Satirical monsters? That's a clever argument -- if you're in junior high.

Surely the Jesus crowd has superior evidence that their undetectable god is more real than the FSMists' undetectable god, or any of the countless gods man has invented over the eons.

Oh, wait.

Might as well start this off traditionally, GilRuiz-style:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or FSM, is a satirical group that pokes fun at intelligent design. It first emerged in 2005 during the debate in Kansas over whether the belief should be taught in science classes.

Rules of atheism "Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Okay, that was pretty funny chimp_ninja

chimp_ninja: BEHOLD! I HAS TEH GIFT OF PROPHECY!

Surely, you are a prophet of the great FSM Himself. *bows head* Ramen!

I... summon... BEVETS!

OK, you're done now, back in your cage...

I can see we're off to such a terrific start.

I'd like to add to the prophecies by predicting first that Bevets will cherry pick the responses he addresses instead of, as someone of intelligence would do, addressing all of the points that are directed towards him.

My second prophecy is that SkinnyHead will only respond when he's done fellating Bevets. I hear he swallows, because that's what the baby Jesus would want.

Kome: My second prophecy is that SkinnyHead will only respond when he's done fellating Bevets. I hear he swallows, because that's what the baby Jesus would want.

I think you may have Kempf's disease. Get some help.

SkinnyHead: I think you may have Kempf's disease. Get some help.


Kempf's disease is the tinfoil underwear atheists use to keep creationism out of their pants.

/it doesn't have make sense

Bevets: Theists will consider supernatural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Fixed that to be more accurate.

That's crazy. FSM was made up by people. Duh.

SkinnyHead: Kome: My second prophecy is that SkinnyHead will only respond when he's done fellating Bevets. I hear he swallows, because that's what the baby Jesus would want.

I think you may have Kempf's disease. Get some help.

Sounds like you just upgraded to gargling.

SkinnyHead: Satirical monsters? That's a clever argument -- if you're in junior high.

B-b-but teach the controversy!

SkinnyHead:

I think Dembski said it best:

In contrast to the respectful review of Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? a decade ago, we now face an academic and scientific world that is increasingly hostile to intelligent design and that seeks to crush it rather than engage it as a serious intellectual project. This may seem unfair and mean-spirited, but let's admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age. Our opponents, therefore, are merely returning the favor.

:)

.

FSM is dead
And we have ate him - Nietzsche

I think my favorite parts of the Wedge Strategy are items five and six, in which the ID propagandists plainly state why they created ID out of thin air:

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

* Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
* Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
* Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory
______________

I'm especially fond of "rectify ideological imbalance" because it reminds me so much of totalitarian rhetoric.

.

The United States is in no sense founded
upon the Christian doctrine.
-- George Washington

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods or no god. It neither
picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson

The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is
not my religion. I could never give assent to
the long, complicated statements of Christian
dogma.
--Abraham Lincoln

WHERE IS UR 'MERICA NOW!?

A theory is an explanation of observable phenomena that saves all the data. If you have to throw out any compelling data, your theory is gonna be bogus.

Science is in a continual process of self-checking. Trust me, there are scientists out there working day and night to disprove every theory there is. That's one of the functions of science. It contains its own mechanisms for self-correction.

Religion is mystery. Somehow, the wine turns to blood. We do not ask how this is done. Somehow, the spirit transcends the body. We do not look for empirical evidence of this occurring.

For religion to make a claim on science is for it to abandon its place as a spiritual pursuit and take up things scientific--to pretend that it is an empiricist, self-correcting discipline. This does not mix well with its self-imposed absolutes--Holy Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and so forth.

Creationism, and its mutant offspring Intelligent Design, are political. Political in the sense that they seek to create in the minds of people the idea that science is somehow opposed to religion, and that religion knows what's best for scientists as well as religionists (not spirtualists, religionists). Hence Intelligent Design's forays into Cosmology and Earth Sciences and so forth.

This dovetails neatly with the populist anti-intellectual plank of Right-wing politics. We have the right-wing media whining about college professors all being "liberals." We have abstinence (religionist ideology) versus rubbers (a scientific, physical barrier between the sperm and the egg). We have church versus science, church versus the "liberals," church versus EVERYBODY.

And it follows that there is a backlash, so the church can claim it is embattled and persecuted. Perfect!! Christ was persecuted. So it makes the church all the more morally indignant. And right.

So now we have it, an immensely well-funded and organised effort to teach our children that scientific conclusions can be valid even if they throw out salient data and are not checked and rechecked. One hopes that the politico-religionists do not extend their influence into civil engineering and aeronautics.

.

Son of a BIATCH!

It really irritates me when people assume Creationism and so-called "Darwinism" are exact opposites and may not interact. In my opinion, that's not really the case.

And my opinions aside, only SCIENCE needs to be in school. Besides, Catholic schools do NOT teach Intelligent Design. Catholic schools teach evolution. How's that burn your bones, Bevets?

/so glad she's out of school

A Republican, churgoing, Bush-appointed judge ruled against Intelligent Design partly because, in early manuscripts of the Intelligent Design texts _Of Pandas and People_, "cognates of the word creation(creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID [Intelligent Design]." (Kitzmiller v Dover). This is convincing evidence that Intelligent Design is a rebranding of creationism. As long as we are going to teach a peculiarly fundamentalist view of creation in the science classroom, we should as well teach the Chinese myth that Pan Gu chopped the seed of the Universe in two with a great broadaxe, since it is equally scientific. Turtles all the way down!

.

Bevets, God is real, but he's not the same god you worship. Ooops!

Production of the brake shoe is irreducibly complex, yet there is no Central Exchequer of Brake Shoes. Saying that a natural phenomenon is irreducibly complex does not prove Intelligent Design. Dr. Michael Behe has admitted that his irreducible complexity argument is unrelated to natural selection (one generally wants one's arguments to be related to the question at hand).

I've already voiced my opinion on creationism in another thread.

creationism (to me) =!= belief in 'god'

It's very possible that extraterrestrials have tinkered with our DNA, much more possible than the existence of 'god' because, well, that's not possible.

Oh i hope Bevets posts the same ridiculous false dichotomy of life either spontaneously generated or it was created without addressing my previously stated hypothesis that it was a time paradox.

If he does i might just ejaculate and get another fark first, a call for a new keyboard!

May FSM bless you with his spicy meatballs and fragrant parmesan cheese.

I hate Chevy: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it's distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it's course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe." ~Thomas Jefferson

SkinnyHead: Satirical monsters? That's a clever argument -- if you're in junior high.

Says a lot seeing as how a supposedly Junior High tactic defeated ID Creationists in Kansas.

How's that theory holdin' up for ya? Not too good I hear.

Funny when a parody about spaghetti ends up holding more water than ID Creationism. Time to pick a new ploy!

SkinnyHead: I hate Chevy: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it's distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it's course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe." ~Thomas Jefferson

Resorting to out-of-context quotes to support your blatherings? You realize you're sinking to Bevet's level? You realize that's not a good thing, that it makes your GED gaff pale in comparison? You can turn back and redeem some of your dignity and debating skills.

Let's see, Creationists show up to give their point of view with arguments that are well thought out, the evolutionist then shout down the Creationists with a plethora insults and nonsense (without showing any evidence that evolution even happened) before the Creationists can even start their discussion.

/yep, just your average evo-creation fark thread

Not this shiat again.

/At work so no facepalm pics available
//Somebody please rectify ideological imbalance

Nestea Plunge: Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

I believe you mean extraordinary. "Extra ordinary" means "more than normally ordinary".

It doesn't make what you said untrue, just extra ordinary.

Alien Syndrome: Let's see, Creationists show up to give their point of view with arguments that are well thought out, the evolutionist then shout down the Creationists with a plethora insults and nonsense (without showing any evidence that evolution even happened) before the Creationists can even start their discussion.

/yep, just your average evo-creation fark thread

Nice troll, please point out the well though out arguments that aren't out-of-context quotes and we'll have a debate.

Alien Syndrome: Let's see, Creationists show up to give their point of view with arguments that are well thought out

Which thread is that? I must have missed that one.

Step 1: The world is so complex, that it must have had a designer.

Step 2: The designer existed before the world, and designed and then created the world, and therefore has Godlike powers.

Step 3: The designer was not designed, and there was nothing in existence before the designer.

Step 4: Therefore, complex things can exist without having been designed... and the existence of God is the proof of this.

Step 5: Therefore, if you believe in God, then you must believe that complex things do NOT require a designer.

Step 6: Evolution is the most accurate theory that does not call for the need for a designer.

Step 7: Therefore, if you believe that God popped into existence with no previous designer, then you are compeled to believe in Evolution.

Step 8: Ask Bevets for his opinion on this thesis.

Step 9: Wait for Bevets to respond.

While the idea that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world lacks backing in the scientific community, the point, according to those promoting the satire, is that neither does intelligent design.

To hell with being pissed off at IDers.

I am pissed at so-called editors who don't know how or can't be bothered to proof read a one page article.

eqtworld said:

# COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

So... apparently you created God?

Neat trick. Are you available for parties?

SkinnyHead: "I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design

There may be no appeal to revelation, but that's a huge appeal to incredulity. "The universe is big! Therefore, someone must have made it."

eqtworld: # COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God Transformers (more than meets the eye) exist.

All I ask for are testable hypothesis and testable predictions that I can use and recreate over and over and that others can test and reproduce the same results.

God and ID fail this proof.

eqtworld:
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.




BZZT, thanks for playing.

Alien Syndrome: Let's see, Creationists show up to give their point of view with arguments that are well thought out, the evolutionist then shout down the Creationists with a plethora insults and nonsense (without showing any evidence that evolution even happened) before the Creationists can even start their discussion.

/yep, just your average evo-creation fark thread

Except Skinny started out this thread with an insult towards the FSM people and the Bev-bot started out with his version of an insult towards science and he ended with his catchphrase. Neither of those are well-thought out arguments to support their point of view. The first is an ad hominem and the second is another ad hominem. If that's all your side offers, no wonder the people in this thread who acknowledge evolution don't bother to do anything besides degrade your point of view. If that's all you got, your point of view deserves only ridicule and derision.

Summary of ID "science":

IDer: I have mathematical proof that life could not have evolved, and I don't have to resort to statements like "look how wonderful life is!"
Scientists: First of all, critiquing another theory is not the same as having your own theory. Second of all, this math is wrong.
IDer: Whatever materialist fools! Your material materialism will be the downfall! Follow the evidence where it leaves! And those aren't mathematical mistakes.
Scientists: But, look, you didn't account for A, B, and C. You forgot about D, and this here says that 2+2=6, that's just wrong.
IDer: Look at how wonderful life is! It must have been designed!

oihorse: Resorting to out-of-context quotes to support your blatherings? You realize you're sinking to Bevet's level? You realize that's not a good thing, that it makes your GED gaff pale in comparison? You can turn back and redeem some of your dignity and debating skills.

If you're going to claim that the quote is cited out of context, it's your burden to demonstrate how the proper context alters the meaning.

And what do you mean by GED gaff?

eqtworld: read my other posts and adjust the sarcasm meters guys.

ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

pwned. +1 to you.

I shall have my revenge.

idsfa: eqtworld:
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.

BZZT, thanks for playing.

The other day several people calling themselves lawyers on Fark were telling me that logical fallacies were okay if they help you win the argument.

Oihororse

please point out the well though out arguments that aren't out-of-context quotes and we'll have a debate.

Just try out any thread on evo-creation to see it (the anti-theist smear machine started early on this one).

The problem on this thread and others like it is that you guys are so hostile towards differing opinions on the subject that you scare away any honest debate before it can even start. What is so scary about Creationism and Intelligent Design that you do this in order to avoid debating it?

Kome

Skinny started out this thread with an insult towards the FSM

And what you seem to forget is that the FSM is an insult to religious people everywhere, Skinny did not start the fight if that's what you were suggesting. And I saw no insults in what Bevets was saying, he only pointed out some observations, if you disagree with those that's fine, but don't resort to insulting him yourself.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: The other day several people calling themselves lawyers on Fark were telling me that logical fallacies were okay if they help you win the argument.

This is true. But law is not the same as science.

ne2d: amazing_live_seamonkeys: The other day several people calling themselves lawyers on Fark were telling me that logical fallacies were okay if they help you win the argument.

This is true. But law is not the same as science.

Well good thing scientists make government policy decisions and not lawyers. Whew!