Flying Spaghetti Monsterism., For all the Pastafarians.
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism., For all the Pastafarians.
Kyzene |
Sep 8 2005, 07:11 PM
Post
#1
|
Master Group: -=RJ=-Clan Posts: 498 Joined: 18-June 03 Member No.: 13 |
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
That's probably the coolest thing I've ever seen. PS- Notice the natural disasters based on Pirates?! No Ninjas there . -------------------- There is no such thing as luck, only mistakes and the people that take advantage of them.
Play Wild Jedi CTF in JA. Visit Chop Shop for crazy CTF action. Become a Pastafarian. |
JayBaen |
Sep 10 2005, 06:48 AM
Post
#2
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,073 Joined: 13-June 03 From: Atlanta, GA Member No.: 3 |
That, is awesome.
(and fully explains why Liz is a Pirate ... ) JB -------------------- Yellow Is Golden
DelphiGT "There's nothing in this universe that can't be explained. Eventually." -- House, M.D. |
Ruggiero |
Sep 10 2005, 11:38 AM
Post
#3
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
-------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
InfiniteWarrior |
Sep 11 2005, 06:26 AM
Post
#4
|
Emperor Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 21-June 03 Member No.: 20 |
"Intelligent Falling?" LOLOL....
|
Ruggiero |
Sep 11 2005, 10:04 AM
Post
#5
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
I thought that might cause a giggle or two....
Rugg -------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
Ruggiero |
Dec 9 2005, 05:11 PM
Post
#6
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
Kyzene... if you were only on a mac...
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21203 QUOTE Product Description: Found an admirable tome but it's in praise of the wrong god? Faith Converter is a godsend for priests, vicars, rabbii and holy men of all descriptions. Preach next Sunday's sermon from the Vedas, Noble Eightfold Path, Torah or Das Kapital! The premier theological plagiarism solution for OS X, Faith Converter converts text between twenty-nine different religions, encompassing Atheism, Biopsychosocialism, Buddhism, Cargo Cult, Christianity, Communism, Confucianism, Druidism, Falun Gong, Hinduism, Islam, Juche, Judaism, Keynesianism, Linux, MacEvangelism, Mahanism, Maoism, NIMBYism, Roman, Scientology, Shinto, Sikh, Stalinism, Taoism, Thatcherism, Trotskyism, Veganism and Voodoo. -------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
Kyzene |
Dec 10 2005, 01:41 AM
Post
#7
|
Master Group: -=RJ=-Clan Posts: 498 Joined: 18-June 03 Member No.: 13 |
I log on to my trusty FSM homepage today and what do I find? I find that I have been part of the decline of freedom! Read about it here. Sorry to all of you who I might have hurt with my "intolerance" and I'm sorry that I have been "slowly chipping away at the foundation of liberty itself." Not to mention that FSM has "violated the very liberal ideals that are foundational to modern intellectual thought."
Sorry in advance? Ky -------------------- There is no such thing as luck, only mistakes and the people that take advantage of them.
Play Wild Jedi CTF in JA. Visit Chop Shop for crazy CTF action. Become a Pastafarian. |
InfiniteWarrior |
Dec 10 2005, 01:08 PM
Post
#8
|
Emperor Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 21-June 03 Member No.: 20 |
Hmm. Well, the author here has an excellent point in that FSM does seem full-out ridicule of what may be of supreme significance to someone else. It is important to consider the thoughts, feelings and/or what may be of importance to others, but here's the thing....
True: It doesn't advance a case against teaching Intelligent Design but, neither does it deny anyone their faith or their right to express it. So, it really isn't a "denial of freedom". Whether or not it's in the best of taste might be subject to debate. Personally, as a citizen, I'm a bit more "offended" by things like the fact that neighborhood charters this year include the stipulation that "Holiday decorations are allowed, but may not have a religious theme." Now, THAT is intolerance. THAT is a denial of freedom... one to which I would have to respond: Really? Hmmm... where can I find just a really huge Nativity scene? It disturbs me when, to avoid the risk that the very existence of my belief system might offend someone else, I'm denied the right to express my faith. FSM, while an affront to something of importance to me, might be more of a "Don't like it? Turn the channel" kind of... thing, because, on the flip side, to say FSM shouldn't exist at all would be to deny its 24-year old author his right to expression. I sometimes forget to turn the channel rather than allow myself to be offended. Guess we all do. So, I (for one) can honestly say "No apologies are necessary." You have never offended me. P.S. Edits appear in gray. Just seemed... important... to be accurate. This post has been edited by InfiniteWarrior: Dec 10 2005, 04:51 PM |
JayBaen |
Dec 10 2005, 08:57 PM
Post
#9
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,073 Joined: 13-June 03 From: Atlanta, GA Member No.: 3 |
Ky,
I can only hope that your last post had a spoonful of sarcasm with it. FSM represents the *very thing* this country was founded for -- the ability to practice/believe in religion(s) that are not necessarilly the religion of the government. (or anyone else for that matter). We're becoming very brainwashed in this country to feel that having a difference of opinion (not to mention religion) somehow equates to being offensive [or even unPATRIOTIC - UGH!] What a leap (and dare I say, offensive .. ) The good news is, the author of the article you pointed us to is more than welcome to have his opinion, too -- unforutnately (and, here's my opinion) -- many people who wear his shoes feel the need to convince everyone else that their opinion is right. That's when I turn the channel .. JB -------------------- Yellow Is Golden
DelphiGT "There's nothing in this universe that can't be explained. Eventually." -- House, M.D. |
Ruggiero |
Dec 11 2005, 03:24 PM
Post
#10
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
One word:
SATIRE. Geez.... these people take themselves too seriously. --Rugg P.s. (I can't help myself) AND: There is a substantive difference between the minority satirizing the majority, and the majority satirizing the minority. The substantive difference arises from the power differential between the two. Those who think that the same rules should apply to all need to take a good hard look at the history of our nation (and for that matter, the world), to see the dangers inherent in ignoring the difference. Ignoring these things leads to the oppression minority groups (most recently gays in this country) have suffered.... not to mention the crusades, the holocaust, the stalinist/maoist purges, Slavery, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.. The history of human cruelty is longer than the history of its goodness--despite that the glimmers of goodness has redeemed us. Democracy is a wonderful thing-- where everyone has the same amount of power--one person, one vote. However, there is an all-too-real thing that sometimes goes by the name "Tyrrany of the Majority." If, for instance, we all have one vote, and vote to saber Kyzene, that reduces democracy to simple utilitarianism--amoral, selfish. Democracy is only a viable institution when supplemented by a baseline of rights; what the founders called "unalienable," and which manifested itself in the Bill of Rights. So no matter what we all vote, we may not simply saber Kyzene, no matter how much we all want to. Adding the two together, one gets a wonderful situation; where the powerful majority must behave in a way that respects the minority in ways that the minority need not reciprocate. This, though seemingly "unfair" on the surface, becomes a more "fair" situation when looked at it through the lens of history. So, in short, I say, anyone can satirize anyone. However, when deciding what is "fair" or how to delimit the ability of a certain group to express itself, one must take into account the substantial effects due to the power-differences between the two. P.P.S. I am not even going to touch "intelligent design," as it makes me feel like we are back at the Scopes trial, but I will leave you with this story: during the recent trial, the author was confronted with two drafts of his "scientific" manuscript. In the early draft, the words "creation" and "creator" were highlighted and counted; in the later draft, the words "designer" and "design" were highlighted and counted. Do you think they correlated? -------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
JayBaen |
Dec 11 2005, 04:34 PM
Post
#11
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,073 Joined: 13-June 03 From: Atlanta, GA Member No.: 3 |
QUOTE Democracy is only a viable institution when supplemented by a baseline of rights; what the founders called "unalienable," and which manifested itself in the Bill of Rights. So no matter what we all vote, we may not simply saber Kyzene, no matter how much we all want to. Adding the two together, one gets a wonderful situation; where the powerful majority must behave in a way that respects the minority in ways that the minority need not reciprocate. This, though seemingly "unfair" on the surface, becomes a more "fair" situation when looked at it through the lens of history. Very well said. JB -------------------- Yellow Is Golden
DelphiGT "There's nothing in this universe that can't be explained. Eventually." -- House, M.D. |
Ruggiero |
Dec 11 2005, 06:36 PM
Post
#12
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
Thankee, now put your saber where your mouth is, chump.
Rugg -------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
InfiniteWarrior |
Dec 12 2005, 12:28 AM
Post
#13
|
Emperor Group: Members Posts: 800 Joined: 21-June 03 Member No.: 20 |
QUOTE(Ruggiero @ Dec 11 2005, 04:24 PM) P.P.S. I am not even going to touch "intelligent design" Chicken. Allow me, then. Intelligent Design (in its current incarnation) has absolutely no basis in fact. End of story. (Or should be.) Makes for a better argument than "satire", methinks. Admittedly, isn't all that humorous, but perhaps a mite more persuasive. I'd be happy to post the "essay worthy" version if anyone's up for a yawn. (I can see 'em now: NO! Er, I mean, that's ok. ) The Onion article is a satire - one that pokes fun at the fundamental flaw inherent in the (so-called) theory of Intelligent Design. FSM is an attempt at satire, but doesn't come anywhere near that fundamental flaw. Naturally, that's just my opinion. 'Course, ID has little to do with KY's post. All history anyway... despite the "no basis in fact" thing. Yikes. Think of the ramifications.... P.S. Just can't help myself. Now, I gotta go to bed. Sorry to miss you all. |
Ruggiero |
Dec 20 2005, 11:33 AM
Post
#14
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
Well, The Court in PA just rejected the Intelligent Design suit. Herewith, from the COURT'S OPINION is an excerpt, substantiating what I mentioned above. "ID" stands for intelligent design.
(bold is my addition) --Ruggiero QUOTE As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas (the book on "intelligent design"--Rugg) went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; (3) the change occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term “creation” was defined as “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as “special creation” of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. Professor Behe’s assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas. The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. -------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
Ruggiero |
Dec 20 2005, 11:39 AM
Post
#15
|
Lord Group: Admin Posts: 1,177 Joined: 13-June 03 Member No.: 2 |
And lastly, the Judge's eloquent conclusion....
QUOTE Conclusion The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. -------------------- Oobawanga wata chopay polah.
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th April 2024 - 06:46 AM |