2675 Responses to “Comment on the Open Letter”

1. 181 - October 4th, 2006 at - teri Says:
   
   

   all i can say is wow maybe u can share this ridiculous story with satan when u burn in hell for eternity with him i’ll be in heaven with our lord jesus glad i dont have stand before him and tell him u believe in a spagetti monster over him lol

2. 182 - October 4th, 2006 at - A skeptic Says:
   
   

   Pastafarianism should not be taught in Science class because scientists don’t believe in Pastafarianism. The ones that do don’t count because they’re not very good scientists. Plus they’re in the minority. And they’re all called Steve.

   The fact that other established scientific theories, such as heliocentrism, were once minority views is irrelevant. The difference is that they were right.

3. 183 - October 4th, 2006 at - gill Says:
   
   

   Thank you, Teri, for that wonderful example of ‘don’t judge others’ and ‘love thy neighbor’. I’m sure your lord Jesus would be totally proud of you. [/sarcasm] Try working on making your posts readable and worth reading next time, kay?

4. 184 - October 4th, 2006 at - Travis Says:
   
   

   I love your letter….
   Man I belive in god and everything but, In the bill of rights It says freedom of religion. And I expect everyone to obey that. Seeing how I live in kansas. I saw how Christian Faith was forced feed to everyone. I mean if a person wants to belive what he wants to belive I’m alright with that. Just so long as he/she doen’t try to push it onto me. I think that the schools need to be all in or all out. If your going to teach one religion why not teach them all??? Education is the key not one side bickering.

5. 185 - October 4th, 2006 at - I AM JESUS Says:
   
   

   YOUR ALL FUCKING STUPID IN BELIEVING THIS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6. 186 - October 4th, 2006 at - nyx Says:
   
   

   jesus,
   it’s “you’re.” “your” is possesive, you want the contraction.
   Do me a favor: grab a dictionary and look up the definition of the word “satire.” Maybe you should look into the dictionary alittle more, and build your vocabulary, because while profanity does exude intelligence, there are plenty of better ways to get your point across.
   RAmen

7. 187 - October 5th, 2006 at - Y Says:
   
   

   This first make people laugh, and then make them think.

   This should get an Ig Nobel Prize

8. 188 - October 5th, 2006 at - chris m Says:
   
   

   Whilst i find most of your teachings to be most wise and informative there are some parts that i can’t conclude with,such as excepting starch transfusions therefore,iam going to establish The Church Of The Latter Day Ravioli and hope to welcome many alternative pastafarians.

9. 189 - October 5th, 2006 at - The Aussie Says:
   
   

   I SUGGEST ANY LIGHT READER SKIP THIS
   “Dear Aussie,
   So you’re saying that Creationism can be falsified, but not proved?”
   -skeptic
   .
   No, christian, im saying that creationism can never be absolutely proved. No scientific or philosphical concept, theory or law can be absolutely proved if it applies to the real world. An example, Newton’s Laws of Gravitation work perfectly in the solar system scale, but break down on the galactic. The fact that they work on our observable scale is no definite proof, it merely reinforces the theory.
   .
   So, no, creationism cannot be proved. If you ever find any evidence that supports the theory earth is 6000 years old, let me know. However, i will go with the current scientific data. For example, redundant biological features, such as the appendix, similar genetic structure in primates, archaeological finds that show both human and ape features, the lake Mungo finds (human skeletons, estimated 40-60,000 years old [and please, dont go on about proving that, i said it was a theory, though its got a hell of a lot more hard data supporting it than creationism]) all support evolution.
   It’s not perfect, but hey we never can be. We could have a million scientists sent back to observe this, but it will still never be a truly objective observation.
   .
   And as for falsified, i suppose so. It wasnt my intention to make that observation, but yes, quite easily. I could dress up in a white robe and beard, get a video of me waving my hands against a black background, then hey presto, cut to a park. If i say that was me creating the universe, I would have just falsafied creation (very, very badly, but thats not the point).
   .
   I however stated that it was effectively disproved. By that, I mean what data we do have STRONGLY opposes the Young Earth Theory (as one admittedly easy example). If you want an example of opposing data, there is the whole science of geology, for one.
   .
   Finally, if you are going to post on this board, use one alias. Using multiple names is a cheap, rude and low tactic to try and propagate your argument.

10. 190 - October 5th, 2006 at - beckwoll Says:
    
    

    I wish I was born with the creativity to do what you’ve done. For a school to teach a belief as fact without any sort of provable data behind it is ridiculous. Here’s a book with some words, it must be true! Fail to see how that makes sense, and the way you’ve shown the point is brilliant. There’s the same likelihood of the existence of a flying spaghetti monster as there is of the christian god, its all based on nothing more than written word. If you’re going to teach religion as fact based on books and scriptures, then why aren’t schools teaching about all religions. *ell, scientology has a book too, claiming to be fact, why isn’t that being taught in schools? New convert from agnosticism to pastifarianism

11. 191 - October 5th, 2006 at - Christian Says:
    
    

    Dear Aussie,
    Thanks for your post. I agree that we can’t absolutely prove much, maybe not anything, about reality. I also agree that both the age of the earth and special creation are proposals that have been tested and falsified, within reasonable assumptions about the measurements. But you can’t on the one hand say that any claim that invokes God is untestable, and on the other that these claims about God have been tested and shown to be false. If you’re not saying that, good for you.
    As for using multiple aliases, I adopted the pseudonym ‘A skeptic’ partly because of a problem with the spam filter, and partly for satirical effect. Sorry if this caused any offense, none was intended. I hope you won’t be upset if I use it again if I write any more posts in that vein.

12. 192 - October 5th, 2006 at - James Says:
    
    

    Will his o’holiest of noodly appendages please answer the one question that has racked poor humanities minds for years upon years.

    Is it to-MAY-toe or to-MA-toe?

13. 193 - October 5th, 2006 at - Paige Says:
    
    

    As a Kansas student. I would REALLY like to see this taught in our schools.

14. 194 - October 5th, 2006 at - J Says:
    
    

    Digression Alert!
    .
    Thanks, The Aussie, for the ‘. = paragraph’ convention. Bloody useful, that is!

15. 195 - October 5th, 2006 at - J Says:
    
    

    You know how you sometimes get a tune stuck in your head and you can’t get rid of it?
    .
    And the only way you can find of displacing it is by humming another addictive tune – of your own choice?
    .
    But the ultimate aim is to get all the tunes out of your head so you can just get on with the business of living, and thinking?
    .
    I’ve been kicking The Tune out of my head for a long time. And I reckon I’ve just recently got the last traces of it pretty much ejected.
    .
    And then here’s the New Tune – the tune of choice – that I could have used to speed the whole process along, much, much earlier!
    .
    I guess I don’t need it, anymore. But all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster for giving us something to whistle while we lay the hymns to rest.

16. 196 - October 5th, 2006 at - The Aussie Says:
    
    

    also, when i said effectively disproved, i am aware that i am using disproved again, after my previous argument, hence the effectively. I just couldnt think of a better word for it.
    .
    and J, no problemo… enjoy

17. 197 - October 5th, 2006 at - J Says:
    
    

    The Aussie: ta.

18. 198 - October 6th, 2006 at - the logic man Says:
    
    

    i hate to break it to you “believers” but christianity is a joke, mearly a creation of human assumption. thousands of years ago people didnt know how they where created and had no understanding of how everything came to be, hence the assumption of GOD, 1 being that created all, and hates you if don’t sit in a room every sunday.

    Don’t even get me started on how may leaders have started a war on the belief that they had god on their side.
    religion is the fuel of war and interracial hatred
    I could go on and on, but I have better things to do than waste my life on a joke such as religion

19. 199 - October 6th, 2006 at - John Says:
    
    

    When I become Dictator of America this will be the national religion.

20. 200 - October 6th, 2006 at - Zenith Says:
    
    

    I read 15 posts and stoped. Why, it’s because from that point on I only knew that every idiot in the universe would just continue this joke. Funny at first, but not when people are foolish. I just want to post a couple of points, for beleivers (of any religion) and no-religion.

    1) This is the one I need to get out there. Chrisitians do not force down our religion in your throats. You seem to have this burned into your mind. If anything it is you that forces your beleifs on us (teaching evolution in school, etc).

    2) Science is NOT based on fact. I don’t care what they say, it’s soley based on man’s attempt to understand the world around him. In _fact_, scientific “laws” aren’t even laws (what I’m trying to say is they are very loose). They can be changed, and after reading those wonderful 15 posts, I find that you people have no knowledge of what you’re talking about. It appears you didn’t even bother to research or attempt to understand what you supposdely beleive in. For example (one of my personal favorites), hopefully you know what a super nova is and how it is caused. Now, if you (I’m refering to the big bang, where did this come from anyway?), had this huge ball of atoms that then supposedly somehow reacted wtih each other form the pure gravitional force, it would not, I repeat it would not, blow up but instead collaspe on itself just as a super nova. I could go on, but this point was already long.

    3) You need to stop stero typing christians, I can’t stress this enough. It’s funny how people judge without no knowledge of why we do the things we do. Let me ask you this, do you honestly beleive that people would go day by day following some fake thing, living their lives by it, being tortured in some countries, without any proof or any response from this supposed God. No, we have response, we can feel him, we know, it’s something you must find for yourself, nobody else can give it to you. Of course, some dumb ass is going to post back stating that this sounds completely retarded. Once again, how would you know? Oh how wonderful, this brings up another point. “How would you know, you weren’t there when god created the earth?”; I love this question for a couple of reasons: You (the person reading this) weren’t there when evolution was taking place, so how would you know? Also, you if you ever took biology or some other course, have you ever noticed, how anything such as a simple atomic structure such as a DNA is just, we’ll simple but yet percise in how they work. How other organisms know how to “read” these strands, and act upon them. That just scratches surface (barely) of what would be possible to talk about. Everything is just too complex for something to happen by accident, this complex universe of worlds un-explored and mysteries yet to be explained.

    4) How do you expect to find any proof of the exstience of god when all you do is go away from him?

    We’ll, that’s about it (would really love to go on). I know my post may not be the best (let’s change that to “it’s not”, it’s 1:00 am here), and I was slighty mad when I wrote it.

Leave a Reply