I’ve stumbled across your site and I have decided to leave my opinions of it out of this email. I do, however, have a few questions.
In the letter sent by you to the Kansas School Board you state:
“It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Pastafarianism fall under the term “Intelligent Design” and is not a third theory? I could also be mistaken in the fact that I thought the idea of teaching “Intelligent Design” was to include the existence of one or multiple creators as a theory, which would include Pastafarianism. Please correct me if this is not the case.
If I am correct in that Pastafarianism is part of “Intelligent Design” and not it’s own theory I still don’t see it being mentioned in schools. The reason being is it’s size and knowledge of it. I’m sure teachers will briefly discuss different sub-theories of “Intelligent Design”, but will stick with the most common such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and maybe a few other well know sub-theories. It would be almost impossible to include every sub-theory out there and I’m afraid yours may be left out. If in time your sub-theory grows in popularity, maybe, but not yet.
If I’m wrong in that Pastafarianism is part of “Intelligent Design” and not it’s own theory then please let me know in full detail of where I have made my mistake.
Sincerely,
Clayton
*update*
I sometimes reply to these types of emails. I sent Clayton this response, which I thought was very polite:
“Hey, FSM is more popular than you think. We have more support than the other Intelligent Design theory (but less money). I posted your message up on the site (it will publish oct 1, in the criticism section. I invite you to read the responses, and feel free to respond to those, etc. Later,
-bobby”
Clayton responded with this:
Actually the email I sent you, if you mind taking a look, has a copyright notice at the bottom. Posting it on your website would be in clear violation of copyright law. I don’t wish to take legal action, but I will protect my rights.
P.S. You also did not answer my question which leads me to believe I am right in my assumptions.
Sincerely,
Clayton
I was shocked. To be fair, Clayton’s email did arrive with this footer:
Copyright 2007 © Clayton XXXXXXX. All rights Reserved.
(I edited out his last name.)
My reply:
“Hey tard, sending an email – like a letter – creates an implied license for certain uses. I am well within my rights to share the email YOU SENT ME with whoever I like. If I was a dick, I could have posted your full name and email address, but I didn’t. If you’d like to take legal action, be my guest.
Sincerely,
Bobby Henderson
Copyright FOREVER! © Bobby Henderson, All rights Reserved, especially ones I made up.”
first post?
yeah i got first post.
nice work with going around his copyright bobby, that’s why you’re the almighty prophet and we are but followers.
Clayton
“If I’m wrong in that Pastafarianism is part of “Intelligent Design” and not it’s own theory then please let me know in full detail of where I have made my mistake.”
.
Our creator, the FSM was drunk or hungover when he created the first Mountain, Midgit and Tree. I believe this tends to lean the FSM creation theory more in the direction of *Unintelligent design*…or even *fluke design*
Still a *design* theory none the less! Just how is *inteligent* design defined anyway? Is there an IQ requirement proposed for each posited designer? If so how will each one be tested?
So many questions…
“I’m sure teachers will briefly discuss different sub-theories of “Intelligent Design”, but will stick with the most common such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and maybe a few other well know sub-theories.”
.
Each with their own specific pseudo scientific evidence to suit? Curiouser and curiouser…
Bronze!
Awww…sorry ۞
Didn’t know you were coming.
It’s ages since I got a medal.
.
I think unintelligent design (UD) is a distinct theory from Intelligent Design (ID).
.
Unintelligent design is a far better objective explanation of the world. ID only gets coverage because of its association with the strong Christian lobby. ID has no scientific merit.
.
However UD stands on its own to fully explain all observations and also has a graph.
.
RAmen.
Not only UD has a graph, its also about pirates, and how can anything about pirates not be true?
and by the way, are the creation stories of Jews, Christians and Muslims not entirely the same? i happen to recall something like that.
Oh my FSM! I laughed my ass off at the copyright thing - what an idiot!
the others have already pointed out that ours is UNintelligent design, and we have many other proofs besides the graph.
I love the idea of an IQ test! God vs Allah and then Buddha vs Xena - we could do a TV show!
Which one shall we do?
Who wants to be a millionaire?
Jeopardy?
Mastermind? (And your chosen specialised subject is….smiting!)
@Bobby! Maybe you should tell him to write to Normal Bob Smith next! I don’t think his response would be so polite!
B☠☠ty
“I love the idea of an IQ test! God vs Allah and then Buddha vs Xena - we could do a TV show!
Which one shall we do? Who wants to be a millionaire? Jeopardy? Mastermind?”
.
Hahahaha…excellent idea B☠☠ty :) Sounds like the fairest way!
.
“And your chosen specialised subject is….smiting!”
Which of their majic powers shall we allow each of them to use? How will we know they are, in fact, in attendence? I fear this could take some time…say a couple of hundred years…to organise :p
.
@Bobby Henderson
“Copyright FOREVER! © Bobby Henderson, All rights Reserved, especially ones I made up.”
.
Fits wholy within the frames of reference for Prophetry
RAmen
@just some follower of the FSM
.
The evidence for the existence of pirates is absolute and compelling.
There is no contemporary evidence at all for the existence of jesus.
Another point for Pastafarianism.
Graphs. Characters actually existed. Has internal consistency.
This whole competitive religion idea is a slam dunk for Pastafarianism.
.
I want to see the Christian God on Mastermind. His specialist subject should be “Human Suffering And Why A Supposedly All Powerful and Loving God Lets It Happen to Innocents”.
.
Allah can do “Sex Discrimination In A Civilised Society”.
I think this email from Clayton may be a turning point for Pastafarianism.
Most of the messages just ridicule our beliefs. Clayton has at least taken us seriously.
His points are in part valid. ID and UD are closely related though competing ideas.
They certainly have equal validity as science, which I believe was one of the two objectives that Bobby really set out to achieve.
.
1. ID and UD have equal validity as science.
2. This is “not very much”.
.
@ Clayton
Admiral Bobby is right, you are indeed a tard. In my school we were taught about cargo cult. Originating in poor island nations they believe that if they build an airport, planes will come and bring them free food. If they build a bank, it will fill with money. If at a CATHOLIC school we can be taught these beliefs, why not FSMism. The difference is, we were taught Cargo Cult in RELIGION, not SCIENCE.
@ Wench Nikkiee
nice spelling! Majic in fact. anyway, i think xians and their god couldn’t cope with ‘are you smarter than a 5th grader’, millionaire would be a far stretch.
@ Admiral Bobby
Lovely replies. Any way of turning up the spam filter on the livechat though? it’s unbearable. You’ll also be glad to know i got my whole school in on international talk like a pirate day. especially funny as the yr 10’s had their oral reports due! (they were forced)
ID does not have any theory of pirates/global warming.
Also, if “God” created the world, and he is the perfect being, then the world should be perfect? But it isn’t.
However, we believe that the FSM was drunk when he created the world. Hence such things as disco music, Jar Jar Binks, and the decline of passenger pigeons due to the popular McPidgin Sandwich sold at McDonald’s.
The main difference of UD is that it has a lot more evidence to back it up!
To paraphrase our detractors:
The evidence against ID and in favour of UD is overwhelming.
“Clayton has at least taken us seriously.
His points are in part valid.”
Well, at least someone actually read what I sent instead of concentrating on their own agenda. As far “Unintelligent Design” goes, it already exists. Does the “theory of evolution” not fall under “Unintelligent Design”? I don’t see any other options. Either we exist because we were designed by an intelligent entity (ID) or it was an accident (UD). I think both “Pastafarianism” and the “Theory of Evolution” both fall under “UD” and therefore we need only a small amendment to our teachings. Despite how I’ve been treated by Bobby Henderson I will remain professional about this whole thing.
Alas, I am afraid this message will also not be taken seriously and will be laughed at by countless mindless individuals that troll this site.
I take at face value that you are the original Clayton.
[Bobby can you cross check the e-mail addresses to confirm that we’ve got the right Clayton?].
.
There’s a huge difference between a theory with no intelligence (e.g. Evolution) and a theory flawed intelligence (e.g. Pastafarianism).
.
I’m suprised you made that mistake. You’ve seen the similarities between ID and UD, something most xians can’t manage.
ID states that the being which designed is intelligent, not the design itself. If you have 3rd party documentation which states otherwise I’d love to see it.
As far as verifying that I am who I am he will have to base it on my IP address matched against the IP address in the header of the email I sent him.
@Clayton
“Does the “theory of evolution” not fall under “Unintelligent Design”?”
.
How so? I wouldn’t call natural selection an unintelligent (in the big scheme of things as opposed to being directed by an intelligence) process? Natural selection, and by extension evolution results in the selection of those organisms best to survive survive, and therefore reproduce, in their specific enviroment. So what’s unintelligent about natural selection and evolution?
Oh and Clayton, I’ve had a bit of experience discussing with the IDists, as have many others at this site, and so am fairly familiar with the semantic gymnastics :)