I really find this whole discussion to be rather hilarious

Published November 11th, 2007 by Bobby Henderson

From Beth:

I really find this whole discussion to be rather hilarious…

Let me explain, I’m a xian. Indeed, I am a grad student of theology. Did Bible College… the whole bit. And I also absolutely love CoFSM. I promoted it around the College, and even hosted a pirate day there (though most people didn’t know ALL they were celebrating…). I am in total sympathy with the fact that ID does not belong in science class. I love the “parody”, and the satire is killer.

What is hilarious? That Xians say ridiculous, dumb things about other people’s beliefs (or lack thereof), and feel all superior and cool for that, and yet, what is the difference here? It’s like everyone gets a kick out of telling everyone else that they are stupid. Nice. Well done Christians. Well done Atheists. May you all eternally enjoy throwing around hate mail and tired rhetoric.

And may the noodly appendage touch you all.

65 Responses to “I really find this whole discussion to be rather hilarious”

1 3 4 5 6 7 9
  1. Momi Pink Shoes says:

    Why is it that Love Mail has way less comments than Hate Mail?

  2. Bill Fairfull says:

    Hi Peter, I think its less about being right, than being in the conversation, period.

    The problem with Intelligent Design is not the idea of it. It is the fact that people want to “religioize” it.

    They seek to take a statistical probability and turn it into a dogma…pretty foolish. Necessarily we must reject this part of the argument. But, still the argument remains.

    When I speak of an argument I don’t mean the sometimes vehement love/hate mail that Momi Pink Shoes is referring to above. I mean the discussion presented in the classic and logical terms of offering an argument in regard to something.

    My intial offering wasn’t designed to convince or to win; to be right, nor wrong. It was intened to evoke responses. Though, I must admit that I find Intelligent Design the more plausible theory in regard to the Origin of Life. This posit does not seek to sweep away known science, but to approach it from a different perspective.

    It is worth noting, however that when one applies the mathematics of probability to the problem of DNA…it makes the argument nearly moot. According to mathematicians when the odds against an event occurring are 1 in 10 to the 150th power or greater, it can’t be accidential. When they apply this math to DNA they are all gripped with a nearly inescapable conslusion that life was designed. This is not my opinion, it’s the careful calculation of brilliant minds, including Nobel Prize winners in Physics, cosmologists, astrophysicists, quantum physicists, etc. All respected as great minds….great scientific minds.

    When the mathematics of probability are applied the complex specified information of DNA and its purported appearance from nothing but an accident it has the effect of rendering the idea itself ridiculous.

    I think the FSM and His constituent Pastafarians are useful in conducting this inquiry and engaging this conversation. Regardless of the point of view and the unnecessary sarcasm (which I love, being, as I am, a fan of Voltaire)at least it is being discussed. The humor reminds us that to take anything as ignorant as mankind is and elevate him and his ideas and arguments to a place of sacrosanct reverence…is foolish.

    I qualify the statement above, however. If within the course of discussing these things and having this fun, you find something which comes in conflict with the point of view that you and other Pastafarians represent…then you owe it to your own conscience to investigate it to the point that you can draw an intelligent conclusion…not merely parrot a gimmicky “icon”…begging his Noodlenesses Pardon, of course and with all due respect.

    I agree that this idea of Origin does not belong in a science class. I think that Darwin’s theory is fairly well established as the mechanics of biology. While it is full of holes, it more substantially opaque, than not. However if we describe evolution as the mechanics of Life and we describe DNA as the substance of it, then it is reasonable to seek the motor that drives it. This is the theory of Origin. For what has been set in motion by this motor…is the issue. This theory does belong in the consciousness of our day, it does belong along side another theory that can’t claim anymore in the way of evidence than Intelligent Design. It more probably belongs in a Philosophy class at this point.

    At this point ID is an hypothesis….clearly part of the scientific method, if not science at current. If one is to deny the right to hypothesize freely…then one is guillotining that which it so passionately professes to want to protect.

    If one is deny students in a classroom a diversity of perspectives then they are acting at cross purpose to their proposal that they want to protect Understanding….plain and simple. You cannot deny Understanding, or the offerings of Understanding and claim to be protecting Knowledge. That argument holds no water…that is a circular argument.

    Love the handle…Peter Popoff…great.


  3. Bill Fairfull says:

    @ all

    Thanks for the indulgence. I don’t post to websites much, but I was directed toward this by a dear and close friend after the Nova special of the other evening “Intelligent Desing on Trial. We had an energetic conversation about it.

    I’m not clued in on all the etiquette associated with the forum and as I read posts, it occurs to me that I may be too lengthy in my musings.

    If that is the case, my thanks to the FSM and the participants for the indulgence

    I enjoy intelligent conversation…thanks all.

    I like the Noodly appendage thing touching every one…so my wish is for this to happen for all of you.

  4. Peter Popoff says:

    Hi Bill,
    Nah your posts aren’t too lengthy.
    I’m sorry you came into these current threads of silliness.
    There are a few here that will enjoy debating with you on this topic.
    Myself, I’m more of a “fundie fighter”
    I like to argue, err debate with those that try to push their beliefs on others,
    And I tend to stay out of conversations as in depth as you want to go
    (unless something really erks me anyway).
    But as I said there are others here that would enjoy your banter
    just keep checking in.
    It’s sure to get serious sooner or later.
    Oh, and a heads up.
    If you do a full stop ‘put a period’ where you end your paragraphs.

    Like I just did, you’ll have that line break that I know you’re missing.
    Peace Dude,
    Peter Popoff

  5. Capt'n Spahgz says:

    Thank you for being so understanding of our religous beliefs
    May His noodliness bless and feed you

  6. Apprentice Frederic says:

    @Bill Fairfull, et al.
    A humble and short note (I really am an apprentice, without capital “A”):
    It’s always risky to calculate odds AFTER “something” has happened. The probability that the world might be in its present state is, after all, likely less than 10^150. The guy who wins the lottery is, in fact, merely lucky. And we are in no position to discuss The Cosmos in much detail, let alone the intent of its Creator, the FSM. Pastafarians understand that the Cosmos was created only a few thousand years ago, but in such a way that it appears that many billions of years have actually elapsed since the Big Bang. And – of course – the more these scientist fellers investigate, the more perfect the illusion appears to be, LOFLMAO. We’re still learning, and the best thing to do is just to dig and work. Maybe, if we stay intent, our children 150 generations (or 10^150 generations????) will have an inkling. In the meantime, we should take comfort in the Nearness of His Noodly Appendage.

  7. storm petrel says:

    @ bill, The universe is generally accepted to be infinite, or as close to infinite as our human minds can grasp, therefore, not matter how small the odds of something happening, it is not impossible.
    Currently there is no theory for the origin of life as far as I’m aware, there are hypotheses and god is one of them. The problem I personally have with ID or any other hypothesis that has divine intervention at its heart is simply that ‘God did it’ is used as the proof as well as hypothesis, once you put it down to god, why keep looking for answers? If someone were to say ‘I don’t know yet’, then they’re stating an intention to investigate further and try to find out what happened, even if it proves them wrong.
    I mostly come here for the silliness, so please don’t be offended if I don’t get into a big debate, but keep posting, it’s nice to have someone looking for a real debate rather than the usual vitriol we get from proponents of ID.

  8. ValkyriePariah says:

    @all RAmen!

1 3 4 5 6 7 9

Leave a Reply