion, only idiots who are occasionally religious.
IF you’d putter around the forum, you’d notice an entire section devoted to the respectful discussion of theology.
And I have never, never, never met a scientist bent on making me an atheist, or on making me think that my beliefs are wrong. Science, in my experience, simply puts the info out there, and expects you to make your own choice. Bobby never forced you, or the School Board, to believe what he does. He didn’t hold them at gun point and forced them to teach evolution. He simply sent them a letter pointing out what he saw as the flaws in ID. YOU make your own choice, and leave it at that. And frankly, as the spawn of a line of scientists, I can tell you that if they wanted to be rich, they wouldn’t BE scientists, they’d in business or something.
Few here hate Christians, and they are generally accorded the same respect as all other religions. Bobby didn’t do this because he hates God, I’m pretty sure, but because he thinks ID is funny and idiotic. And yes, I suppose, it’s a dead-horse topic, but the debates are still interesting and educational, and that’s why they continue to happen.
–Kit
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I never gave a damn about what the religion freaks were doing until the ID debate opened my eyes a bit wider. After reading the postings here by that group, I have become actively opposed to their agendas overall.
The ID debate is far from over in their minds, though it never really existed as far as rational science was concerned. I agree with those in my earlier post: include it in a topic on politics.
Save our children from the hate indoctrination of the religous cults and global warming. Recruit a pirate today!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How much death results from wars over ideology?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jingles (formerly The Aussie)
Jingles!?! Do tell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I never gave a damn about what the religion freaks were doing until the ID debate opened my eyes a bit wider.”
Mind you our PM was developing a worrying fondness for playing the religion card around this time as well. Johnny just adores GW and wants to be just like him!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s an idea. I know I said theory, the other day, but it’s just a thought, so don’t try to eat my liver or anything for it, if ya don’t mind…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry….. completely forgot the link
http://www.venganza.org/2005/08/20/only-in-a-land-of.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cody
Your post in that thread would have almost been entertaining, if not for the arrogance and lack of a unified theme.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL, this is just too funny. Completely oblivious that every sentence defeated this Christian’s chance of making a feasible point.
May He bless you with his noodly appendage.
BTW, try looking up what “theory” actually means in scientific terms. Quite different than in common terms you may find.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@J Apologies, I’m running behind here having not had time to keep up with the threads:
No-one can reject 2.
After all we already settled that 2 is the only number (see Bobby your site is amusing thread)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Cody
It is good to see you thinking up some ideas for yourself but please leave out the condescending tone next time.
@ Dunc. 2 & 0 have to stay!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Nikkie
I thought we agreed 0 is not a number but merely a lack of any 2…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t we need to keep it though for the mono system code though?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Or is it now 2-2?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
oh hell… why didn’t I think of that.?.. yes it is.
- is the new 0….
It is good to have clever people around to show me the error of my ways
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry Dunc. I’d just looked and you are absolutely correct. I’m still suffering from a few tender brain cells incurred from that last rash of number editing.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No need to apologise, as of Oct 31st, 2006 at 3:53 am you put me right and now 0 no longer exists…
Someone I saw at the Lordi concer last night had a tshirt with
W4TCH M02E P02N, now I don’t know what the last word is but M02E (M023?) must be MoRe so 2 = R making R the holy letter of the alphabet…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RRRRRAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
See, you’ve got it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
discovery of pasta my ass. i have eaten pasta for almost twelve years
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I haven’t visited in a while. I’m a practising Roman Catholic.
I believe in Evolution, that the world is round, that God probably created the Universe (just not yesterday, maybe 14+ billion years ago), that Intelligent Design is a crock of half-baked assumptions based on observations of “complexity” which is stupendously blind and completely ignores the lack of any evidence supporting their assumptions.
I dislike that a lot of fellow Christians are doing the same thing today, their ancestors did centuries ago – refusing to admit a truth just because they view it as a some threat to their religion.
I quite pity them actually. Maybe they’d prefer if religion overruled science more often. Unfortunately the whole Flat Earth theory got the boot when Man invaded Heaven, so there goes any chance of that happening…;).
Regards,
From a Catholic who believes in Evolution and that God has better things to do in a universe of trillion’s of Galaxies then design from scratch a bunch of tree-hugging Apes when his original creation (i.e. the Universe (or maybe Multiverse if you follow the latest Physics developments)) can churn them out automatically for him…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OEJ… how have you survived a public school education in IN with such objectivity? Kudos.
`
I do want to add something to the states’ constitutions discussion…
`
That [since] it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty. [So], no person ought by any law to be [harmed] on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice… UNLESS (under the color of religion), he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights…
`
nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief;
`
this is the only really wonky part:
provided he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come.â€
Which, given the times, is pretty freakin’ open-minded.
`
In a nutshell, I like that Maryland says people should be free to worship whomever or whatever provided it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Yes, it would have been even better if atheists were specifically protected, but considering the population that founded Maryland, I’m fairly satisfied.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Enlightened
Wow, that law specifically says athiests are not deemed competent to be a witness or juror.
.
I need to check CA law. Maybe now I have an out for serving on a jury. I would be very interested in seeing what would happen if someone quoted such law in court to get excused.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mike
`
Actually, dissect it a bit further…
‘
nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief, provided he believes in the existence of God
`
So I’m thinking that it’s not excluding atheists per se, but trying to protect the reputations of non-Christians who were still deeply religious.
‘
I could be wrong. Maryland is and always has been fairly liberal, though. Drives my stepdad bonkers since he’s a Pennsylvania transplant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know this is a bit behind everyone else, but I’ve been away from computers all weekends, not having lectures to waste time between, about the states that don’t want atheists to be allowed run for pasitions of responsibility, that’s what it sounds like to me at any rate, every heard of the Reagan doctrine? Can’t trust the soviets because they’re gaodless and have nothing to fear after death, so they can be as macheavellian(sp?) as they like.
By that logic, all theists should get along brilliantly, as long as it’s the right god….can’t go trusting those heretic muslims, jews, etc. so, all christians get along then…obviously never heard of Northern Ireland, and if we (by which he meant christians) didn’t have religion, we’d all be perfectly happy to steal old ladies pension money etc.
I went to a catholic scholl and was thought religion by a nun for a year, she refused to spend all her time on the christian faith, because, while it was what she believed in, she didn’t really know if she was right, so, not all christians try to force their beliefs on others, it just happens that those who do are very loud about it.
Personally I think that the only people who are honestly altueistsc(sp?) are atheists, no theist can do a good deed without counting it towards payment into heaven or whatever (in fairness, for a lot of the quiet religious people, it’s probably an unconscious count)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Rabbit…altruistic (and thus an altruist)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Henderob, you ignorant slut,
Evolution is taught as a theory, as is everything else in science. Theories are what scientists use to explain natural phenomena. Theory of Gravity, theory of … Nothing is taught as fact. Science is subject to change when it is proven wrong, unlike any religion. If you are going to use terms like “fact”, “theory”, “proof”, at least look up what they mean. Else you advertise that the FSM, bless his holy name, gave you little brains.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh dear Maxpower!
Henderob just posts the hatemail received (most of it directed at him). He doesn’t write it . Henderob is our profit!. BTW: When you say slut, are you perhaps, referring to the “oar” episode? I heard that was just an impossible rumour! Leave that dog alone!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oar?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Joe Blow
That sounds like a good old traditional Australian name?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ahhh… old three oars and superglue… that was a very disturbed young man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DJS
A good point. Agreed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stinky_Pants
.
I agree with you totally, Free will or a father figure?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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. :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t hold your breath Mike. You’ll turn blue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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! ..\/.(^_^)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The most wonderful thing is that God can see them; but they cannot see Him.”—Guru Nanak
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0