“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it’s surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola… 12 fluid ounces.”Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.
Here is another:
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
Note that the banana…
1. is shaped for the human hand.
2. has a non-slip surface.
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.
7. Is shaped for the human mouth.
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
Test 1.
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious
Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it’s muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.
The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Agreed… it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.
If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact… man can’t create anything from nothing… we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop… but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye… is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.
Again… another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:
“George Gallup; “If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”
Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing… why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this… then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble.”
Test 2:
1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?
2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?
3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?
If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…
Third analogy:
Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.
Test 3
Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?
Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?
3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________…
To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.”
Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China?
B. Partial knowledge of China?
C. Absolute knowledge of China?
“C” is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.
Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.
Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?
If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.
Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive
In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on… that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear… because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor… so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.
God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.
Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”
-Jonathon
Connect with other Pastafarians
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
RSS Feeds
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
“If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”
—————————-
It is a statistical monstrosity however it is not zero. The earth has been here for 4,500,000,000 years with this amount of time to play with I like the odds for natural selection.
Drop your fifty oranges once a day for 4,500,000,000 years, are you telling me you will never get 10 rows of five oranges?
The earth has been here long enough to eliminate the pyramid shaped bananas that taste like ear wax and are hard to open.
There is an infinite difference between zero and a statistical monstrosity.
If there is a god I’ll bet it is the product of evolution.
“Sapientia genetrix timoris est”
Your Bat-shit crazy banana argument actually proves evolution to be true. The banana evolved to be eaten to disperse its seeds.
Someone should tell this guy that the universe isn’t a coke can…
Johnathon! It’s you again! Do you usually spend all your time on other religion’s websites, cuz it seems like if your such a godlover you should be in church or something, kid. Let’s get our prioritys straight. Anyways, I would just like to remind you that everything you think about our religion is wrong, and if your going to try to compete with us you should get your facts down. First of all, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not just a random pile of spaghetti and meatballs that flys around touching things with his noodly appendage; he is actually an invisible random pile of spaghetti and meatballs tht flys around touching things with his noodly appendage. Does this remind you of any other supreme being worshipped by people? It’s just that he put evolution in place to test our faith. About your banana, are we evolutionists or are we Pastafarians? Yes, I do think there is a creator. And his name is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bananas are delicious. Keep bringing those up and I may have to worship them too.
Archaeolowench,
‘Tis an imperfect world we live in to be sure. Sorry you couldn’t get past the rape scene in The Fountainhead; while I had trouble with that too, I found that the rest of the book had redeeming factors that made it a worthwhile read. Perhaps you should give Atlas Shrugged a try; I promise you’ll find no rape scenes in it. And I’m not sure it’s fair to assume that Rand approved of rape; I believe it was a dramatic element that served to frame the way the main character felt about having his work stolen from him. Distasteful in the context of current sensibilities, but probably thrown in for shock effect.
Regarding your Mary, I’d have to wonder why she or her mother didn’t turn to the police or social services, both of which are funded by tax dollars to protect people from the situation you describe. The fact that they might have found it unpleasant to hold the abusive father responsible for his behavior hardly imposes a responsibility on the rest of us to support Mary for the rest of her life. And since most public libraries these days have free computer access, also at public expense, I doubt that her friends’ drug-dealing households would be her only option.
I am personally of the ‘teach a man to fish’ school of thought. I am strongly in favor of providing means for people who are genuinely interested in improving their lot in life to do so. I’d like to see a national program offering free college tuition & books to anyone willing to perform two years of public service. But I don’t feel in the least obligated to allow anyone to live in the manner they’d like at my expense if they don’t feel inclined to work for it. We tried this in the sixties and learned that it simply doesn’t work. Not only that, it really pisses off those of us who are struggling to put our own kids through college so they can pull their own weight and enjoy a better life.
In case you think I’m a heartless bastard, you should know that I give thousands of dollars to charity every year. Voluntarily. I choose the organizations that are doing the kind of work I find worthy, like Habitat for Humanity, Toys for Tots, Operation Chirstmas and a local orphanage. But I object strenuously to the contention that I ‘owe’ this to anyone, or that taking the money I earn and ‘redistributing’ it to people I don’t know for purposes I may not approve of is a legitimate government function.
Incidentally, if you think carefully about the concept behind the FSM, you’ll realize that it is entirely a political movement, created to fight the mindless bozos who want to tax us both to further the teaching of their superstitions. And in any event, I’ve looked high and low for blogs in which intelligent people can hold a civil and logical discourse on any subject. Apparently FSM adherents are brighter than most, because this is the first place I’ve found anyone willing to have an adult conversation. Whether you agree with my ideas or not, I deeply appreciate hearing your thoughts on this topic and being able to share mine.
Regards,
Sapient
I wonder if any of the Christians posting here could explain to me how they came to be Christians rather than, say, Hindus, or Muslims. Why worship Jehovah instead of Odin or Zeus or Baal? While there are exceptions to the rule, I’d be willing to bet that the honest answer in most cases is, “Because it’s what my parents taught me when I was a child.”
When you stop and think about it though, the Christian mythology is just as unlikely as those of the Romans, Greeks and Babylonians. They’re all bronze-age attempts to explain nature, and rooted in the ignorance and superstitions of their time. Most Jews don’t believe the universe was created in 6 days; they view it as an illustrative story, like the rest of what Christians condencendingly refer to as the “Old Testament”.
Many more progressive Christians have come to terms with the overwhelming physical evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth and for evolution as the mechanism that lead to live as we see it today. They see evolution as the mechanism their god used to implement his creation. Now personally, I’m not buying that for a minute since the whole god story doesn’t hold water. But I have a hard time seeing how anyone with any education at all can discount the evidence in front of them in favor of a fairly tale written thousand of years ago by people who ascribed everything they couldn’t understand to a supernatural force.
Sure, I’ve heard the stories about people who ‘feel in their heart’ that their religion is true. But then, Hitler felt in his heart that exterminating Jews was a good thing, so we can hardly rely on feelings, can we?
With one exception, I’ve never heard from anyone who claimed to have personally spoken to god. And that one was a corrupt Pentacostal minister who claimed that god came to him in a dream and told him to have his congregation build him a new parsonage on a hill he saw in the dream, and thus somewhat suspect. So if there’s anyone out there who has a stronger argument than, “there must be a creator because I can’t imagine how it all would have happened otherwise”, I’d love to hear your story.
And while you’re at it, if there’s anyone who can explain where their god came from (surely such a complex and powerful being had a creator?), I’d love to hear that story too.
Wy the hell is it so long
what a retar. his mind has spectacularly failed to apply modern evolutionary concepts to all his questions. probably because the solutions to his confusions about nature were given to him by another creationist shithead. high shcools ought to require a class on just evolution so we can degausse these redundant mistakes people continue to make about how and what evolution is/does.
pretty much classicly misquoted darwin’s eye speil. darwin jokes “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” then proceeds to explain how evolution can develop an eye. he does that to draw you in. I bet you think X can’t possibly happen, well here is how it could.
I love you Jonathan. You rock.
Next week the Coconut!
Errrrr… the banana has been engineered throught human selection (selective cultuvation) for 5,000 years. search for it on youtube and get the response to the original VT (it hilarious! and remarkable homoerrotic!) where he ripped the ‘argument’ form. Also the common banana cannot repoduce without human intervention…
So, in order to not believe in leprechauns, one must have an absolute knowledge of Ireland!
In order to not believe in Ragdains, you must have absolute knowledge of the world!
…come to think of it, this guy seems to think that you couldn’t know that ANYTHING doesn’t exist if that person wasn’t completely omniscient. After all, there might be a leprechaun floating around in space a trillion light-years away on the other side of some dark matter.
At any rate, the banana was obviously created and planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a nutritious snack for us to eat between communions (man doesn’t survive on protein and carbs alone).
This might be an ok argument if bananas were a truly ideal food. I mean they’re healthy, but if they were created with us in mind they’d have enough nutrients to sustain us single-handedly. After all, humans designed cat food for cats, and a cat can live a good healthy life eating cat food and nothing else. A human who ate nothing but bananas would probably die within a year at the most.
Also, banana peels aren’t perforated, and are only curved toward the mouth if you pick it up that way yourself (it could curve away from it, proving that Satan exists by making it more difficult to eat), and, if you pay close attention, the banana isn’t shaped more like the human hand than a stick or a mouse(is this evidence that we are meant to eat sticks and mice?).
Whoever posted this most likely copy/pasted their arguments from another source without reading them. Either that or the poster has never eaten a banana, in which case you’re missing out.
right there are more backteria on the surface of a human than there are humans in the world. if your theory were true why dont we have mini bannana’s for backteria? give the backteria a break. Any god who doesnt care for backteria is just mean.
sean wickham
ps this theory is amazing
Also about test 4 just because you cant disprove something. Doesnt make it true.
i could argue that you dont exist, your mearly an image created by my subconciouse.
try and disprove that one. it doesnt mean you dont exist of course. it just means your an idiot
Did you know that the chances of getting a Royal Flush in Poker is just as likely as getting any other hand?
Did you know that the chances of flipping a coin fifty times and for each time to end with heads up is just as likely as having the coin land on different sides different amounts of times?
Did you know that the chances of dropping 50 oranges onto the ground and having them fall into ten rows of five oranges is just as likely than them falling any other way?
My good sir, I think that you need some classical drama put into you, as well as some Voltair while you’re at it, simply because he is by far the most comically satisfying man to have ever existed. (I think it’s by far relevant!) I see The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a religion, though I do not worship it, I treat it equal (though I enjoy it much more) than any other religion. (Alright, somewhat of a lie if you consider Taoism a religion, but whatever.)
My point is simple, basing your argument by essentially saying, “It’s unlikely, so don’t even bother,” is simply incorrect since, (mind you, I abide by the rules of the Experiment,) in environments that lack complete control, the possibility of something is just as likely as every other possibility. And further more, to try and sound logical, (if we ignore the fact that your entire argumentative basis is “absurd” as you would say yourself,) and then to say that you can’t prove God exists because he’s outside of our perception has no logical basis.
Though, looking at it as chances, or just similarities, the chance of there being a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as likely as there being a God, since both are above us.
To sum up my argument, you lose.
“To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge.”
Therefore the opposite must be held accountable. To state that a clear and definate declaration of God’s non-existance is a “absolute statement,” then logistically stating that God exists is just as equal in proportion and therefore fully qualifying as an “absolute statement.” By this argument alone, why aren’t you entitled to provide said “absolute knowledge?” Why is it that those debating Intelligent Design can always hide behind the object of Faith as their absolute knowledge while those who choose not to accept it have to delve head-first into every nook and cranny of destructively complex mathmatical evidence? It has always seemed to me that one side is looking at the Track Field of Thought and saying “You know what, I’m just going to run through the middle, that way I don’t have to go all the way around.” Thus the blind themselves to any possible discoveries that could be made on the way. Sure, you’re still running to prove your point, but your not listening to the other side - in fact, you are purposfully ingnoring their very existance.
“Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist? …If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.”
Fine, done, good. But lets also say that this “circle” contains undeniable proof that no deity exists? Therefore, if YOU’RE reasonable, then YOU would have to admit “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is a God.” In you’re own words, you don’t know if God exists, so YOU are not completely religious! Even YOU are an agnostic… that is, by your logic, if you have any reason in that skull of yours.
Jonathan my good man, you are using a paradoxically insignificant argument for the wrong cause! If you honestly believe that you can prove the existance of God by attacking the opposition, then your ego has reached a point where it is eating itself. And I am a firm believer that if your brain watches you spout these babbling, non-senical arguments without accounting any potential acceptance for the other side it says ominously “You are so stupid! I will kill you!”
“God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.”
Then why is it so freaking hard to believe that as he is not flesh and blood… immortal and invisible, why therefore can’t he be the shape of a giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? I ask you. Prove to me that he can’t be using your “absolute knowledge,” and maybe I’ll convert.
May his Noodly Goodness Bless You and Always Keep You In His Sauce,
RAmen
if you read Douglas Adam’s hitchikers guide to the gallaxy he describes a case using the bable fish to dispruve god- this persons magical banana can be used in the same way.
Ninjaramen has a point, living things can evolve to be the way they are. But I think the FSM created everything (while drunk, of course) and we kind of evolved by ourselves afterward. Oh and I have seen an all too clever answer to your little test, johnathan buddy.
Test #2:
Yes, there is a building without a builder– if you count naturally formed caves and other structures made of rock.
Yes, there is a painting without a painter– if there is a piece of paper and a can of paint near each other, and an earthquake shakes the Earth and the can of paint spills onto the paper, there’s your painting.
Yes, there is a car without a maker– if you replace car with “vehicle.” This means ANY method of transportation, and a river is considered a vehicle.
(Please note this was originally used by someone else, I forget whom.)
Now you may claim that the rocks are still the builder, the earthquake is the painter, and the river is the maker, but they are all natural things. If you claim natural, inanimate objects capable of creating things, then that’s science. That’s what evolutionists think.
RAmen.
You’re an idiot. That’s all I have to say. I love bananas. Don’t ruin that for me too.
Feh.
BFN
This guy seems to have forgotten what Bananas are actually for, no, not Nuns, animals. Animals are meant to go up, eat the Banana, go far away, then $h!7 them out again.
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
Note that the banana…
1. is shaped for the human hand.
Before Human-forced evolution (unnatural selection) Bananas were big and fat, and shaped more like coconuts than Bananas.
2. has a non-slip surface.
Really? Its a fruit, and as far as i’m concerned it is reletively sweaty compared to oranges and apples
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.
Well it would be no use if 95% of the animals who ate them died right next to the plant, anyway, what does gOD expect of Colourblind people?
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.
I tried to open a Banana the other day and squashed half of it so I just through it in the bin. Go tell your gOD to do some Quality Assurance next time
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
Huh???
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.
If it was rock hard, most animals would not bother eating it
7. Is shaped for the human mouth.
The original bananas aren’t
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.
There aren’t many square things in nature are there?
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.
I hate bananas, i cant eat anything more than a kid size banana without feeling sick, banana flavour is nice though, so i think the labs beat your gOD on that one
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.
HAHA, knda depends which way you hold it
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
There are close to 1,000 species of banana today. Most of them are inedible - they carry hard pea-sized seeds, and have only a small amount of bad-tasting flesh. The botanists think that about 10,000 years ago, probably in South-East Asia, a random mutation produced a sterile banana with no seeds and lots of flesh that could be eaten uncooked. The internal dark lines and spots inside today’s banana are the vestigial remnant of these seeds.
The banana tree is not a “tree” as it grows from leaves rather than from a woody tissue and because it does not produce any seeds new “trees” are cultivated from cuttings.
So even though the banana has a phallic shape, it is a sterile and mutant fruit that has not had sex for 10,000 years. Hmm there is something in that for everyone.
None of which proves or disproves there is a dog