Excellent satire of the criticisms of religion and Intelligent Design … unless you guys actually think the creation of the FSM and its subsequent religion is a valid critique of religion and Intelligent Design in the form of satire or actual truth for that matter. In that case, try studying and understanding your “opponents†first before attacking. Or maybe this “religion†of the FSM is just a good case of showing that people will believe almost anything (assuming that your church members ACTUALLY believe the FSM to be true). Yet, I very highly doubt that people are QUITE that stupid. Given enough time, they should be eliminated by natural selection anyway.
However, both ways I do enjoy and appreciate the artistic work and creativity you have put into the FSM and its subsequent church. It, as well as the hate mail you receive, is truly hilarious.
It’s a good thing that artistic method isn’t restrained by the scientific method. The religion of the FSM is evidence that art is not restrained by logic.
As an aside, since art is allowed to be taught in school in the form of an art class, the religion of the FSM should be allowed in school as well. Drop me a line if you need help creating a case (I wish I were a lawyer).
Similarly, religion or philosophy would also be considered art if it did not attempt to validly explain the existence of good and evil, reason, and other enigmas of the “human condition.†Art attempts to depict; religion, science, and philosophy attempt to explain in a valid manner.
Nevertheless, I can see how the religion of the FSM could attempt to explore the very concept of validity and its relation to truth. However, in this case, it should also attempt to be more valid itself and satirically examine or disprove science as well in order to be more encompassing and relative in addressing validity, in my humble opinion.
Or the creation of FSM and its religion may be just a load of quasi-artistic BS, in accordance with all gods written in history who were included within and were a part of the universe and describable as natural objects. re: ra (sun-god), poseidon (god of the sea), fsm (flying chunk of spaghetti and meatballs) “may his appendages be honoredâ€
Regardless of the psychology or validity behind the FSM, thank you for the humor, and good luck in continuing to intelligently or not so intelligently (whichever the case may be) evolve the FSM and its religion.
May your God given or unguided evolutionary given ability for creativity and the FSM’s noodly appendage guide you in your never ending search for that natural-selection-created concept of Truth.
CJYman http://cjyman.blogspot.com
I leave with you these three quotes:
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
–C. S. Lewis
“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy – are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”
–C. S. Lewis
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.â€
–Albert Einstein
Erm.
I am a bit confused.
Can you please rewrite it in more comprehensible English – it is early Sunday morning here and my poor brain is a little befuddled (not enough grog last night). YOu seem to be putting forward several opposing ideas at the same time.
Please excuse me if I disappear shortly – we have an appointment with Santa on a steam train :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thought maybe it was just me Booty. I decided to come back and read it later to see what I wasn’t getting from the post. (was just reading TLM again, you understand) So I’m glad you posted. Still think I will read it again….very slowly…. later.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The initial point appears to be:
If CoFSM is a parody of satirical religions then it is funny.
If it is an attempt to parody religion itself OR intended as actual fact, then it isn’t funny.
I haven’t been through the middle bit in detail, but I think the author likes some of the artwork.
The quotations appear to demonstrate an established fact: C.S.Lewis was a bell-end.
There’s also one from Einstein which doesn’t seem relevant, but here’s an alternative:
The most comprehensible thing about the “excelent satire … unless” e-mail is that it is incomprehensible.
- Oscar Wilde
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think he’s saying that we, having fun with the idea of the FSM (sauce be with him), might be creating Art here. I don’t have a problem with that.
I saw a pile of bricks in the Tate Modern gallery (London), and it looked like Art to me: context is crucial, and our context is the religiously-inspired lunacy of the world today. Looking at it like that, not only is this Art, it is Culture too, especially if the Parmesan is left out in the sun too long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Captain Noodulous Silicate TBHNA
Well done Captain, now what about this bit:
‘Nevertheless, I can see how the religion of the FSM could attempt to explore the very concept of validity and its relation to truth. However, in this case, it should also attempt to be more valid itself and satirically examine or disprove science as well in order to be more encompassing and relative in addressing validity, in my humble opinion.’
??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘it should also attempt to be more valid itself and satirically examine or disprove science as well in order to be more encompassing and relative in addressing validity’
.
Yep that is definately what is bothering me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nikkiee,
The author thinks that CoFSM could be used as device in some exploration of
validity [I suspect of argument and belief] and its relation to [I guess ontological] truth.
This part accords with the purpose of this site, Bobby Henderson wrote the letter because of [in essence] his concerns about flagrant disregard for these matters by people responsible for knowing better.
So the author is in communion with us on this point – RAmen, He has been touched by the noodly appendage.
The second part suggests that we ought to give science a bit more stick.
The author should pay more attention to their gospel [oFSM].
Bobby Henderson spends almost as much time satirising science as religion.
CoFSM is described as the only major religion supported by hard science.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘a load of quasi-artistic BS, in accordance with all gods written in history who were included within and were a part of the universe and describable as natural objects. re: ra (sun-god), poseidon (god of the sea), fsm (flying chunk of spaghetti and meatballs)’
.
Gods represented by tangible natural entities are ‘quasi-artistic BS’ therefore I’m assuming whathisname poster is implying that the invisible supernatural being gods are not ‘quasi-artistic BS’
I’m still picking up xtian quasi-intellectual BS
Oh well, it’s been a long day and I’ve been out in the sun this afternoon. I’ll read it tomorrow when my brain is a bit fresher.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I like the last bit of the C.S. Lewis quote:
It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset
Modern forensic method is based on the principle that a great deal can be determined from split milk about how that milk got spilt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes. The information given by the pattern splashes of that milk, along with other forensic evidence, is usually enough to put the person who upset the milk jug (or cow) away for a very long time.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It might be that it’s sunday morning, but it seems to me that this person isn’t really saying anything in 676 words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK CJYman http://cjyman.blogspot.com
The only hits I get on cjyman.blogspot.com, takes me to an ID site (Intelligent Reasoning) which appears to have an open forum for ID debate. Must bookmark it and have a closer look tomorrow.
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/12/note-to-zachriel.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK CJYman cjyman.blogspot.com
The only hits I get on cjyman.blogspot.com, takes me to an ID site (Intelligent Reasoning) which appears to have an open forum for ID debate. Must bookmark it and have a closer look tomorrow.
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/12/note-to-zachriel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That link doesn’t work…. so
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/12/note-to-zachriel.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kick, I couldn’t get your link to work.
I got something at:
http://cjyman.blogspot.com
as provided. I get a site titled ‘Reality Cheque’
I’ve only read the first paragraph and already get a bad feeling:
Information has only ever been seen to be the result of a mind and has never been seen and actually does not make any logical sense to be a result of any process (especially natural laws) other than that — purposeful process — produced by mind. In fact, one of the defining points of mind is that it produces information.
That author appears to be confusing information with knowledge.
The second paragraph goes further off the same beam:
Information = a seemingly random, yet also non-repetitive arrangement of units, in which the specific arrangement, not defined by natural laws of attraction, produces specific function. In other words, the sequence and therefore the function is not described by the physical properties of the units. The reason this arrangement is not random is because it must also conform to an independently given pattern, the pattern (similar to a password) being that which unlocks the function.
It gets worse. It gets worse…take a look.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here we go sorry about the others. I had to search the above address to get this one?
http://cjyman.blogspot.com/index.html
About Me: CJYman
‘I am a Christian and I believe that the universe and life was designed on purpose, with a purpose, and for a purpose. I believe that objective truth and reality do exist and can be discovered through reasoning. Regarding evolution, complete evolution by RANDOM mutations and natural selection is unscientific as well as incorrect.’
.
CJYman must post on intelligent reasoning as well. We haven’t had an intellectual IDiot for a while.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interestingly, he describes himself as a realist…
.
Yet, on the same page, he refuses to accept the fact that evolution is science. Curiouser and curiouser…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh dear Jingles, I’ve just been reading some to-ing and fro-ing on the intelligent reasoning blogspot debate. Broard ID claims, no backup and just ignore everything the other guy was patiently trying to explain. The idiot in there was Joe.G and this was the first page my search for CJYman took me to. I felt like I was reading all of leucines vague, broard inuendo posts all over again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s some really half-baked semi-science in there.
THe page I looked at was arguing that something called GM+NS (Guided Mutation feeding in to Natural Selection] was a more plausible theory than RM+NS [Random Mutation feeding in to Natural Selection].
Can anyone tell me what the abbreviations CSI and IC mean in the following:
The account of RM + NS (random mutations + natural selection) is at the very least, not as scientifically rigorous as GM + NS. ID (as a guided process) is the result of an inference to the best explanation, which is a scientific approach based on the fact that every time a highly improbable event appears which shows the presence of CSI or IC, as scientifically defined and quantified, we have always seen it to be the result of ID. At least ID does have a rigorous scientific filter.
Now, I’d like to pose another question. What if we are to place the same strict rules on RM + NS that we place on GM + NS? What scientific filter is used to separate an occurrence that is the result of natural laws from one that is the result of random chance occurrences?
I think the last paragraph is where the author is starting to do damage with their confusion between information and knowledge in the two opening paragraphs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
His post was diffcult to follow, but not impossible. Much like me.
It woudl apear he almost gets it, but would liek ti spelled out just to be sure. I personally hate having to explain art . . or jokes.
Note to orriginal poster–FSM is just as valid as ID. There’s your bottom line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
His post was difficult to follow, but not impossible. Much like me.
It would appear he almost gets it, but would like it spelled out just to be sure. I personally hate having to explain art . . or jokes.
Note to original poster–FSM is just as valid as ID. There’s your bottom line.
(sorry about the spelling on the first post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lee,
We’ve had this out before. UD (Unintelligent Design) is MORE valid than ID.
The ID lot aren’t able or at least prepared to explain all the faillings of the aledged design.
I sincerely suspect that they have a particular agent in mind for the ‘intelligent designer’ though they are mostly careful not to let their guard down and name the agent.
Consequently they are reluctant to accept the ‘intelligent’ designer is flawed, unkind occasionally drunk a dumb ass etc. to explain the ‘flaws’ we can all see in the design.
The principle of Unintelligent Design (UD) is far better placed to explain the world around us than ID will ever be.
FSMism is also more intellectually honest than ID because it names the UD agent – the FSM himself.
ID is just ‘warmed over creationism’ where as UD is warmed over FSMism which is warmed over bolognese – as much tastier proposition any day of the week.
Yum. Yum. And RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cap.
.
“the presence of Complex Specified Information (CSI), or the presence of an Irreducibly Complex (IC) system.”
.
Para. 9 on his December 13 “My view of ID in a nutshell”.
.
Haven’t got any further, my teeth are starting to ache.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Art attempts to depict; religion, science, and philosophy attempt to explain in a valid manner.”
.
Religion attempts to explain in a valid manner how the world works based on FAITH. Without faith it is merely fiction. Science works with ideas, theories, and evidence. So, I guess validity is in the eye of the beholder. This is sort of like last week at the Pentagon when Vice Pres Cheney praised outgoing Sec of Defense Rumsfeld as the best Sec of Defense in the nation’s history. Was this valid reasoning or was he appealing to the world’s faith that what he said was true? If it was true, then why did the President just fire the best Sec of Defense in history at the height of a war? Certainly the evidence says something different.
.
“it should also attempt to be more valid itself and satirically examine or disprove science as well in order to be more encompassing and relative in addressing validity”
.
Oh dear. Satire cannot disprove science. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
” satire. 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly”
No mention there of scientific tests. Lots about mocking and ridiculing idiocy, though. Again, validity is in the eye of the beholder. FSM exists because it ridicules false validity (IE Rumsfeld is a genius; God Did It). Your statement is word salad. It was composed to sound big and smart but it just shows you to be Yet Another Creationist Trying To Show Idiotic Notions As Valid Argument (YACTTSINAVA).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The guy’s just trying to sound smart and condescending, without having any idea what he’s talking about. Which is absolutely nothing, his email makes no sense. I propose Wernicke’s aphasia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find posts like this one very strange and I’ve seen a lot of them. They combine a large but inappropriate vocabulary, with an inexplicable lack of understanding, and quotes from conservative political and religious sources. Where do they get this? Who are their role models?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Peter:
Yes, this is just what I’m talking about. It’s as if they think that using big words makes them smarter than everyone else. Maybe you’re right: it’s just that they are dumb and think they are intellectually superior. There certainly seems to be a lot of them though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I struggled thorugh the first part of his post then after reading his C.S. Lewis quotes at the end realised that he was actually against The Theory of Evolution and that the first part was mainly pseudo-intellectual BS written in an attempt to give legitimacy to his real agenda, i.e. ID.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
True, I think this is an idiot trying to look smart by using too many words. As we all know there is nothing stupider than a stupid man trying to be clever.
.
*cough*TLG*cough*dr.martin*cough*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If it wasn’t for some of our US cousins having it rammed down their throat, I’d think the ID crowd quite funny.
It appears they’ve studied the ‘God of gaps problem’ and devised ID to create a permanent God shaped gap for God to reside in.
That could be quite sweet. The funny part is they still keep having to concede bits of the gap.
The link in the post above withdraws from direct Intelligent Design and retreats to Guided Mutation. It’s “OK, OK so we accept natural selection, but the designer is guiding it…â€.
Their mistake (as believers) is that when they create a pseudo scientific theory (ID) with a vacuum in the middle everyone will instinctively pour God in to it.
We know once they’ve accepted NS and mutation we can safely remove the designer and still get the outcome we see today. So in the absence of actual evidence of any kind, this designer party is surplus to requirements. Vip. Another little gap tidied up.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter, You’re probably right there. Maybe my English just isn’t as good as I thought, but I found it very difficult to understand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Alchemist Dec 17th, 2006 at 10:19 am
“the presence of Complex Specified Information (CSI), or the presence of an Irreducibly Complex (IC) system.â€
.
Thought they might be made up IDiot terms that no one else in the respectable science world uses.
The IDiots are still trying to make out ID as a big debate, even though their “theory”(fantasy) has been shot down on numerous occassions by professionals everywhere, at every turn . The rest of science knows these pseudp-scientists have presented no debate, just fanciful ideas.
Obviously, this ‘intelligent reasonong’ site has been set up th continue this charade of the ‘BIG debate’. It strikes me that is the reason for JCYman’s rather ‘unguided’ and ‘unspecified’ communication with the CoFSM. They are desperately looking for people to go to these blogs and argue with them. That, also would allow them to find out more about the all gaps in ID (well..the one big gap, that is ID) and well as plagiarise some info from the posters, with which to fill them. Just modify it, so everything falls to the designer. Another thing I’ve always noticed about the IDiots, is they thrive on trying to get by on vaqueness in their assertions. If JCYman wants to present an ID debate, let him bring it here, I say. While there is no question that ID is a farce, the IDiots can still be fun to play with sometimes.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Oared Shitless Marc
RAmen
@Captain Noodulous Silicate TBHNA Dec 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Nikkiee. Too right. The phrase “Bullshit Baffles” comes to mind.
.
BTW that laughingboy on the run thread. I think you do right in not biting again. He’s got problems. I remember when I was 17, I was never in the house. OK I might have got better A levels if I had been but I had a hell of a good time. I suspect he’s extremely lonely and envious of us.
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do feel for teenagers these days, looking back, I think things were maybe, just a little simpler and more clear cut when I was that age. Mind you, within ourselves, the teens are never a stable age. Too many hormones and peer pressure. I hope he does grow out of that attitude, otherwise he is going to be a very lonely young man indeed!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
True Nikkiee. The threat of nuclear annihilation did that. I suspect he knows more than you and I put together, how can we argue with an intellect so perfect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@CJYman
I visited your blog spot and read many of your quotes. One of them right at the top of the page was “Test all things; hold fast that which is good”. If you truely agree with this statement then you should be able to supply some experimental evidence of ID and not nebulous and verbose philosophical arguments. Anybody can quote people who support their position. For example, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (Theodosius Dobzhansky). However, quotes do not constitute evidence for your position, unless you are trying to prove that someone agrees with you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, how often have we seen the same faulty logic from the ID brigade (see the 2nd quote from C.S.Lewis)? Usually it happens when they use the words ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose’ in their arguments .. this time it’s the term ‘accident’.
-
. Look .. ‘accident’ means something happening that wasn’t intended. It is NOT a synonym for ‘chance’. Matter moves throughout the universe. Sometimes sufficient matter accretes in a gravitationally bound system to form stars and planets. Sometimes entire galaxies collide. This is neither ‘accident, nor its antonym ‘intended’.
-
Think of it this way. I’m blindfolded, with pockets full of small pebbles, and I’m tossing them randomly in all directions. One of my pebbles lands in a bucket of water some yards away. I didn’t know there was a bucket there. Hitting it can’t be described as an ‘accident’ .. it was sheer ‘chance’.
-
Now consider the same initial conditions (blindfold and pebbles), but this time I know there’s a bucket within throwing distance and I know roughly where it is. My intention is NOT to hit the bucket. So I aim in a direction I think is away from the bucket. But I’m mistaken, or I’m crap at throwing, or I move, or a pebble ricochets off of a rock .. bottom line is that I eventually hit the bucket. That is an ‘accident’. It was not what I intended.
-
This would all be pretty dull semantics, except that Mr Lewis then builds an entire line of (faulty) reasoning on this incorrect choice of words. Back to my bucket analogy ..
-
My pebble causes ripples in the water in the bucket. However, it makes no sense to describe the ripples as either chance or accidental. Causing them was, but the ripples themselves aren’t. The way they spread out, interfere with the walls of the bucket and with each other, respond to surface tension and gravity are naturalistic. It may be impossible to exactly replicate the wave patterns, but they can’t be said to be ‘accidental’.
-
It’s the same with thought. Of course, there are degrees of chance involved with thinking, from the quantum mechanical level upwards. And the ability to think in the first place may be the result of countless chance occurrences in the past. All these chances are the pebble and its trajectory towards the bucket. Plop! Hooray, I can think. I am sentient. But my thoughts are the ripples. My ripples may be bound by the walls of the bucket and my ideas may be predictable and unoriginal. But once in a while someone, like Einstein, can think outside of the bucket.
-
Yarr.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen Coleoptera
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@moochie
Look .. ‘accident’ means something happening that wasn’t intended. It is NOT a synonym for ‘chance’.
-
Spot on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@moochie
Yes
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My old post got choked up with a bunch of nonsense… it got too hard to open and scroll down. So I’ll just make this post my new home. I don’t think the maker of this post will mind… whoever he or she is they seem to run the same line as the Rain Man. Anyways… Whenever I read my old post… all I see is instance after instance of you people going “name calling is pathetic”… while then why was I called a twat, an idiot, a Christian, and all those other things? Seems like you people like being a bit hypocritical. And as for Nikkiee, thanks for the “this is my last post to you” comment… I feel honoured that I won’t have to listen to your mind numbing ramblings about nothing anymore. I esspecially enjoyed the Me: “Wench Nikkiee wrote like 500 out of the 1000 posts” Wench Nikkiee: “You took time to go through and count them all? STALKER!” That cracks me up… maybe you should pay more attention in school when it comes to reading comprehension. And as for the rest of you… you really do need to grow up. Yes I’m 17, yes I name call (but only after you people initiated it), and yes I am smarter than all you lemmings. Lemmings is an appropraite analogy seeing as how Bobby seems to be the leader of you guys, and you’ve already followed him right over the edge of Sanity. Every time I read a post that says “I pity you TLM” I laugh. You people are in dire need of lots and lots of Therapy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think that mutations selected for, through natural selection, can be attributed to chance either. An advanatgeous mutation itself may be a chance event, but perpetuation of it is directed by the forces of natural selection.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
pi·rate /ˈpaɪrÉ™t/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[pahy-ruht] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -rat·ed, -rat·ing.
–noun 1. a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea.
.
Good… I’m going to go to my local beach and steal an old woman’s purse… then pistol whip her and say it was in the name of the FSM. (Note: No you dolts, I’m not actually going to go do this… but according to the FSM and his flimsy moral standards it’s certainly within the realm of you people and your flimsy religion)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Post away TLM, as you will be completely ignored on this particualr thread!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It responded to me… I’d be damned. I thought it said it wouldn’t. Guess this Wench isn’t one to tell the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does anyone besides me hear the missed-the-point-yet-again ramblings of a certain NotLaughingMan? It’s sad that he’s the only argumentative person who’s been here the past few days, considering all he does is boast about how smart he is and stupid we are….where are all the fundies?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We’ve got an IDiot pseudo-scientist on this one gill. Ignore the poor child.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not every one of my comments is “I’m smarter than you all”. Most of them are though… I figure if I say it enough times you guys will believe it. I already know you people are gullible seeing as how you believe in a giant meat sac making the world… I just think I should take advantage of your gullitabilty.
.
Hey, did you guys know that Gullible really isn’t in the dictionary?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@gill Dec 17th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
BTW gill, did you read the evidence for FSM I post on this thread?
http://www.venganza.org/2006/11/15/spaghetti-and-pasta-didnt-exist-till-the-500-900ad.htm
.
The article was in the Creative Science Quarterly
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0