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
Yes, Alchemist, if you have never been in that situation, it is a difficult decision to make. For the sake of the Iraqi people, this is something they will and should have to deal with on their own. But to call himself a martyr is the last act of a desperate numpty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes – as soon as someone claims to have god on their side you know there’s trouble afoot. When they actually believe in their own infallibility, that any decision they make is right because it is their decision. Help!
It would be nice to think that others of his ilk will take notice. I doubt it, but you have to hope!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With spaghetti and meatballs there is wholeness, with wholeness there is hope, and with hope all things are possible—ye olde Pastafarian proverb.
RAmen
MJK
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, thanks guys for the wonderful Christmas present… I got a ton of snot nosed petty comments for me to laugh at. I didn’t think I was going to get one because I thought you guys would be smarter than to roll over like a dog and respond to a comment like the one I left… but then again you guys are Pastafarians. “Little Dafodil”… wow, that’s original. You were speaking about ex-girlfriends before Alchemist… now I know why they’re all ex’s. I’m sure they must have dumped you quick when they figured out you weren’t exactly the ah… best catch in the sea (and when you e-mailed them a picture of yourself… maybe you should try real life dating like the rest of us normal people). Way to go guys, happy “Holiday”… I’m sure you’re all very proud of yourselves for being such mindless dorks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hellooo. Do you mean you actually understood the “Little Daffodil” (note spelling) comment? You date? Seriously? How do you find the time, what with your heavy social commitments and all.
I am glad that you came back to us after your holiday at your great grandparents mansion. In fact, it seems as though the first thing you did was check if we remembered you? Ego need a bit of a rub after Santa came a calling?
Enjoy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If by first you mean I wrote the comment after I took a shower, got unpacked, helped the rest of my family unpack, called my girlfriend to tell her I was back (unlike you I can actually be with her because she goes to my school), ate dinner, watched my Friday show, then came in to laugh my ass off at you guys turning into cavemen because I wasn’t here (which appears to be true)… then yeah, it was at the top of my to-do list. And thanks for being able to spell Daffodil correctly, I’m sure glad you took the time to commit the spelling of it to heart. If you’re going to give me flower names… I find it only right that I should give you one. How about “Giant Pansy”?
.
P.S. My Grandparent’s mansion was pretty nice. It was a pity though that the Pool was too cold for use, even with the heat turned all the way on. I do so love their underwater sound system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah – girlfriend at school.
How sweet.
Are you going to more honestly name yourself theterriblyboredandseriousboy?
I bet your girlfriend needs everything spelled out for her too…..”This is a joke, you may laugh” “This is me being all macho, you are supposed to swoon now” For goodness sake lets hope she doesn’t have any of her own ideas, cos that would certainly ruin your relationship – does she ask for permission before she does anything?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hope you didn’t look at your reflection in the pool – you never know what you might turn into?
.
Sorry Nikki – that one was just begging :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi funni boi, aka TLM.
Glad you came back to us, really I am! To bad about the swimming pool though, I live on a lake myself, when it’s to cold we swim in our pool. It’s indoors by the way.
I guess I’ve done better for myself then your old Grands’ eh’?
Enough about me! Lets talk about you!!! I was just thinking, that as long as you stay on this thread, and don’t pollute the other ones with your moronicness, then it is kinda fun to have you here. It gives us something to laugh at, i.e you. When we need a quick picker upper! So yeah Pansy Boi, I like the name you gave yourself too! Sort of fitting really.
Stick around, we enjoy ya! We do! And remember… if you get lonely or feel we have ignored you, we haven’t really. We just understand that you need to spend time with your girlfriend, what was her name again?
Rosie redpalms? Is she a native American? That is an odd name.
.
Your friend, P P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Captain Noodulous Silicate TBHNA Dec 17th, 2006 at 3:29 am
“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”
My apologies for being “incomprehensible.” If my post was incomprehensible then it is only because I, myself, am a little confused as to the point of the FSM, which is why I tried to examine it from a variety of possibly conflicting angles.
If there is something that is not understood specifically, ask and you shall receive to the best of my ability.
…as well…
Captain Noodulous Silicate TBHNA Dec 17th, 2006 at 4:45 am:
“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.”
Being the “quasi-intellectual x-ian” that I am, I was sincerely hoping that I wouldn’t have to explain this C.S. Lewis quote.
The point is that if everything that exists is the direct result of only natural laws, then teleological and reasoning processes are also the result of natural laws. Teleology would be a subset within the set of natural laws and would therefore adopt its rules from natural laws. However, if this is truly the case, then it follows that natural laws which are not purposeful can create purposeful processes and thus discover and explain themselves, since it seems that the ability to discover and explain natural laws is the effect of teleology and reasoning. C.S. Lewis did not believe this to be a rational account and neither do I. Seriously now, can someone scientifically prove that purpose arises from accident? It seems to be almost self-defeating.
This differs from forensics where an intelligence is examining the “shape taken when you upset a milk jug” to determine whatever he can from it, as opposed to the accidental spill itself being able to determine its origins. Can accidents themselves determine their own origins? This is one of the valid questions that C.S. Lewis was attempting to ask.
Furthermore, if all you are going on is the accidental shape of the “accidentally” spilled milk, can you truly find motive behind why the milk was “accidentally” spilled in the first place or even determine if the jug was indeed accidentally spilled as opposed to purposefully spilled? In other words, can you truly determine the results as non-purposeful by merely judging the end shape of the spilled milk? Relating this to our reality, if all you are going on is the accidental natural laws of the “accidentally” created universe, can you as the “accidentally formed shape of spilled milk” truly find motive or lack of motive behind why the universe and the concept and ability to be purposeful “accidentally” began to exist?
BTW: what do you make of the first C.S. Lewis quote?
P.S. name calling — ie: bell-end — gets us nowhere and I see it as quite immature, especially when you are not understanding someones argument or even attempting to address a legitimate concern (ie: purpose arising accidentally) proposed within that person’s quote.
I hope that I have been able to comprehensively explain myself.
Thank you all for your concerned criticisms, and yes, it is true that I do appreciate the time and art that has been put into the FSM as Art.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Furthermore, one of my main points is contained within my last para:
“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.”
If the concept of truth is only that which has been created by accidental natural laws and natural selection why does it matter for any purpose other than reproductive success and survival? Surely the concept of truth can’t be TRUE, since it itself is an accidental shape of “spilled milk” (in keeping with the allegory). The reason I don’t see the concept of truth as the result of natural laws is because that would seem to be self-defeating. The concept of Truth as played out by elecro-chemical interactions within our brains would then be subjective to whichever natural laws (random mutations and natural selection for the “purpose” of survival and reproductive success) created it, and would thus loose its definition as being the mark of objective reality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Peter. I see they didn’t keep Saddam hanging on too long?
.
OK CJYMan – I’ll have a go and then I’m off to the pub.
First things first. Please put some gaps in your posts. I know I keep going on about it but I see long posts and think “can I be bothered?” The answer is usually no.
.
Similarly, try to distinguish your words from those of others.
Do you know, this is starting to sound depressingly like my advice to Dr Michael Martin PhD (with bar) ThM – for the same reasons too.
.
Seriously, what the hell are you going on about? You’re either accusing us of the fallacy of appeal to ignorance or you are using it yourself to prove your point. I can’t for the life of me work out which?
.
Catch you in a couple of hours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@CJYman Dec 30th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
The fact that you’re a little confused comes over very well…
You don’t really understand CoFSM yet and so haven’t reconciled the apparent inconsistencies.
However part of the conceit is that people don’t tend to explain all that is going on in the site on the site.
I will tell you that many of the people posting on the site actually believe the FSM account of creation is more plausible that the Judao-Christian creation story and/or Intelligent Design.
That part is serious.
However you should also note that those people also think those ideas are bunch of poorly thought-out silly superstitious nonsense.
On the point about C.S.Lewis, you and he have clearly not yet understood the theory of evolution.
The point is that self aware beings that ‘make sense’ out of their environment are an inevitable development of that process.
I would really love you to read Dawkins new book – the God Delusion. It has its faults but he is excellent on this point because it is is specialty.
On the bell-end point, this is the Internet you know. A bit of colourful language is permitted you know.
My point is that Lewis is at best a decent writer of childrens fiction and way way out of his intellectual depth when it comes to creation. He can turn a decent phrase but the academic merit of what he says is minimal and in this case negative.
That makes him a fool who really shouldn’t pipe up on subjects he doesn’t understand.
So he’s the sort of person who says something they think is clever and the group turns round to look at thinking “where do we even start to explain to this person how he has completely missed the point”.
It isn’t worth picking Lewis apart because he isn’t worth the job. So I wrote something dismissive.
You were incautious enough to bring him to the piece.
PS: Just in case you’re thinking it, there is no way that Enstein meant “the fact that any part of the universe is comprehensible shows that there is a creator being”.
I don’t understand why you included it, it doesn’t seem relevant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi CJYman,
It appears that you weren’t breast fed as an infant, hence your fixation with “milk”.
.
I read some of your blog, not impressed, I must say.
It is quite apparent that you doubt your own beliefs. It’s OK though, the FSM is here and will remain, if you should ever want to face the truth.
Peace, Love,
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“the ability to discover and explain natural laws is the effect of teleology and reasoning”
You seem to be saying “I think and reason, therefore I have a purpose in the Universe†and that if we have a purpose, then someone else would have had to create that purpose.
Unfortunately, you seem to miss the point. We believe in Unintelligent Design, that our Creator was drunk and therefore there was no “purpose†behind his actions. Look at the world around you, does it really seem rational and well planned out? The world seems highly irrational to me.
I truly hate to break it to you, there is no purpose to life and humans clearly aren’t the only species on this planet capable of rational thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alchemist Dec 30th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Hi Peter. I see they didn’t keep Saddam hanging on too long?
.
Hi Alchemist, seems he went out swinging, no? heh heh
Have fun at the pub!
Maybe you can have a drink that includes… milk.
I’m starting to think that milk is almost, but not quite as good as me miracle water!
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is something that may be interesting …
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1913
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, the Demski web blog…….hahaha
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
he discredits himself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen, Knez, RAmen. Your analysis of CJYman’s comments is mine as well. To assign purpose in life to an external ethereal being is irrational and nonsensical. Certainly we have moved past crediting invisible beings that go bump in the night for things that we don’t completely understand. And, Demski is a moron.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m currently mulling over if I want to spend $29.95 of my hard erned cash on one of these.
http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=536
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aaaack! Beastly, DO NOT give them your hard-earned money! Yes, it would be entertaining, but DON’T give in to temptation! Say three Hail Marinaras and call me in the morning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Today there is a strong correlation between religious conviction and high fertility… Does this mean that the future belongs to those who believe they are (or who are in fact) commanded by a higher power to procreate?… Evolution itself ensures that the religious mindset will persist. It’s been doing so for millenniaâ€
Unfortunately, this is a false cause and effect linkage. People who live a poorer rural lifestyle put more value on children, as they are economically beneficial. Those in the upper classes tend to educate their children and their offspring are generally an economic liability. The uneducated tend to be more religious. The trend towards secularism we’ve experienced in the last few hundred years is a result of capitalism and the industrial revolution.
This shows that man himself has actually started to influence his own evolution through technology and adaptation, something that has been going on since the discovery of fire. Evolution will now be guided more by technology and social structure then by natural selection through purely biological functions.
The other false analogy made in these statements and that children born to parents who are religious will themselves be religious. While in general this may be true, if that were always the case, secularism never would have arisen in the first place. In addition, keep in mind those in the upper classes are much more likely to influence those in the lower classes, than the other way around. MTV and Hollywood will continue to corrupt the morals of America’s youth. Flimsy morals for the Win!!!!!!
I believe the real reason for the recent upswing in the religious right is more based on the widening of the wage gap in the US than anything else. I think if you look at the longer term graph in such things, you’ll see an entirely different result.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, I think you’re right. I’ll just have to nick one then. Aren’t flimsy moral standard cool!
.
Hail Marinaras
Hail Marinaras
Hail Marinaras
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Beastly Rich, Sweet! The game of brains…
I think you would be better off though, if you spent those hard earned bucks, on some of my… Jesus Christ Almighty… Mighty Miracle water…
http://www.peterpopoff.org/
.
Or even one of my divine transfer kits…
Then you could afford all the games in the whole wide world!
That’s one of the things my Miracle stuff… er’ water… can do for you…
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Beastlt Rich
“I’m currently mulling over if I want to spend $29.95 of my hard erned cash on one of these.”
http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=536
Evangelistic, educational, entertaining.
At last, a board game that reveals the insanity of perhaps the greatest hoax of our times — the unscientific “theory of evolution.”
“Intelligent Design vs Evolution” is unique in that the playing pieces are small rubber brains and each team plays for “brain” cards. Each player uses his or her brains to get more brains, and the team with the most brains wins. It has been designed to make people think . . . and that’s exactly what it does.
.
hahahahaha……these people are better than satire than any of us will ever be.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE:CJYman Dec 30th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
It’s a pity that Dembski and O’Leary couldn’t apply any intelligent design to their hair.
I won’t even bother with the rather obvious Dumbski gag because I assume its been done a squillion times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“It’s a pity that Dembski and O’Leary couldn’t apply any intelligent design to their hair.”
.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it’s the “small rubber brains” bit that made me laugh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter – “Hi Alchemist, seems he went out swinging, no? heh heh”
hahaha – do you think he was into dogging too?
.
Milk eh? How about
“Mother Mary’s Miracle Milk – It’s lactatingly lovely!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ CJYman Dec 30th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
“Here is something that may be interesting …”
.
EEEK! Saw the ‘photo’s and ran!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you didn’t miss much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That bad Beastly? I’ll have another go when the beer goggles protect me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
See, it’s times like this. When there is nobody posting, that we need the likes of the pansy boi, to get us through!
I can only assume he’s on a hot date with rosie five fingers, or whatever he calls his “girlfriend”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is pretty sad when all we have to fight with are 17 year old boys. Maybe we’ve won!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Re-Oared Marc
In my heart, I’d to think we’ve won. But in my head, I think the fight has just begun.
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m actually starting to like Giant Pansy. Although i think it’s kinda sad when someone actually brags about the material goods of their grandparents. It’s bad enough when people brag about how rich their parents are, but its really sad when people brag about how rich their parents parents are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.â€
–C. S. Lewis
Why would there need to be meaning to determine that there is none? (and you know what I mean, even if that doesn’t quite make sense) Nothing is required to acknowledge the lack of meaning, as the lack of meaning being acknowledged is only a determination of consciousness without meaning. SO in a sense perhaps we do not truly acknowledge that the universe has meaning because we cannot, because it does not have meaning. So um… we don’t exist?
“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.â€
–C. S. Lewis
Um… because these random products make more sense than the other ones? (at least as far as we can tell through our limited ability to evaluate the universe based on the tangible evidence we can gather from our powers of ovbservation and comprehension)
Just to give my two cents, or rather oversimplification of my two cents that would take a longer familiar argument to present. I do applaud the poetic aspect of the first quote however.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@TheLaughingMan.
Hi TheLaughingMan, you can see by my new name. That I’m Kinder and Gentler now.
Heck! I even called you TheLaughingMan, instead of pansy boi! See thats proof that I have changed my evil ways. Would you please, notice I even said please.
Come back and play, er’ I mean talk with me?
Thank you,
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok I went over what I said above with a friend and decided to rephrase it in case what I did say went over the wrong way.
What I’m trying to say is that meaning is not like light, as his ideas seem to imply. Depending on what you mean by “meaning”, it either does not exist, and we do not need it to see this, OR, there is no meaning to the universe, but we do not even acknowledge it truly, because we WOULD need meaning to do so.
Basically the fact that we need meaning to find meaning or the lack thereof is wrong, because meaning and light are different.
I understand that this is all hard to understand, because we can’t truly understand it, because there is no true meaning in the universe beyond what we make of it, which is meaningless, so true understanding has no meaning.
And once again although I personally find their subsequent arguments fallacious, I do enjoy the manner in which the two ideas are presented.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m sorry, between “meaning and light are different.” and “truen understanding whas no meaning” there was supposed to be an indication of an intentionally superficially nonsensical argument. Got deleted, oh well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, you do put a lot of meaning in your posts!
I believe that Truth has meaning. Meaning that we should all look for Truth, that way, we can all have a meaning.
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But then what is the purpose of meaning? Or the meaning of purpose. Either one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
C.S. Lewis your musings include numerous quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hello my noodles er i mean my mate is a faget his loves gay his name is jack lofts
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
mark of noodle town Jan 9th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
hello my noodles er i mean my mate is a faget his loves gay his name is jack lofts
.
Well hello to you too! mark of noodle town, seems you have already been touched.
So I won’t say that.
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi everybody, my friend Jesus and I have been arguing about what to do with the things repeated on this website, for instance, who is Hitler?? Upon scrolling through this website, his name stood out the most. Faithfull worshipers, in America, you are supposed to have the freedom of religion, so why do you argue amongst yourselves?
Yargh and RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Adolf Hitler
You better hope my army of drunk strippers does not find you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm.
I dont appear to be able to read these posts. the text is like.. Stacking.
Anyone with techno knowledge able to help out here?
Im running IE on Windows 98, if you need to know.
(shut up)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shinysheep, I was having trouble with IE as well here. Download Firefox.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0