IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages  1 2 > 

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Flying Spaghetti Monsterism., For all the Pastafarians.

Kyzene
post 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 happy.gif .


--------------------
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JayBaen
post Sep 10 2005, 06:48 AM
Post #2


Lord


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,065
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ruggiero
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
InfiniteWarrior
post Sep 11 2005, 06:26 AM
Post #4


Emperor


Group: Members
Posts: 777
Joined: 21-June 03
Member No.: 20



biggrin.gif "Intelligent Falling?" LOLOL....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ruggiero
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ruggiero
post 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

biggrin.gif

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kyzene
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
InfiniteWarrior
post Dec 10 2005, 01:08 PM
Post #8


Emperor


Group: Members
Posts: 777
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. wink.gif

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? wink.gif

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. happy.gif


P.S. Edits appear in gray. Just seemed... important... to be accurate. smile.gif


This post has been edited by InfiniteWarrior: Dec 10 2005, 04:51 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JayBaen
post Dec 10 2005, 08:57 PM
Post #9


Lord


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,065
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 .. wink.gif )

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 .. smile.gif

JB


--------------------
Yellow Is Golden

DelphiGT

"There's nothing in this universe that can't be explained. Eventually." -- House, M.D.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ruggiero
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JayBaen
post Dec 11 2005, 04:34 PM
Post #11


Lord


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,065
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ruggiero
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
InfiniteWarrior
post Dec 12 2005, 12:28 AM
Post #13


Emperor


Group: Members
Posts: 777
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. wink.gif 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. biggrin.gif)

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. wink.gif Now, I gotta go to bed. Sorry to miss you all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ruggiero
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ruggiero
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages  1 2 >
Topic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th September 2021 - 09:13 AM