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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bronze!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Awww…sorry ۞
Didn’t know you were coming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Bobby! Maybe you should tell him to write to Normal Bob Smith next! I don’t think his response would be so polite!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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”.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 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)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To paraphrase our detractors:
The evidence against ID and in favour of UD is overwhelming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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 :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What an asshat! I’m not exactly sure what an asshat is, but it’s my new favorite word. Also, check this out:
.
http://www.jeffcohenstudio.com/bagoftoast/bagoftoast75.jpg
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton (Your post wasn’t up when I posted :(
“ID states that the being which designed is intelligent, not the design itself.”
.
On what basis/evidence is this *designer* presumed to be intelligent?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SaucyWench Sep 29th, 2007 at 5:12 am
“Also, check this out:”
.
http://www.jeffcohenstudio.com/bagoftoast/bagoftoast75.jpg
.
Hahahahaha….love it Saucy :)
Bookmarked!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton, i am preasantly surprised you came back to the site, if not a little shocked. Clayton, i will put this to you very simply, evolution is not UD. Unintelligence would require a certain amount of IQ, say a minimum of 1, being considered dumb, or unintelligent as the definition goes. The thing about evolution is, it’s natural, without intelligence at all, and not the antonym of it. I guess you could describe it as more ‘anti-inteligent’. Therefore, a flawed deity, like the fsm, is indeed different to the supposedly flawless deity God, and different to the lack of god or a designer that is evolution. Clearly 3 theories, no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
dear Clayton.
You fail to see why FSMism is neither ID or evolutionary theory.
ID is an intelligent designer that uses his intellegence to create the universe as we know it. (that is, quite fcked up)
Evolution exists of the 2 hottest squirrels dating each others, thus the next generation of squirels is even hotter.
FSMism is about a intellegent designer that uses utter creativity gained trough getting drunk to create a world, and then when he got sober, he fixed it up as good as he could by making fossils & stuff.
.
Now you might go thinking that this means FSM is also intelligent design, but that is wrong.
1. The design for the world was clearly NOT intelligent. (google on Paris Hilton if you want to be sure.)
2. GOD/ALLAH/THE ALMIGHTY MILK CAN did NOT change the world themselves later on. FSM did. Anyone who ever played an online game will know why this makes FSM superior. He provides updates!!! First we had only mountains, midgets and tree´s. now we have dinosaur bones and changed science results.
3. FSMism has evidence to back it up. This evidence is in the form of a graph. now lets take a look at the bible, HEY, there´s no graph!!!. And there´s more, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO GRAPH IN THE QURAN.
4. Intellegent people who are full of themselves (I.E. god) often forget to make fun. this is why there is (almost) no mention of pirates in the bible. BUT!!! the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster (under copyright!) states a lost of tales about pirates.
.
I hope your mind is able to comprehend. And don´t forget, something as magnificent as pirates cannot be the result of pure randomness, thus evolution is NOT true.
.
(sry for being addicted to CAPS sometimes, i just love it, its how his noodliness made me, he was drunk while doing that)
.
.
RAmen
Yarr
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen Angryy :)
.
@Clayton
Betime in my part of the world. I do hope you plan to stick around a for a bit. :)
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m normally a supporter of Evolution, but I have a problem.
After millions of generations, how come Squirrels aren’t amazingly hot?
.
Unless of course Keira Knightly and Beyonce are highly evolved Squirrels, in which case I see your point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just had to tell people this.
I was watching a show earlier, of these guys who go crab fishing. One of them slipped off the boat, and with odds of apparantly 1000 to 1, he was saved. When interviewed later, he thanked god he was saved. Now if god does have this masterplan, why didn’t he tell god he was a fucknozzle for making him fall off the boat?
Same thing i heard i a ricky gervais skit. Before Hurricane Katrina, the news reporters were interviewing this redneck that refused to evacuate. He said “I’m staying here because i know god will pretect us”. Who does he think sent the hurricane in the first place? Peace and mercy god my arse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because once squirrels reached a level of utter hotness, they decided to only date ugly squirrels. They had foreseen that if they were too hot, they would distract all cardrivers and there would be way more trafic accidents.
additionally to being hot, squirrels are also smart!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve clearly failed to convey what I feel ID and UD mean.
ID:
A design by an intelligent entity.
UD:
A design not of an intelligent entity.
In both contexts ‘intelligent’ is meant as sentient, or alive in some way. IQ plays little or no role. In my previous post I asked for 3rd party documentation that stated otherwise and I ask that again of you hoping that I have finally managed to convey what it is that I mean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
dear Clayton, this discussion started between You and MR henderson. Thus to me it seems but normal that any other source of information (the commodore for example) is a 3rd party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“dear Clayton, this discussion started between You and MR henderson. Thus to me it seems but normal that any other source of information (the commodore for example) is a 3rd party.”
I suppose you have caught me on a technicality. Although, I don’t see this page as a source of documentation. How about a reputable 3rd party?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton, you’ve conveyed what you mean, you’re still wrong though.
Pastafarianism claims there was an Unintelligent designer. Christianits, and all other religions claim there was an intelligent designer. Evolution conveys that there was no designer at all. Count them up, 3 theories.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My point is that however unintelligent the FSM may be, he is still an intelligent being.
Again, intelligent meaning sentient or alive. Therefore Pastafarianism must be ID.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton,
I just realised what you were saying and came back to comment.
For unintelligent design, we’re talking about a level of intelligence but that level is low.
Design always implies a level of intent and for there to be intent there must be intelligence(even if low).
Evolution is a process without design or intelligence.
.
The divide between ID & UD is about the level of intelligence not its presence.
ID is a crypto-christian deceit deviously designed to try and propogate sectarian ideas dressed up as science in schools. Nothing more or less.
.
Therefore a variant of ID that explains the faults in the world by suggesting that the design agent (intelligence) is limited or careless or both (or hungover) offends the christians because if UD were true, their notion of God is not a candidate for that agent because they put their God forward as perfect.
.
UD has more observable evidence and so is the stronger scientific theory (though not very strong).
That blows apart the contrivance of the christians to portray in science lessons that there is an intelligent designer and then point out from the pulpit that it is their God.
.
The UD creator can’t be the christian god so the better theory actually excludes their beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton, One last quick comment from me
“I’ve clearly failed to convey what I feel ID and UD mean.”
.
Let me get this straight:
What *you feel* ID and UD to mean???
Goodnight all :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks ۞
I see Claytons idea a bit clearer now too. I was having a little trouble with the interchangability of the terms intelligent and alive/sentient. Thinking amoebas, bacteria ect. ect. ect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Pastafarianism fall under the term “Intelligent Design” and is not a third theory?”
Yes, it is ID, but you’re being silly and don’t understand that ID has many branches.
If ID is taught in schools, I assure you that the Catholic/Christian Creation would be taught. Do you think that Catholicism is no different than Pastafarianism? If so, you’re dead wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have offered yet another parody of ID on my blog. Any suggestions on ways to incorporate Pastafarianism are welcome.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/group-of-intellectuals-negating-godless.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
….Paris Hilton :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow ۞. An actual ‘intelligent’ response. heh
Despite the known acronyms of ID and UD and the confusion of their meaning I think we are still dealing with 2 main theories. Let’s forget ID and UD for a minute. We either:
1) evolved
2) we were created by a sentient entity
I understand the purpose of Pastafarianism is to prevent religious practices and teachings in school. Although I’m sure many here would argue that to perpetuate it’s ideals. I agree with this to an extent. Religious practices should not be taught in schools, but we should include both of the theories I listed above. Students should be informed of different religions of the world and their (very)basic belief systems with just as much time and importance in the teaching of the theory of evolution. This includes Pastafarianism if it continues to gain popularity.
If there is a third theory that does not fall under what I have listed or if you disagree with what I have said please let me know in full detail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton, there are 2 other theories.
One is oblivionism, a belief where nothing actually exists at all. With nothing designed, there is no designer, nothing.
The other is very obscure. There is science backing the theory that subatomic masses, or even perhaps atoms can dissolve in and out of existence, where to nobody knows, but it is quantum physics. The thing is, is it not possible that as a random act, everything just sort of … was. Both of these theories have no designer, or evolution.
And i am certainly not one to argue against religion being taught in schools. I mean, i aspire to teach religion and biology in senior high school. The difference is, i would NEVER mix the two up, as ID has done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bobby in the future when some wise ass attempts to lay “the copyright” line on you another avenue of approach is claiming fair use. I hate the see the spreading of the word slowed down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton – the evolution/sentient entity argument will always end up at “who made God” or “What happened before the big bang”
.
See Occam’s Razor;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fucking awesome, this is why Bobby is one of my heroes!!! Although I do think u should have sent him a very elaborate response on what the difference between ID and FSM are, just so we can prove how established and complicated we are. But ur way is still awesome, if he wants a response he should come and read the responses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Clayton.
This is a parody of ID. It’s not a real thoery, and it was suggested mostly to point out the flaws of Intelligent Design.
The purpose of the movement is not really to have FSM-ism taught in schools, but to keep any and all forms of ID out of the Science classroom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Amendment: I read your last post in further detail just after I posted mine.
I agree, Intelligent Desing shuld be taught about in schools, but it shouldn’t be taught as Science. According to the Scientific theory, Evolution is the way life came about. Until evidnece of an intelligent designer is produced, this explanation is the only scientific one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In addition to what Zankou said. An intelligent designer doesn’t have to be the christian god, that’s what many people forget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Clayton
You’re argument seems a bit self defeating to me (I’m surprised nobody else mentioned it, this might mean I’m wrong, oh well…). You originally said,
.
“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.”
.
Isn’t the whole movement to incorporate ID in the science classroom (yich!) based on the belief that we should “teach the controversy” (straight from the discovery institute) and “teaching all sides of the issue” (don’t know who the last one is from)? Yet you are claiming that we would only teach a small group of creation “theories” (most of which are similar to the christian view). Your reason is that they are the most popular, but if we were to teach the most popular idea, it would certainly be evolution. I really don’t appreciate your arbitrary standards, so I propose this. We could hold a vote (among science teachers, as this is going to directly affect them) to see which creation theory should be taught and give them a list of all of the creation “theories” that we know of. I’ll bet you $.48 that FSMism beats the snot out of christian creationism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
$.48?
Fourty-eight cents?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Zankou is right. The most important point is that ID isn’t science and shouldn’t be presented as though it is.
Yes there are two main branches:
1. Some sentient being created the life on earth from non-living matter.
2. It evolved.
.
Because its obvious that #2 is wrong, we’re only debating the nature and intents of the sentient being.
Consequently although you’re right that UD is a variant of ID it comes to the devastating (for xians) and unassailable conclusion that the xians are far more likely to be wrong than right.
They are clutching at straws to follow their beliefs established in a time before scientific method was matured to point out all the flapping holes in their ideas.
We can forgive people in the past for believing xianity, but not today. This is the 21st century.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Zankou
I only bet in $.16 increments and I’m too cheap to bet more than two quarters… forty-eight cents is quite gutsy for me. Is “gutsy” a word?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, “gutsy” is indeed a word.
Although, I would classify it specifically as a colloquialism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
better question: is 48 cents a bet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
………by the way, Hi Zankou *waves, what you doin’ here?
and GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton, I think that we are in agreement. There are surprising similarities between ID and UD. For instance they are both rather goofy and neither one has much scientific evidence to back it up. We also seem to agree that ID is if not the second best, then one of the top creation theories. In science class I was taught that the world is round. The second best theory would of course be the one that was prevalent in the middle ages, the theory that the world is flat. I was not taught the second best theory in science class. I was taught it in history class. The fact that it is the second best theory does not necessarily mean it is scientifically worth the air it takes to voice it. We do disagree on one point. You said earlier that you do not think religious practices should be taught in schools. My high school had a few religion classes, but no one was forced to take them and I hear that they were informative classes. I do not think that ID should be taught in a science classroom any more that I think the flat earth theory should be taught. It is certainly a good candidate for religion classes, but I wonder how anyone could look at the heaping mound of evidence for evolution and say that ID is equally viable from a scientific standpoint. I short, the only reason I see to teach ID or UD in a science classroom is to offer an alternative theory and that is not a good enough reason. If we did that we might as well teach people that the earth is flat and a ball of flying pasta created it. So by all means, teach ID in schools but keep it out of science class.
RAmen
.
(If I totally missed the point forgive me, but it was fun to write!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I largely agree you Ephriam A. Jostle.
For example, the second best theory is that George W. Bush isn’t a jerk.
However you make a basic mistake there of placing the idea that the earth is flat on the same level as the idea it was created by the FSM. So yes you totally missed the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton, your reasoning embodies the false dilemma fallacy – your two choices (’evolution’ versus ‘ID’) are not mutually exclusive.
There is a third set of creation theories: all those which neither claim that we evolved, nor claim that we were created by any sort of entity (intelligent, stupid, drunk, endowed with Noodly Appendages, or otherwise).
As an example of such a third-way theory, consider the theory that we originally came into existence either for no reason whatsoever, or for a reason R other than creation by a sentient entity, and since that time we have not evolved.
There are an infinity of allowable values of the unbound variable R above, so there are an infinity of theories of the above form. For example take the value for R “random chance”, or “logical necessity” (the latter being perhaps some form of the Anthropic Principle).
Can you prove that not a single member of this infinite set can possibly be true?
In philosophical contexts, one usually tries to find the most charitable interpretation of another’s discourse. Accordingly, I think the distinction you were *trying* to draw was:
“Either we were created by a sentient entity, or we were not”.
This is of the form “P v ~P”, so it is now a proper dilemma, but it still has a problem: it relies on the law of the excluded middle, which is shaky ground.
Aaarrrr!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ahhhhh – I love the “do take me seriously please, I have spent ages thinking up this valid argument” Fundies
NO! Why should I? – you are deluded – The FSM is the one true way – and if I have offended or upset you – tough – I am a pirate wench, and I don’t give a f**k.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bite me, git.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Zankou Sep 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm: “Bite me, git.”
.
If it’s B☠☠ty you’re trying to insult here, then be very afraid, for there shall come upon thou the wrath of the Disciples!
.
Voilà.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Clayton
.
Dear Sir,
I believe you do understand the difference between ID and “UD”, yes. However, I don’t think you understand what ID really is. ID is the belief that science and creation are one and the same, and that an all powerful God(s) is responsible. It is the belief that creation is through science, that it is some how guided by some deity. I would argue that this is not necessarily the case with Pastafarianism.
.
The almighty FSM created the world, flat out. He didn’t design the world. The way it pertains to scientific theory and why it should be taught along side of ID is that it very clearly explains the current sate of scientific understanding and that is, that the FSM continually alters our perceptions of the world. He manipulates our senses and the very nature of science. He makes scientists believe that the world is much older than it actually is.
.
PS. The whole global warming and pirates comparison is science in itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What, not even a little one while your hubby is out on the piss?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I only read about half of the replies, but:
ID means it has an intelliegent designer.
UD means it has an UNintelligent designer.
Evolution wasn’t designed at all, it just happens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PS, Clayton, you seem smart, but you also seem like a pompous ass. Wenches, let’s get out those frying pans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If Clayton is indeed *serious* about this issue, then I’m sure he would have read this following Council of Europe resolution (or similiar proclamations as in the Dover trial transcripts) and so has no problem with distinguishing between the scientific nature of the theory of evolution and the religous faith based assertions of ID.
.
Council of Europe 17 September 2007
“The dangers of creationism in education”
9. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.
.
http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11375.htm.
.
On another note…
Is Dembski now allowing criticism on his Uncommon Descent blog??? :))
.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/world-net-daily-on-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it only fair to let Clayton find out how deep the water is here. :p
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Jean
No, I was directing that at Beardyoldgit. Hence the use of the word “git”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You copyrighted your e-mail? I would expect to be appauld by something like this but I am too busy laughing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve made my point. Some of you understand it, even if you disagree with it, and many others don’t. My messages from the first email to this last one have been an attempt to come to understand these terms and the ideas of Pastafarianism better. I feel I’ve succeeded in that. One of the main things I have reaffirmed in this venture is that the majority of people will try to redirect a conversation away from the issue and turn it toward some mistake or technicality made in my message.
btw: The whole copyright thing was me being a smartass. After all, isn’t that what Pastafarianism is all about? lol
Also, I fail to see how I am a “tard” or a “pompous ass” because of this search for understanding, but I suppose I will have to consider the source.
Finally, the current solution of teaching only “the theory of evolution” or teaching the ideas of “Intelligent Design” as they are now is broken. Creationism, Evolution, and many other theories listed here should all be included as possibilities to the existence of the universe and as such should be taught equally in our schools. I don’t see how anyone could argue with that. That should make members of all religious communities happy. And yes, I consider atheism to be a religion so that includes them as well.
P.S. I’m sure the many fools who troll this site will have a field day trying to tear this apart instead of taking it for what it is. I doubt I’ll be posting here again as this thread has gotten pretty long, but I challenge these people to spark my interest. Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Clayton
I’m pretty sure all of the Pastafarians understood your point, but rejected it because it is clearly false. Have you seen their point?
.
When it comes to the education of the kids, I think it’s a good idea to make sure that there are no mistakes or technicalities for us to turn the conversation to.
.
“btw: The whole copyright thing was me being a smartass. After all, isn’t that what Pastafarianism is all about? Lol”
-I’m quite experienced in this matter, and I must say that the whole copyright deal was a pretty pathetic attempt at being a “smartass”. Perhaps including a copyright on the original e-mail was okay, but threatening legal action is kind of stupid (the opposite of smart, for those of you who don’t know). In my professional opinion you were just being a dick, got embarrassed, and tried to cover for it.
.
“I fail to see how I am a “tard” or a “pompous ass”
I’ll show you…
“but I suppose I will have to consider the source.” Put that with you clear lack of understanding of what you’re talking about and it’s pretty apparent.
.
I can argue against theistic creation in an American (public) classroom because of the Establishment Clause. I can argue a lot if you want it put in a science classroom, because, well, look it up yourself. As to your considering atheism to be a religion, I direct you to it’s component morphemes, “a-” and “-theism”. “a-” means not and “-theism” means religion. I believe that adds up to “not religion”.
.
“Peace” here’s something we agree with, at least ‘til pillaging time comes up…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Wow ۞. An actual ‘intelligent’ response. heh”
.
That. That right there makes you sound like a pompous ass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton, anyone could make up any number of creation ‘theories’. Should they all be given equal time in a science classroom? If not why not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Clayton Sep 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
“I doubt I’ll be posting here again as this thread has gotten pretty long, but I challenge these people to spark my interest.”
.
Ah Clayton, Clayton, Clayton….can’t really swim at all huh?
Well, don’t feel too badly about it :) You’re yet another in a long, long list of visitors having come here suffering the same affliction.
.
.
@El Peatieablo Sep 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“I’ll show you…
“but I suppose I will have to consider the source.” Put that with you clear lack of understanding of what you’re talking about and it’s pretty apparent.”
.
RAmen El Peatieablo
.
OK who’s up next….??? (:))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It would be nice, if even just once, a visiting IDiot would look into the mirror through eyes unblinded by faith and dogma! *sigh*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton
Sep 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Also, I fail to see how I am a “tard” or a “pompous ass” because of this search for understanding, but I suppose I will have to consider the source.
*
You are never automatically a pompous ass for trying to search for understanding. However YOU are definitly one. Why? Simple: you clearly think you are sooo smart and many here are just to dumb to understand you. Two: you are quite smug about that. That alone is enough to dub you a pompous ass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I bet you ALL that some bored teacher will allow any loud mouthed student with an ounce of drive – excuse any mishpelled words tonight, bad migraine, and no real meds… asked the doc to take me offa narcs, and havent seen the all-mighty nuero yet to find a decent alternative, so booze it is for now! See, I got annoyed at the whole Black History year in school (in Balitmore 70% African American, pretty damn PC) so I pointed out that white history wasnt even given a fair shake considering only the Roman conquering of Europe was covered, and the Celts did it long before… long story short, I was given a full hour in history class in which I bored the hell outta everyone except my boyfriend (who helped me pass history cause the rest of it bored the hell outta me) and my history teacher, who was shocked to actually learn something himself, along with a reputable list of traceable list of references. Sooo, no matter what drivel makes it into a classroom, as long as we loudmouthed, educated eyepatched ones just tickle our kids’ minds once in a while, the fundies can’t do too much damage.
.
Especially in this day, knowledge is more infectious than the bird flu, which I hope the Noodly one will soon open a groggy eye and turn into chicken soup!
ARGH!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Zankou
BTW you were quite a hottie in that TV show “Charmed”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ RDPW
Thankyou for pointing that out. I can’t believe he came on here and had the nerve andaudacity to challenge the greatest minds in the world, and then pretend he won the argument. Due to his superior intellect no less.
@ Clayton
Learn how to look at things objectively you pompous tard asshat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Commodore, if I may….I think *pompous asshat tard* has a better melody to it :p)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if instead of a normal scientific theory, we should also talk about ID in biology class, then i have another theory to add to geography.
the world is actually banana shaped, but because of invisible pink pamela anderson monsters we think its round.
just use lots & lots of magic mushrooms and you’ll see i speak the truth, the evidence is soooo overwhelming
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@El Peatieablo Sep 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“When it comes to the education of the kids, I think it’s a good idea to make sure that there are no mistakes or technicalities for us to turn the conversation to.”
.
That certainly puts ID on the cutting room floor then!
According to IDists the designer made *kinds* of organisms. Not one IDiot I’ve asked in the past year has been able to define a *kind* for me. Another point on which they are deliberately vague, or will not answer, is when asked what are their actual implied meanings of the terms *design* and *designer*. Well come to think of it, all of the ID terminology is more than alittle deliberately vague. I wonder why that is? :))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@James Sep 29th, 2007 at 6:09 am
.
“I have offered yet another parody of ID on my blog. Any suggestions on ways to incorporate Pastafarianism are welcome.”
.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/group-of-intellectuals-negating-godless.html
.
But Chemistry James? I know…I know…Chemists are people too! At least that’s what they keep telling me anyway :p) About the name….
Mind you “intelligent molecularism” does have a nice ring to it :)
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Erm… sorry Physicists too. I’m not familiar with physics and when I see stuff about atoms, I automatically think chemistry…stupid I know…but true none the less. I will change my evil ways :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wench Nikkie, thankyou for correcting the layout of my sentene flow better. now i won’t be stuck with writing a song about this pompous asshat tard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hahahahaha…personally I think that would make good song substance :p
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You know Clayton, it took me a while to see the flaw in your argument – but it is there.
.
Your definition of “intelligent” is the important thing. You see, you do not define intelligent in the same way that the “ID” crowd do. Yours is a catch all term, which could include dogs or monkeys.
.
If this is the case, then with your definition in mind, anything sentient could be the designing agent. No omnipotent god is required by the ID “theory” at that point, if we use your definition. And if that is the case, why is any designer required at all?
.
No, I rather suspect you are trying to wide behind word definitions. Unfortunately, rational agents tend to get tetchy about these things. You cannot redefine words to suit yourself on whimsy. If your point, your definition is to stand, then I propose we rename the ID camp to IU – Intelligent Undesign.
.
FSM (Flying Scots Man)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That wouldn’t make me happy. It would lead to people being taught misleading nonsense as fact.
That is a terrible thing to use schools for. The purpose of schools is to enlighten not indoctorinate.
.
If you teach things equally, you are presenting them as having equal validity and basis in fact.
ID & creationism have no basis in fact and scant validity. They aren’t science and shouldn’t be presented in science lessons as science to impressionable minds.
.
Of course the religious groups would be happy with that – it elevates their traditions to level of fact – a fantasy they engage in without any encouragement.
.
As has been pointed out in the UK, your equal treatment of these ideas appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the wide variety of applications we have for the words belief and theory.
.
You have to look beyond those words and ask what informs someones belief, and what evidences they have to support their theory.
In religious circles the answers are usually faith, and at best a heavily edited non-contemporaneous and badly written book.
.
Religious belief is not on an equal footing with science and shouldn’t be presented as such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Zankou – you had me worried there for a minute!
Glad you weren’t offended by me! :D
@ Funky Symbol Dude – Of course I meant in the metaphorical sense!
@JB – thanks for leaping to my defense :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My problem with ID is that it doesn’t have a good argument. If it had proof, specific definitions, etc., maybe I’d be willing to consider it. But their entire argument is based on proving that evolution DIDN’T happen, and thus and intelligent design DID. But that’s the other problem, they don’t have anything to back up an intelligent designer. There’s no proof that there ISN’T a god, and thus there MUST be one. And those are both logical fallacies.
.
But I’m sure I’m just preaching to the choir. Unless Clayton comes back and reads this. Maybe he’ll realize what an idiot he’s been, and apologize for being such a pompous asshat tard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Nikkiee
“On another note…
Is Dembski now allowing criticism on his Uncommon Descent blog??? :))”
.
Hmmm….interesting. When I posted there some time ago my post sure as hell didn’t make it past the moderator. I may try again.
.
How’s things Down Under? :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton’
.
In your Email, “Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Pastafarianism fall under the term ‘Intelligent Design’ and is not a third theory.” Then, at 4:39, “I think both ‘Pastafarianism’ and the ‘Theory of Evolution’ both fall under ‘UD’.” Let us assume that you are right in both cases. Wouldn’t that mean that ID and evolution are the same? a=b, b=c, therefor a=c.
.
To be fair, you did say “correct me if I’m wrong,” which we did. So, you switched gears and said UD and evolution are the same. We corrected you there too. Then you go “I’m out of here.” (Not a direct quote.)
.
Face it, You got stomped.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
good job Gray Beard, I just love the transitive property of equality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love the fact that the people who come here to argue against the FSM are the ones who usually either point out how weak the competition is, or end up supporting our claims themselves accidentally. Makes you wonder if the ID vs Evolution debate isn’t a show of evolution itself, just stumped since all the darn smart people have protected the dumb ones from being eaten long ago. What a shame if you as me.
.
Natural Selection: It’s Only Natural
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ihatemyspace.
You talking about the false dilemma fallacy, that antimatty mentioned.
The belief that by knocking one point of view strengthens another in the fallacious belief there are only two points of view.
Rabid xians believe the dilemma is:
One of:
1. Life on Earth evolved.
or
2. The Christian God created the world and the Bible is literal truth.
.
but not both.
.
Not only is that appalling bad reasoning (to believe that one of those must be true and the other false) but what sends them in to tizzy fits is all the evidence points to 1. being true.
.
Their faith is a martyr to their own stupidity. I think that is very very funny.
In truth their faith isn’t destroyed by the evidence to support other theories but the total lack of evidence to suport their faith.
.
But as mentioned they’re even too stupid to understand why they are wrong.
.
What makes it particularly delicious is their pompositiy as they make themselves look like arses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ ۞ – And the sad thing is that the more their faith is challenged by evidence, the harder they fight for it. Because giving it up is too terrifying to them. They need the crutch of their faith to make it on this planet, rather than realizing that they have the ability to think and wonder and reason. They get further entrenched in insanity. Thank the FSM that some of us made it out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rowdy, I agree.
They are actually fighting their own stupidity in a mirror. It’s a form of shadow boxing.
They can’t support their own argument by knocking everyone elses, so every time the fail to do it, they get more angry.
If only they found some arguments of their own rather than try and pick holes in other peoples.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ ۞ – I’m so glad to have a chance to visit CoFSM! It feels like it’s been forever…Anyway, I think people do this in general. I’ve spent a lot of time around people who work really hard at making everyone around them seem worse so they can feel better about themselves. Attempting to do damage to other people will not make you right! Or better! Telling people they are wrong and stupid will not make them want to be like you. The “you” here being the Xtians, BTW! :))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You go Bobby, poor Clayton probably cried himself to sleep when he found out that you completely owned him legally. But still, you should have come up with some long and complicated response about why you didn’t include Pastafarianism under “Intelligent Design”, something like the fact that the FSM was a wee bit drunk when he made the Earth(Don’t quote me on that I haven’t read the Gospel in ages).
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You also did not answer my question which leads me to believe I am right in my assumptions.”
.
Don’t you think that’s a being bit fallacious?
.
Copyright © 2007 Aristotle. All rights reserved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@All Wenches & Pirates
.
About atheism as a religion:
http://www.inthepursuitofgod.com/forum/miscellaneous-topics/6409-creation-museum-3.html#post85952
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hah. owned. nice job bobby.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was having a look at conservapedia’s article on Atheism http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism and noticed the “effectiveness of atheist debaters”. it says that fundies always win the debate. does this site not stand testimony to the fact that the fundie ALWAYS loses, and ends up being publicly humiliated?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Commodore Angryy
Nice link. Have you checked out their article on “bias”? It’s a bit short and kinda sketchy. Surprisingly, the FSM one doesn’t seem too bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
fundies make me giggle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Don’t you think that’s a being bit fallacious?”
.
I guess, if you’re Christian, fallacies are a given…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But you haven’t said you’re Christian.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think he has to, Aris! It goes without saying form the rest of his arguments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Clayton – You need to realize that Mr. henderson’s main objective is make sure that pastafarianism is taught in sceince class if ID is taught.
.
PS Clayton, just throwing a copyright symbol on something is not a copyright. You must actually apply for and receive a copyright from the US copyright office.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Booty Oct 1st, 2007 at 3:02 am
“I don’t think he has to, Aris! It goes without saying form the rest of his arguments.”
.
I’m not going to assume anything…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I, for one, would hate it if UD was taught in school. UD is fun and exciting and a good way to think when drunk. But, if made into a class, and tested on, they will kill all the good out of it, and make it boring and lame, just like Sunday School.
Clayton, I think you had noble intentions, but see, what you did was start yelling, “Dude, no dude, I’m trying to be serious now, stop laughing dude, I am trying to be serious here,” long after everyone has started laughing uncontrolably. It is a no-win situation for you….unless you learn to laugh at yourself. Hence, the pompus ass commments.
The common mistake is to assume that if evolution is wrong (and evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, but I digress into reality), than ID must be the only other option.
If evolution is proven wrong, it will be replaced by another, more sound scientific theory….which ID is not. It is like having this ugly annoying girl who really likes you, but you want to date this hot, friendly chick. If the hot chick turns you down, it does not mean you have to settle for the ugly chick. It means you search again for an even better hot, smart, and friendly chick.
ID is the ugly, annoying chick.
FSM is the ugly but funny chick you’d bang if drunk enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But niether should be taken to the Prom. Or anywhere out in public places (like schools).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You have good way of explaining it, Rob. :)
I totally agree with you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Rob – Are you saying that the CoFSM is a fat girl or moped? Fun to ride, just don’t let your friends find out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey pixel pete and aristotle (the great for various reasons) are back recently.
Hi guys. long time, no see!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, Rub El Hizb. What’s up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pompous ass tard is going right up there with one of my other favourites…..”smug assclown” :)
.
It is good to see Aristotle (previously God of Satire) and Pixel Pete (wench magnet :p) back posting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Nikkiee – CoFSM is drawing me back. :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aristotle, God of Procrastination Oct 1st, 2007 at 8:40 am
“I’m not going to assume anything…”
.
I’m assuming Clayton is a paid up member of the IDiot brigade. They use a certain type of rhetoric where they never explicitly state what they are saying or what they mean. The YECs usually just blatantly shout fire and brimstone…and far more obvious ignorance at you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aristotle, Some Sort of Something or Other Oct 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“Nikkiee – CoFSM is drawing me back. :)”
.
Yep :)) It’s never lets go of me.
I go to a few other anti ID forums and blogs, but CoFSM is always home. Like a big comfy favourite lounge chair. (:))
I think it’s because of the people the site attracts. :)))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wench Nikkiee Oct 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
“I’m assuming Clayton is a paid up member of the IDiot brigade. They use a certain type of rhetoric where they never explicitly state what they are saying or what they mean.”
.
Yes, you might be right. He never said outright that he is a Christian. It seems to me that he was avoiding it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wench Nikkiee Oct 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“Aristotle, Some Sort of Something or Other Oct 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
‘Nikkiee – CoFSM is drawing me back. :)’
.
Yep :)) It’s never lets go of me.
I go to a few other anti ID forums and blogs, but CoFSM is always home. Like a big comfy favourite lounge chair. (:))
I think it’s because of the people the site attracts. :)))”
.
The good and the bad…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Nikkiee
“It is good to see Aristotle (previously God of Satire) and Pixel Pete (wench magnet :p) back posting.”
.
Why thank you! You know I’d never leave my wenches alone for too long!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Aristotle, Some Sort of Something or Other Oct 1st, 2007 at 5:37 pm
“The good and the bad…”
.
and the ugly.. :p))
.
@Pixel Pete Oct 1st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
” You know I’d never leave my wenches alone for too long!”
.
Yes (:))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One-eyed Wonderkin said: “Are you saying that the CoFSM is a fat girl or moped? Fun to ride, just don’t let your friends find out.”
Well, maybe not THAT ugly. FSM is a great drinking buddy or babe, but not the one you marry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wenchy
“Wench Nikkiee
Sep 29th, 2007 at 6:11 am
….Paris Hilton :)”…Hello…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Thumper
Yes :)) Good to hear from you again.
.
psst. Red Dutch is still seriously looking for you….says she wants to *talk* bout a cat at a barbeque…oh and something about frying pans. Careful! }:-}
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re an early wabbit ’tis morn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Flying spagetti monster is pretty cool..
People who have a problem with it should fuck off..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why is ID or UD just mentioned alongside evolution. Surely physics and geology have just as dubious hypotheses ( not to be confused with theories) and mean we should not teach any science without ID/UD context? Come to think of it ancient history has a few problems too what with the earth only being 6,000 years old and all that. It should have some context of how FSM did all those cave paintings?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@nun other – the FSM was smashed and desided to write on the walls. The FSM has plenty of appendages some it would not have taken too long.
.
It is all a test of faith. The FSM placed false information and allows science to develop technologies liek carbon dating to shake loose the faithless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think he made a good point there.
But I think the schools should teach just our ID wearing pirat hats and etc…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What about Frisbeetarianism? The belief that, when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck up there. Not a personal belief, mind you, I’m all for beer volcanoes and stripper factories. Especially now that somewhere on this site someone cleared up the rather troubling notion that it was all female strippers. As long as my Pastafarian Heaven has a male stripper factory and an occasional switch to margarita volcanoes, all is good.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ one-eyed wonderkin
I think it should be important to have school trips so as the kids can see His noodley artwork, probaly best to go in the sixth form though so as they can get smashed too and fully appreciate it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Linguini Lass Oct 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
“As long as my Pastafarian Heaven has a male stripper factory and an occasional switch to margarita volcanoes, all is good.”
.
Well it is heaven after all, so whatever you desire. :) Saucy Wench and I have booked front row seats next to the Margarita Volcanoe…be sure to find, and join us :)
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I want a Margarita on arrival so I’ll see you there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
copy right my ASS!. don’t you have to file out specific forms for a copy right to be valid? ( i could be wrong on that) but you showed him booby, you own!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
bobby, srry
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Name
“bobby, srry”
.Freudal slips are funny!
.
Story 1: The waitress was delivering my friends soup and was going to warn him that it was really hot, but ended up saying “Be careful, you’re hot!”
.
Story 2: Another friend of mine was eating breakfast with his wife and he was going to ask her to pass the butter. He actually said “Bitch you ruined my life.”
.
Anyway, you’ll get plenty of boobies in heaven (unless you like dudes, in which case it may have been a simple typo and not a freudal slip at all).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually copyright is an intrinsic right – you don’t need to apply for it like trademark or patent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.jeffcohenstudio.com/bagoftoast/
.
You guys have just cost me about an hour of my life! I hope you’re proud of yourselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t let this moron with the copyright fetish intimidate you.
Posting an email is well within “fair use” of copyrighted material. So don’t sweat it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is also difficult to see what damages Clayton could claim.
Unless he intends to show that by letting everyone read his email people will realise what a assclown he is.
Though a reasonable defence could be that given that he did write the letter, presumably most people who have met him already know he is or are inevitably going to find out.
That is the alledged embarassing revelation is no revelation at all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
claton you are a retard ok
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Isn’t Clayton the secretly gay dad from the Moral Oral cartoon?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Beyonce is a squirrel??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
what kind of jackass makes copyright to his own emails.
imagine him going to the patents office and paying for it. jajajajaja retard
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Faryshta
.
You know, the odd thing is I actually can imagine that.
Clayton: “Hello, mr copyright guy. I have this astonishingly well-thought-out email which could revolutionise the history of the ID debate in the specific field of Pastafarianism.”
Patents guy : *Dialdialdial* *bringgg* “Hello? Looney asylum?…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
GO BOBBY! Kick some serious pseudo-intellectual ass!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I figure if we aren’t using it for moNetary purposes, leave us alone. At least Bobby told him he would post it, and all we’re doing is making fun of him, not putting it on a T-Shirt, even though I would love that T-Shirt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m changing my name from Boheme Wench to Wench Sophie, which isn’t my legal name, so don’t go looking for home schooled girls in Illinois named Sophie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Sophie
Home schooled eh. Your folks didn’t want you exposed to that great evil they teach in public school, called evolution?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hardy Har Har. No, my parents homeschool me because my gifted program sucks ass. Illinois is 49th out of 50 of best gifted education. Not all homeschooled kids are of the religious right. Would I fucking be a Pastafarian if I was? Geez! STOP PICKING ON ME! I AVE NO SOCIAL LIFE! LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Possibly in San Francisco they will start teaching interior design. I can’t wait to see what the anti gay activists will say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Possibly in San Francisco they will start teaching interior design in schools. That would be the funniest shit ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
im sorry but u r rong, just because the FSM dosnt vist u cause u scorned him dosnt make him not reall.
ps. u made ur mistak by being a f***n non beliver and u will rot in hell with ur god ( who is a fake motherf***n b****)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can tell that this is not the first time at all that you write about this topic. Why have you chosen it again?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks very much for your great blog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Intelligent Design implies an intelligent designer who knew exactly what he was doing and planned on doing it exactly as he did. FSMism believes in Unintelligent Design, where the Unintelligent Designer screwed up (he was drunk at the time) and that is why everything is so messed up.
Here’s to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
If you have any questions about or just want to discuss the existence of the FSM, you can reach me at kanastag@comcast.net
Like or Dislike:
0 
0