The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Curly
http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flying.spaghettimonster.ap/index.html
Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster
(AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in San
Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll be
talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises
serious questions about the essence of religion.
The appearance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the agenda of the
American Academy of Religion's annual meeting gives a kind of scholarly
imprimatur to a phenomenon that first emerged in 2005, during the debate
in Kansas over whether intelligent design should be taught in public
school sciences classes.
Supporters of intelligent design hold that the order and complexity of the
universe is so great that science alone cannot explain it. The concept's
critics see it as faith masquerading as science.
An Oregon State physics graduate named Bobby Henderson stepped into the
debate by sending a letter to the Kansas School Board. With tongue in
cheek, he purported to speak for 10 million followers of a being called
the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- and demanded equal time for their
"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts
of it," Henderson wrote. As for scientific evidence to the contrary, "what
our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement,
the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly
Appendage."
The letter made the rounds on the Internet, prompting laughter from some
and vilification from others. But it struck a chord and stuck around. In
the great tradition of satire, its humor was in fact a clever and
effective argument.
Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more
scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an
omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent
design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not
anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences
classes but the best available science.
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are
given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and
eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third
time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical
conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," Henderson
sarcastically concluded.
Kansas eventually repealed guidelines questioning the theory of evolution.
Meanwhile, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM-ism to its "adherents") has
thrived -- particularly on college campuses and in Europe. Henderson's Web
site has become a kind of cyber-watercooler for opponents of intelligent
design.
Henderson did not respond to a request for comment. His Web site tracks
meetings of FSM clubs (members dress up as pirates) and sells trinkets and
bumper stickers. "Pastafarians" -- as followers call themselves -- can
also download computer screen-savers and wallpaper (one says: "WWFSMD?")
and can sample photographs that show "visions" of the divinity himself. In
one, the image of the carbohydrate creator is seen in a gnarl of dug-up
tree roots.
It was the emergence of this community that attracted the attention of
three young scholars at the University of Florida who study religion in
popular culture. They got to talking, and eventually managed to get a
panel on FSM-ism on the agenda at one of the field's most prestigious
gatherings.
The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The Flying
Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."
"For a lot of people they're just sort of fun responses to religion, or
fun responses to organized religion. But I think it raises real questions
about how people approach religion in their lives," said Samuel Snyder,
one of the three Florida graduate students who will give talks at the
meeting next Monday along with Alyssa Beall of Syracuse University.
The presenters' titles seem almost a parody themselves of academic jargon.
Snyder will speak about "Holy Pasta and Authentic Sauce: The Flying
Spaghetti Monster's Messy Implications for Theorizing Religion," while
Gavin Van Horn's presentation is titled "Noodling around with Religion:
Carnival Play, Monstrous Humor, and the Noodly Master."
Using a framework developed by literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin, Van Horn
promises in his abstract to explore how, "in a carnivalesque fashion, the
Flying Spaghetti Monster elevates the low (the bodily, the material, the
inorganic) to bring down the high (the sacred, the religiously dogmatic,
the culturally authoritative)."
The authors recognize the topic is a little light by the standards of the
American Academy of Religion.
"You have to keep a sense of humor when you're studying religion,
especially in graduate school," Van Horn said in a recent telephone
interview. "Otherwise you'll sink into depression pretty quickly."
But they also insist it's more than a joke.
Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to
the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What
defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or
simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of
signaling their cultural alliances to others?
In short, is an anti-religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism actually a
religion?
Joining them on the panel will be David Chidester, a prominent and
controversial academic at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who
is interested in precisely such questions. He has urged scholars looking
for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to
explore a wider range of human activities. Examples include cheering for
sports teams, joining Tupperware groups and the growing phenomenon of
Internet-based religions. His 2005 book "Authentic Fakes: Religion and
American Popular Culture," prompted wide debate about how far into popular
culture religious studies scholars should venture.
Lucas Johnston, the third Florida student, argues the Flying Spaghetti
Monsterism exhibits at least some of the traits of a traditional religion
-- including, perhaps, that deep human need to feel like there's something
bigger than oneself out there.
He recognized the point when his neighbor, a militant atheist who sports a
pro-Darwin bumper sticker on her car, tried recently to start her car on a
dying battery.
As she turned the key, she murmured under her breath: "Come on Spaghetti
Monster!"
My daughters car: http://chan.stanleylieber.com/n/src/1195254809832.jpg
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off Madam Guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phlip
> (AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in San
> Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll be
> talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises
> serious questions about the essence of religion.
In terms of neutrality, last time I checked, WikiPedia defined
Pastafarianism and Church of the SubGenius as religions, not
"pseudo-religions".
> The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The Flying
> Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."
That's a point-of-view.
--
Phlip
MarkA
When they find out they are spending eternity in a bubbling vat of
marinara sauce, they'll wish they'd believed when they had the chance!
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
sleepykit
> http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flyin...
In so many ways FSM represents a made up concept that ends up
sounding, once you read a little into it, like a religion. To me, it's
not only a reminder that all religion is false because it sounds about
as plausible as FSM, but also cute. Very cute.
Phlip
>>> The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The Flying
>>> Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."
>> That's a point-of-view.
> When they find out they are spending eternity in a bubbling vat of
> marinara sauce, they'll wish they'd believed when they had the chance!
There's only One True Way to achieve Slack!
Phlip
> sounding, once you read a little into it, like a religion. To me, it's
> not only a reminder that all religion is false because it sounds about
> as plausible as FSM, but also cute. Very cute.
FSM represents how all religions have two components. One is a gimmick,
and the other is a bunch of feel-good spiritual peps talks and cultural
rubrics. In each religion the gimmick is always distinctly different,
but the pep-talks are generally the same!
FSM simply replaces the gimmick with an absurdist prank, but leaves in
the pep talks and poetry.
And note how rational people are, here, when discussing FSM, compared to
certain other religions!
--
Phlip
Starbuck
wrote:
>
>http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flying.spaghettimonster.ap/index.html
>Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster
>
Good article, and thanks for posting it.
>My daughters car: http://chan.stanleylieber.com/n/src/1195254809832.jpg
My son used to have this decal , and somebody tore it off the back
of his car. They obviously didn't like it.
I'm probably telling my age here, but I'm wondering if anyone in this
group remembers a bumper sticker that was popular with the Christians
back in the '70's. The bumper sticker said "I found it!" implying
that the car owner had found religion/god.
Back then, I got my hands on a bumper sticker that said the same
phrase, but in the letter 'O' of the word "found" was a Marijuana
leaf. Implying that I had "found" marijuana.
This was no small feat to acquire such a sticker in my small town and
I was proud to have it on the back of my car. But it didn't last very
long, after only a week or so, someone purposely ripped it from the
back of my car.
Of course I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure it was some religious
person who was offended.
How Christian of them...
*$
aa#5933
Conspiracy of Doves
> http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flyin...
The Invisible Pink Unicorn just wasn't silly enough to catch on.
William Wingstedt
That'll seem like bliss after they graduate to the realization they'll
be cleaning out stalls for the Invisible Pink Unicorn FOREVER!
The Chief Instigator
>MarkA wrote:
>>> That's a point-of-view.
Indeed...there's NO prob, with "Bob"!
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Worcester 1 (November 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 16 at Peoria, 7:05
3867 Dead
The only problem I have with pastafarians is the amount of mushrooms
they put in the sauce.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Phlip
> they put in the sauce.
Google "theophagy" if you think FSM has no precedent!
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29221f80-a654-41b6...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 6:21 pm, Curly <curly.is....@home.com> wrote:
>> http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flyin...
>> Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster
>>
<snip>
>
> The Invisible Pink Unicorn just wasn't silly enough to catch on.
Maybe we should co-opt FSM like Christianity co-opted
Mithra. Invisible Pink Spaghetti Monster anyone?
MarkA
>
> The Invisible Pink Unicorn just wasn't silly enough to catch on.
I think it was the catchy drawing of the original Creation of the first
mountain and midgit [sic] that put the FSM over the top. Unfortunately,
Invisible anythings are hard to draw in a compelling way.
--
MarkA
3867 Dead
wrote:
>> The only problem I have with pastafarians is the amount of mushrooms
>> they put in the sauce.
>
>Google "theophagy" if you think FSM has no precedent!
I'm working on a story in which the protagonist, accompanied by two
religious friends, encounter some communion wafers. The first
religionist tastes one, and says, "Tastes consecrated." The second
one make a face and says, "Yeah, but it's Methodist". The main
character takes one and says, "flour, unleavened. Some sugar, salt,
water." The first two glance at each other, and then stare at him
pityingly...
Curly
From Wikipedia: "Theophagy is the practice of eating the body of a god.
This is sometimes performed symbolically through the eating of a food or
material symbolic of the god. In fertility rituals, the harvested grain
may itself be the reborn god of vegetation. This practice has origins in
many ancient religions. Dionysus and many examples are documented in The
Golden Bough by Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941). Vestiges survive in
many modern religions, notably in the Christian eucharist."
I take issue with Catholics being included. They're more properly
vicarious cannibals.
Uncle Vic
with this:
> Curly wrote:
>
>> (AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in
>> San Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu.
>> They'll be talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying
>> Spaghetti Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but
>> also raises serious questions about the essence of religion.
>
> In terms of neutrality, last time I checked, WikiPedia defined
> Pastafarianism and Church of the SubGenius as religions, not
> "pseudo-religions".
And in terms of reality, all churches are the same. Maybe with the
exception of the Church of the FSM, as it enters the arena tongue planted
firmly in cheek.
>
>> The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The Flying
>> Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."
>
> That's a point-of-view.
>
No, it's just a title.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Uncle Vic
with this:
> MarkA wrote:
Yup. Wake up next to last night's conquest at the keg party.
Phlip
>>> Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."
>>
>> That's a point-of-view.
> No, it's just a title.
Between this and the adjacent post, you successfully refused to get more
than three excellent and pro-athiesm jokes in a row.
Tip: A true believer, even a true believer in atheism, doesn't have to prove
their beliefs to anyone. The people who go crazy defending their beliefs to
all comers are the people with the most self doubt!
--
Phlip
Uncle Vic
with this:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:25:49 -0800, Phlip wrote:
>
>>> The only problem I have with pastafarians is the amount of mushrooms
>>> they put in the sauce.
>>
>> Google "theophagy" if you think FSM has no precedent!
>
> From Wikipedia: "Theophagy is the practice of eating the body of a god.
> This is sometimes performed symbolically through the eating of a food or
> material symbolic of the god.
Yup, it's a pretend god. Little do they know, so is their "real" god.
> In fertility rituals, the harvested grain
> may itself be the reborn god of vegetation. This practice has origins in
> many ancient religions. Dionysus and many examples are documented in The
> Golden Bough by Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941). Vestiges survive in
> many modern religions, notably in the Christian eucharist."
>
> I take issue with Catholics being included. They're more properly
> vicarious cannibals.
Yes, as illustrated by their auto-de-fe rituals in the Dark Ages. The god
of the Old Testament only required the burnt offerings of dead animals.
Catholics exhaulted that to live humans, pretty much like the ancient
Aztecs. I wonder how many of their victims were eaten afterwards.
Uncle Vic
us up with this:
>>My daughters car: http://chan.stanleylieber.com/n/src/1195254809832.jpg
I want one!
>
> My son used to have this decal , and somebody tore it off the back
> of his car. They obviously didn't like it.
>
> I'm probably telling my age here, but I'm wondering if anyone in this
> group remembers a bumper sticker that was popular with the Christians
> back in the '70's. The bumper sticker said "I found it!" implying
> that the car owner had found religion/god.
>
> Back then, I got my hands on a bumper sticker that said the same
> phrase, but in the letter 'O' of the word "found" was a Marijuana
> leaf. Implying that I had "found" marijuana.
>
> This was no small feat to acquire such a sticker in my small town and
> I was proud to have it on the back of my car. But it didn't last very
> long, after only a week or so, someone purposely ripped it from the
> back of my car.
> Of course I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure it was some religious
> person who was offended.
>
> How Christian of them...
I had a plastic license plate frame on my bike which read, "Beware of
Dogma". I returned to the parking lot at the local grocery and
discovered half of it missing, as if someone had torn it off. I was
pissed, and blamed it on some unknown religious asshole. Then I realized
a rock could have gotten itself wedged into the tread of the back tire
and released itself just at the right moment to break it off. Maybe.
Maybe not.
I replaced the frame with a metal one. I still have it.
Go online and order a bunch of those stickers, they're cheap. Just
replace it everytime a Christovandal attacks in the love of Jesus.
Uncle Vic
> The Invisible Pink Unicorn just wasn't silly enough to catch on.
It's like watching a chick flick, I guess.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>> The only problem I have with pastafarians is the amount of mushrooms
>> they put in the sauce.
>
>Google "theophagy" if you think FSM has no precedent!
The catlicks have been doing it for ages...
Michael Gray
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> bloodied us up
>with this:
>
>> Curly wrote:
>>
>>> (AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in
>>> San Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu.
>>> They'll be talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying
>>> Spaghetti Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but
>>> also raises serious questions about the essence of religion.
>>
>> In terms of neutrality, last time I checked, WikiPedia defined
>> Pastafarianism and Church of the SubGenius as religions, not
>> "pseudo-religions".
>
>And in terms of reality, all churches are the same. Maybe with the
>exception of the Church of the FSM, as it enters the arena tongue planted
>firmly in cheek.
As did Scientology, for a while.
Uncle Vic
with this:
>>>> The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The
>>>> Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious
>>>> Parody."
>>>
>>> That's a point-of-view.
>
>> No, it's just a title.
>
> Between this and the adjacent post, you successfully refused to get
> more than three excellent and pro-athiesm jokes in a row.
Failed, not refused. I've been on the rampage tonight.
>
> Tip: A true believer, even a true believer in atheism, doesn't have to
> prove their beliefs to anyone. The people who go crazy defending their
> beliefs to all comers are the people with the most self doubt!
>
What is a "true believer in atheism"?
Ferd Farkel
> http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flyin...
>
> (AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in San
> Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll be
> talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises
> serious questions about the essence of religion.
Yeah, well SOMEONE had to mix the semolina and the eggs,
noodles don't make THEMSELVES.
3867 Dead
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> bloodied us up
>with this:
>
>> MarkA wrote:
>>
>>>>> The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The Flying
>>>>> Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."
>>
>>>> That's a point-of-view.
>>
>>> When they find out they are spending eternity in a bubbling vat of
>>> marinara sauce, they'll wish they'd believed when they had the chance!
>>
>> There's only One True Way to achieve Slack!
>>
>
>Yup. Wake up next to last night's conquest at the keg party.
"Slack". Not "permanently flaccid".
Olrik
Amusing. And I want one. Really.
But the article is incomplete. I will not believe in the FSM until It
prescribe that The Holy Carbonara Sauce is Heaven personified,
incarnate and immaculate.
> -- Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Time to dust off Madam Guillotine
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
But does she chop bacon?
Olrik
William Wingstedt
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, Starbuck <Star...@BogusDomain.com> bloodied
>us up with this:
>
>>>My daughters car: http://chan.stanleylieber.com/n/src/1195254809832.jpg
>
>I want one!
http://yque.com/fishandfeti.html
Michael Gray
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> bloodied us up
>with this:
>
>>>>> The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The
>>>>> Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious
>>>>> Parody."
>>>>
>>>> That's a point-of-view.
>>
>>> No, it's just a title.
>>
>> Between this and the adjacent post, you successfully refused to get
>> more than three excellent and pro-athiesm jokes in a row.
>
>Failed, not refused. I've been on the rampage tonight.
>
>>
>> Tip: A true believer, even a true believer in atheism, doesn't have to
>> prove their beliefs to anyone. The people who go crazy defending their
>> beliefs to all comers are the people with the most self doubt!
>>
>
>What is a "true believer in atheism"?
It's like a rabid non collector of stamps.
Michael Gray
OK smartypants, who *first* created noodles?
There had to be a Prime Chef.
Curly
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Starbuck <Star...@BogusDomain.com> bloodied
> us up with this:
>
>>>My daughters car: http://chan.stanleylieber.com/n/src/1195254809832.jpg
>
> I want one!
$4.99 plus shipping:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-Car-Emblem-Sticker-Plaque-New_W0QQitemZ180176468427QQcmdZViewItem
Gunner
>Curly wrote:
>
>> (AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in San
>> Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll be
>> talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti
>> Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises
>> serious questions about the essence of religion.
>
>In terms of neutrality, last time I checked, WikiPedia defined
>Pastafarianism and Church of the SubGenius as religions, not
>"pseudo-religions".
"Slack!!!"
Amen
Gunner
Gunner
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>There's only One True Way to achieve Slack!
>
>The only problem I have with pastafarians is the amount of mushrooms
>they put in the sauce.
>--
>
>What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
>
>An ex-Republican.
What do you call a Republican who has just suffered massive brain
damage?
A new Democrat
Gunner
Phlip
If you have to ask...
Phlip
That's what I saw on an SUV going north on the 5 on Wednesday.
I'm like, "Wait-a-minute. I'm not online!!"
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:29:27 -0800, Phlip wrote:
> > Curly wrote:
>
> >> (AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in San
> >> Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll be
> >> talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti
> >> Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises
> >> serious questions about the essence of religion.
>
> > In terms of neutrality, last time I checked, WikiPedia defined
> > Pastafarianism and Church of the SubGenius as religions, not
> > "pseudo-religions".
>
> >> Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."
>
> > That's a point-of-view.
>
> marinara sauce, they'll wish they'd believed when they had the chance!
LOL!
> --
> MarkA
> (This space accidentally filled in)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Phlip
> damage?
Slack..?
(-;
Phlip
>>> prove their beliefs to anyone. The people who go crazy defending their
>>> beliefs to all comers are the people with the most self doubt!
>>
>>What is a "true believer in atheism"?
>
> It's like a rabid non collector of stamps.
I never collect stamps! Never never! What makes you think I collect stamps!
These are square pieces of paper, not stamps! No, that's a Post-it. It's too
big for stamps! These aren't stamps either!
What are you doing collecting stamps? Oh, you think you're going to "mail"
something with them?! Well that's how it starts, you weak-minded
non-skeptical "believer", you! Don't you know that if your mind is too open,
your brains will fall out? Lick on that and drop it!!
--
Phlip
Observer
<gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>What do you call a Republican who has just suffered massive brain
>damage?
>
"Mr. President."
--
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> I take issue with Catholics being included. They're more properly
> vicarious cannibals.
Why vicarious, given their belief in transsubstantiation? I'd classify
them as believing that they actually ARE cannibals.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Scott Richter
> When they find out they are spending eternity in a bubbling vat of
> marinara sauce, they'll wish they'd believed when they had the chance!
Our father, who art in pesto, macaroni be thy name, thy ziti come, thy
penne done, on plates as it is in kitchen...
Syd M.
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:15:20 -0800, Gunner
>
> <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >What do you call a Republican who has just suffered massive brain
> >damage?
>
> "Mr. President."
>
LOL!!
PDW
Curly
A poor soul who just underwent a reality check
MarkA
...and give us this day, our daily garlic bread...
MarkA
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:15:20 -0800, Gunner
> <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>What do you call a Republican who has just suffered massive brain
>>damage?
>>
>
> "Mr. President."
Good one, Centurion!
yar...@aol.com
> > In so many ways FSM represents a made up concept that ends up
> > sounding, once you read a little into it, like a religion. To me, it's
> > not only a reminder that all religion is false because it sounds about
> > as plausible as FSM, but also cute. Very cute.
>
> FSM represents how all religions have two components. One is a gimmick,
> and the other is a bunch of feel-good spiritual peps talks and cultural
> rubrics. In each religion the gimmick is always distinctly different,
> but the pep-talks are generally the same!
>
> FSM simply replaces the gimmick with an absurdist prank, but leaves in
> the pep talks and poetry.
>
> And note how rational people are, here, when discussing FSM, compared to
> certain other religions!
>
> --
> Phlip
This view does not explain the incumbency of morality, nor does it
ground it in anything. Without a God that is a person, you have no
explanation as to why moral rules apply to people and not to animals.
Yes, you know what the moral rules are, but you cannot make any sense
of them without a personal God to whom you are obligated to in
following the moral rules you know exist. If human beings are the
source of these moral rules, that makes YOU the source...and you are
only obligated to yourself and no one else to change them as you see
fit anytime you see fit based on your personal whim at that time.
Isn't that exactly what a thief or a murderer does as he commits his
crimes?
Ray Fischer
Stuart Grey
> http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/
flying.spaghettimonster.ap/index.html
> Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster
>
> (AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in
> San Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll
> be talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises
> serious questions about the essence of religion.
Arg! Who wrote this port sided bilge? They included the satire that the
leftist praised which slammed creationism as pseudo-scientific crap, but
they didn't say a word about the satire about man made global warming
being caused by PIRATES! That's right! As the number of pirates
decreased, Global warming INCREASED, showing a negative correlation! The
solution, therefor, is to get more PIRATES!!
Phlip
> ground it in anything. Without a God that is a person, you have no
> explanation as to why moral rules apply to people and not to animals.
Uh, moral rules apply to animals. For those lacking a spiritual bent, The
Golden Rule has simple mathematical proofs, which yield to enlightened
self-interest. Animals try not to kill more than they can eat, for the
simple reason they need to preserve their game for their own offspring.
> Yes, you know what the moral rules are, but you cannot make any sense
> of them without a personal God to whom you are obligated to in
> following the moral rules you know exist.
I said nothing about my moral system, yet you seem to know it. Maybe you are
having an argument with someone else, and substituting me in.
That person might say, "I don't have that problem. I follow moral rules even
if I'm _assured_ I will never be punished. Put another way, my moral system
doesn't require Heaven or Hell as an excuse for me to behave."
> If human beings are the
> source of these moral rules, that makes YOU the source...and you are
> only obligated to yourself and no one else to change them as you see
> fit anytime you see fit based on your personal whim at that time.
> Isn't that exactly what a thief or a murderer does as he commits his
> crimes?
You have rubber-stamped the standard argument of "no moral relativism" into
a discussion about a mock worship of a bowl of spaghetti creating the
universe. Have you no shame, sir??
(Tip: What's that line from?)
--
Phlip
Phlip
> leftist praised which slammed creationism as pseudo-scientific crap, but
> they didn't say a word about the satire about man made global warming
> being caused by PIRATES! That's right! As the number of pirates
> decreased, Global warming INCREASED, showing a negative correlation! The
> solution, therefor, is to get more PIRATES!!
FSM is brilliant on that point.
In real life, the Fascists want to weaken schools by teaching children
"scientists hate God". That's the message they keep sending, no matter which
way the school boards sway.
If those silly scientists are wrong about God, then maybe they are wrong
about other important things, like Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Arrg indeed!
--
Phlip
Robibnikoff
<yar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:be658697-69b8-4424...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 4:36 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In so many ways FSM represents a made up concept that ends up
>> > sounding, once you read a little into it, like a religion. To me, it's
>> > not only a reminder that all religion is false because it sounds about
>> > as plausible as FSM, but also cute. Very cute.
>>
>> FSM represents how all religions have two components. One is a gimmick,
>> and the other is a bunch of feel-good spiritual peps talks and cultural
>> rubrics. In each religion the gimmick is always distinctly different,
>> but the pep-talks are generally the same!
>>
>> FSM simply replaces the gimmick with an absurdist prank, but leaves in
>> the pep talks and poetry.
>>
>> And note how rational people are, here, when discussing FSM, compared to
>> certain other religions!
>>
>> --
>> Phlip
>
> This view does not explain the incumbency of morality, nor does it
> ground it in anything. Without a God that is a person, you have no
> explanation as to why moral rules apply to people and not to animals.
Why? Because YOU say so?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Phlip
>>> and the other is a bunch of feel-good spiritual peps talks and cultural
>>> rubrics.
>> This view does not explain the incumbency of morality, nor does it
>> ground it in anything. Without a God that is a person, you have no
>> explanation as to why moral rules apply to people and not to animals.
>
> Why? Because YOU say so?
I believe I covered the "incumbency of morality" under "cultural rubrics".
Regardless what any deities and gurus have actually told us, we tell
ourselves our morals and ethics, using religion essentially as a mnemonic.
--
Phlip
Michael Gray
Michael Gray
wrote:
>In misc.survivalism Curly <curly....@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I take issue with Catholics being included. They're more properly
>> vicarious cannibals.
>
>Why vicarious, given their belief in transsubstantiation? I'd classify
>them as believing that they actually ARE cannibals.
Except than when quizzed, they lie their tiny little off about it all,
and manage to come up with a seriously twisted & tortuous illogical 10
page excuse that a corrupt and sleazy politician would be proud of.
The summary of which is "We can have it both ways. When it is
convenient to deny theophagy, then we deny it. When it is convenient
to claim it, then we do so. All with a straight face."
Catholics are forced to be bald-faced liars on this subject. (Amongst
a ton of others)
Michael Gray
Would not "hollow be thy name" be more mellifluous?
Michael Gray
wrote:
Stamp collecting is real.
The day that you come to realise that, is the day your holy mail will
be saved!
Michael Gray
>On Nov 16, 4:36 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In so many ways FSM represents a made up concept that ends up
>> > sounding, once you read a little into it, like a religion. To me, it's
>> > not only a reminder that all religion is false because it sounds about
>> > as plausible as FSM, but also cute. Very cute.
>>
>> FSM represents how all religions have two components. One is a gimmick,
>> and the other is a bunch of feel-good spiritual peps talks and cultural
>> rubrics. In each religion the gimmick is always distinctly different,
>> but the pep-talks are generally the same!
>>
>> FSM simply replaces the gimmick with an absurdist prank, but leaves in
>> the pep talks and poetry.
>>
>> And note how rational people are, here, when discussing FSM, compared to
>> certain other religions!
>>
>> --
>> Phlip
>
> This view does not explain the incumbency of morality, nor does it
>ground it in anything. Without a God that is a person, you have no
>explanation as to why moral rules apply to people and not to animals.
Indoctrinated moron.
Atheists are under-represented in prison systems around the globe, and
have ALWAYS been so.
Your idiotic claims are wrong on so many levels that to educate you up
to the level of a 5 year old would take 5 years or more.
No Gods have ever been shown to exist.
Grow up.
Curly
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:36:43 -0500, Observer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:15:20 -0800, Gunner
>> <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What do you call a Republican who has just suffered massive brain
>>>damage?
>>>
>>
>> "Mr. President."
>
> Good one, Centurion!
I think gunner is a Carter voter in reality and just trolling here to
garner support for the most left-wing positions with his inane
right-of-Attilla-the-Hun persona.
Observer
wrote:
>In misc.survivalism Curly <curly....@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I take issue with Catholics being included. They're more properly
>> vicarious cannibals.
>
>Why vicarious, given their belief in transsubstantiation? I'd classify
>them as believing that they actually ARE cannibals.
I've asked supposedly devout Catholics, "How do vegetarian Catholics
take mass?"
"Dude, it's just crackers and wine."
Ok........
Observer
<stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>That's right! As the number of pirates
>decreased, Global warming INCREASED, showing a negative correlation! The
>solution, therefor, is to get more PIRATES!!
>
If you're seeking to justify your bootleg porn downloads, you're
trolling in the wrong newsgroup.
Smiler
"Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qMOdnV22tJ7jRqPa...@adelphia.com...
God is perforations in all things??
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Michael Gray
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:08:15 +1030, Michael Gray
><mike...@newsguy.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>So what else is new? Religion of any kind requires a suspension of
>credulity and blind acceptance of the most preposterous utterings.
Exactly.
But they lie about their lies.
And then they lie about lying about their lies!
I won't labour the point, Stan!
Michael Gray
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:06:10 -0500, MarkA wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:36:43 -0500, Observer wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:15:20 -0800, Gunner
>>> <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What do you call a Republican who has just suffered massive brain
>>>>damage?
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Mr. President."
>>
>> Good one, Centurion!
>
>I think gunner is a Carter voter in reality and just trolling here to
>garner support for the most left-wing positions with his inane
>right-of-Attilla-the-Hun persona.
Carter enabled Osama bin Laden.
He ferevently believes in a bizarre genocidal sky-pixie.
He ain't left wing at all.
Michael Gray
wrote:
Why aren't there perforations in Gideons Bibles then?
I would find that extremeley handy.
Phlip
> have ALWAYS been so.
Uh, that statistic might go with "hookers typically have low IQs". If
the only hookers you measure are the ones you arrested, then your
arresting process itself filtered for low intelligence.
So maybe the atheists are better at covering their tracks. (-;
> No Gods have ever been shown to exist.
Or not to exist. Modulo the occasional moving of the goalpost!
--
Phlip
Phlip
>>>> damage?
>>> "Mr. President."
>> Good one, Centurion!
> I think gunner is a Carter voter in reality and just trolling here to
> garner support for the most left-wing positions with his inane
> right-of-Attilla-the-Hun persona.
You mean the quote from "Life of Brian" tipped you off?
Michael Gray
>> Atheists are under-represented in prison systems around the globe, and
>> have ALWAYS been so.
>
>Uh, that statistic might go with "hookers typically have low IQs". If
>the only hookers you measure are the ones you arrested, then your
>arresting process itself filtered for low intelligence.
>
>So maybe the atheists are better at covering their tracks. (-;
That, certainly, is an option for statistical consideration &
correlation! :)
One that implies a considerable superiority in intelligence & mental
skill of the atheist over the average theist, combined with an
exceptional grasp of political systems, policing, forensics, charm,
and a physiological mastery that would shame a Tibettan Buddhist.
Being superhuman is NOT something to be ashamed of, I should expect.
> > No Gods have ever been shown to exist.
>
>Or not to exist. Modulo the occasional moving of the goalpost!
Actually, billions of potential gods have been shown to not exist, by
virtue of logical conundra.
Almost all that have been practically proposed to date, in fact.
Your assertion that "No gods have ever been shown to not exist" is
provably false.
Phlip
>>> No Gods have ever been shown to exist.
>> Or not to exist. Modulo the occasional moving of the goalpost!
>
> Actually, billions of potential gods have been shown to not exist, by
> virtue of logical conundra.
> Almost all that have been practically proposed to date, in fact.
>
> Your assertion that "No gods have ever been shown to not exist" is
> provably false.
You moved the goalpost!
>> So maybe the atheists are better at covering their tracks. (-;
>
> That, certainly, is an option for statistical consideration &
> correlation! :)
>
> One that implies a considerable superiority in intelligence & mental
> skill of the atheist over the average theist, combined with an
> exceptional grasp of political systems, policing, forensics, charm,
> and a physiological mastery that would shame a Tibettan Buddhist.
>
> Being superhuman is NOT something to be ashamed of, I should expect.
<voice talent='James Earl Jones' filter='breath mask'>
I find your lack of skepticism disturbing.
</voice>
--
Phlip
Michael Gray
>Michael Gray wrote:
>
> >>> No Gods have ever been shown to exist.
>
> >> Or not to exist. Modulo the occasional moving of the goalpost!
> >
> > Actually, billions of potential gods have been shown to not exist, by
> > virtue of logical conundra.
> > Almost all that have been practically proposed to date, in fact.
> >
> > Your assertion that "No gods have ever been shown to not exist" is
> > provably false.
>
>You moved the goalpost!
Hardly, sir.
I note that you elided the relevant supporting quotes.
You implied what I said, like it or not.
>>> So maybe the atheists are better at covering their tracks. (-;
>>
>> That, certainly, is an option for statistical consideration &
>> correlation! :)
>>
>> One that implies a considerable superiority in intelligence & mental
>> skill of the atheist over the average theist, combined with an
>> exceptional grasp of political systems, policing, forensics, charm,
>> and a physiological mastery that would shame a Tibettan Buddhist.
>>
>> Being superhuman is NOT something to be ashamed of, I should expect.
>
><voice talent='James Earl Jones' filter='breath mask'>
> I find your lack of skepticism disturbing.
></voice>
That is your impersonal opinion... ;)
And one that does not even dent, let alone assail the relevant
stitistics.
brique
Gunner <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:59jtj3p8mkvn7d40s...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:19:39 GMT, 3867 Dead
> <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>There's only One True Way to achieve Slack!
> >
> >The only problem I have with pastafarians is the amount of mushrooms
> >they put in the sauce.
> >--
> >
> >What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
> >
> >An ex-Republican.
>
>
> damage?
>
Gunner falling on his butt......
brique
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mdmdneu0rL3lT6La...@adelphia.com...
> > Atheists are under-represented in prison systems around the globe, and
> > have ALWAYS been so.
>
> Uh, that statistic might go with "hookers typically have low IQs". If
> the only hookers you measure are the ones you arrested, then your
> arresting process itself filtered for low intelligence.
>
> So maybe the atheists are better at covering their tracks. (-;
Atheists are smarter, it is true.......:-)
brique
Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ckrvj3phk2tpvj2fh...@4ax.com...
I hate them stitistics..... always coming undone at the worst possible
moment.....
Phlip
>
> Atheists are smarter, it is true.......:-)
True skeptics know better than to make unsupportable generalizations.
>> --
>> Phlip
Free Lunch
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
<dmk0k31arpsfreekv...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:06:19 +1030, Michael Gray
>
>No god has ever been proven not to exist.
True, but meaningless. No god has ever had any evidence provided to show
that it exists.
Phlip
>>
>>No god has ever been proven not to exist.
>
> True, but meaningless. No god has ever had any evidence provided to show
> that it exists.
That is not skepticism.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Skepticism is about correctly identifying the situations where you _don't_
have evidence.
Skepticism is not about reassuring your own superiority over weak minded
people who believed in every article in the "Weekly World News"!
--
Phlip
Christopher A.Lee
wrote:
>>>Logic is frequently nothing more that being wrong with confidence.
>>>
>>>No god has ever been proven not to exist.
Plenty have been, when the claimed attributes reduce them to zero.
>> True, but meaningless. No god has ever had any evidence provided to show
>> that it exists.
>
>That is not skepticism.
>
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It is when there should be evidence. After all the god-bots insist
there is but in 2000 years none has ever been forthcoming/
>Skepticism is about correctly identifying the situations where you _don't_
>have evidence.
>
>Skepticism is not about reassuring your own superiority over weak minded
>people who believed in every article in the "Weekly World News"!
Look up "straw ma" so you don't do it next time.
Phlip
>
> It is when there should be evidence. After all the god-bots insist
> there is but in 2000 years none has ever been forthcoming/
Okay. Absense of a whole lot of evidence IS evidence of absense!
--
Phlip
Free Lunch
"Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<cO-dnRMEe6iDxt3a...@adelphia.com>:
[and rudely deleted the references so we can see who said what]
Attila said:
>>>Logic is frequently nothing more that being wrong with confidence.
>>>
>>>No god has ever been proven not to exist.
I responded:
>> True, but meaningless. No god has ever had any evidence provided to show
>> that it exists.
>
>That is not skepticism.
>
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I did not claim it was evidence. I specifically said that there was no
evidence.
>Skepticism is about correctly identifying the situations where you _don't_
>have evidence.
Which is little different from developing the correct null hypothesis.
In this case, the correct null hypothesis is that gods do not exist.
>Skepticism is not about reassuring your own superiority over weak minded
>people who believed in every article in the "Weekly World News"!
I have no idea what you are responding to.
Phlip
> Which is little different from developing the correct null hypothesis.
> In this case, the correct null hypothesis is that gods do not exist.
That is _a_ null hypothesis. It is not necessarily _correct_, unless you
want to weaken the definition of "correct".
>>Skepticism is not about reassuring your own superiority over weak minded
>>people who believed in every article in the "Weekly World News"!
>
> I have no idea what you are responding to.
Some people - I'm not saying who - get their jollies by flaming people who
appear less skeptical than them. Invective like, "Oh, you believe in the
Invisible Man in the Sky again, you loser!"
Not particularly conducive to rational discourse, huh?
--
Phlip
Free Lunch
"Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<nvednbmEs-jL-93a...@adelphia.com>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> Which is little different from developing the correct null hypothesis.
>> In this case, the correct null hypothesis is that gods do not exist.
>
>That is _a_ null hypothesis. It is not necessarily _correct_, unless you
>want to weaken the definition of "correct".
Please explain why you claim that.
>>>Skepticism is not about reassuring your own superiority over weak minded
>>>people who believed in every article in the "Weekly World News"!
>>
>> I have no idea what you are responding to.
>
>Some people - I'm not saying who - get their jollies by flaming people who
>appear less skeptical than them. Invective like, "Oh, you believe in the
>Invisible Man in the Sky again, you loser!"
>
>Not particularly conducive to rational discourse, huh?
No, is religion ever conducive to rational discourse?
Phlip
>>want to weaken the definition of "correct".
>
> Please explain why you claim that.
I want "correct" to mean "proven". Otherwise it just means "maybe".
A good way to restate your proposition is "the simplest null hypothesis is
that god doesn't exist". That's just Occam's Razor.
However, the Universe exists. If we ask a legitimate question, "What is All
That Is?", then we are asking what is the shape and characteristics of the
entirety of that Universe.
That question easily devolves into picking between "panpsism" and
"solipsism". Either everything in the Universe has consciousness, or nothing
has it except you.
We can easily mutually stipulate that All That Is does not contain a bearded
male unitary Lord with a white robe and quiver full of lightening bolts. We
cannot as easily agree, however, that All That Is does not exist. That would
be an incorrect null hypothesis!
A skeptic will admit that she or he does not know what the shapes and
characteristics are of All That Is. That's the meaning of skepticism.
>>Some people - I'm not saying who - get their jollies by flaming people who
>>appear less skeptical than them. Invective like, "Oh, you believe in the
>>Invisible Man in the Sky again, you loser!"
>>
>>Not particularly conducive to rational discourse, huh?
>
> No, is religion ever conducive to rational discourse?
You just did it again!
--
Phlip
Christopher A.Lee
wrote:
Another stupid straw man.
We object to rudeness and stupidity. If they are stupid enough to talk
about their god as though it were real, outside their religion, then
they have demonstrated that they are stupid, losers, rude and a whole
slew of other unflattering descriptions.
Which is not the same as your straw man.
But then you knew that anyway.
>Not particularly conducive to rational discourse, huh?
Your repeated straw men certainly aren't.
Christopher A.Lee
wrote:
>>>That is _a_ null hypothesis. It is not necessarily _correct_, unless you
>>>want to weaken the definition of "correct".
>>
>> Please explain why you claim that.
>
>I want "correct" to mean "proven". Otherwise it just means "maybe".
No, it doesn't. It is the default pending evidence.
>A good way to restate your proposition is "the simplest null hypothesis is
>that god doesn't exist". That's just Occam's Razor.
Why leave out the part about Popperian falsifiability?
>However, the Universe exists. If we ask a legitimate question, "What is All
>That Is?", then we are asking what is the shape and characteristics of the
>entirety of that Universe.
>
>That question easily devolves into picking between "panpsism" and
>"solipsism". Either everything in the Universe has consciousness, or nothing
>has it except you.
What "question"?
The only people who can have "the question of God" are theists - who
daren't ask it.
>
Robert
Carters one redeeming factor, he's smarter than Bush.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Free Lunch
"Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<rfudnWtlo-LJ993a...@adelphia.com>:
>>>That is _a_ null hypothesis. It is not necessarily _correct_, unless you
>>>want to weaken the definition of "correct".
>>
>> Please explain why you claim that.
>
>I want "correct" to mean "proven". Otherwise it just means "maybe".
But a null hypothesis is not a proven hypothesis. It has never meant
that.
>A good way to restate your proposition is "the simplest null hypothesis is
>that god doesn't exist". That's just Occam's Razor.
Did you notice the _null_ in null hypothesis?
>However, the Universe exists. If we ask a legitimate question, "What is All
>That Is?", then we are asking what is the shape and characteristics of the
>entirety of that Universe.
Unless there are other universes.
>That question easily devolves into picking between "panpsism" and
>"solipsism". Either everything in the Universe has consciousness, or nothing
>has it except you.
That would be a false dichotomy. I see no reason to address it.
>We can easily mutually stipulate that All That Is does not contain a bearded
>male unitary Lord with a white robe and quiver full of lightening bolts. We
>cannot as easily agree, however, that All That Is does not exist. That would
>be an incorrect null hypothesis!
No one offered such a null hypothesis.
>A skeptic will admit that she or he does not know what the shapes and
>characteristics are of All That Is. That's the meaning of skepticism.
But that question becomes utterly meaningless in the context of the
discussion.
>>>Some people - I'm not saying who - get their jollies by flaming people who
>>>appear less skeptical than them. Invective like, "Oh, you believe in the
>>>Invisible Man in the Sky again, you loser!"
>>>
>>>Not particularly conducive to rational discourse, huh?
>>
>> No, is religion ever conducive to rational discourse?
>
>You just did it again!
Religion does not rely on evidence or rational analysis. How can it
drive rational discourse?
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
Phlip
>>All
>>That Is?", then we are asking what is the shape and characteristics of the
>>entirety of that Universe.
>
> Unless there are other universes.
This is just gainsaying - of course they are part of All That Is.
etc.
Scott Richter
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:20:55 -0800, Scott Richter wrote:
>
> > MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> When they find out they are spending eternity in a bubbling vat of
> >> marinara sauce, they'll wish they'd believed when they had the chance!
> >
> > Our father, who art in pesto, macaroni be thy name, thy ziti come, thy
> > penne done, on plates as it is in kitchen...
>
> ...and give us this day, our daily garlic bread...
... and forgive us our SpaghettiO's...
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Bush..the same guy you claimed managed to subvert the entire election
process and then managed to get all those "smart" Demonrats to vote
for the war, and continue to fund it?
That Bush?
Doesnt sound so dumb to me. Unless Demonrats are dumber.
Right?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Phlip
And Habitat for Humanity, a Nobel Prize, some international diplomacy
scores, etc...
> Bush..the same guy you claimed managed to subvert the entire election
> process and then managed to get all those "smart" Demonrats to vote
> for the war, and continue to fund it?
>
> That Bush?
Bush is the scion of a dynasty of the best enablers, handlers, minders,
spooks, crooks, and organized criminals.
What you see there is all their handiwork, _without_ the tempering hand of
intelligence and prudence from, say, GHW Bush.
Fascism is not a strict conspiracy with a single ringleader. It arises
naturally when the people let down their guard.
--
Phlip
MarkA
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:20:55 -0800, Scott Richter wrote:
>>
>> > MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> When they find out they are spending eternity in a bubbling vat of
>> >> marinara sauce, they'll wish they'd believed when they had the chance!
>> >
>> > Our father, who art in pesto, macaroni be thy name, thy ziti come, thy
>> > penne done, on plates as it is in kitchen...
>>
>> ...and give us this day, our daily garlic bread...
>
> ... and forgive us our SpaghettiO's...
SpaghettiOs!!! Blasphemer!! Defiler!! You will drown in lakes of blood...
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
MarkA
I have a goldfish that's smarter than Bush. It died last week. It's
STILL smarter than Bush.
Curly
> No god has ever been proven not to exist.
It is impossible to prove a negative assertion. You've set up an
impossible, self-serving, demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
There is a strong overlap among the uneducated between belief in
superstition and ignorance. You exemplify this ignorance.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off Madam Guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>>> Carter's one redeeming factor, he's smarter than Bush.
>
>And Habitat for Humanity, a Nobel Prize, some international diplomacy
>scores, etc...
>
>> Bush..the same guy you claimed managed to subvert the entire election
>> process and then managed to get all those "smart" Demonrats to vote
>> for the war, and continue to fund it?
>>
>> That Bush?
>
>Bush is the scion of a dynasty of the best enablers, handlers, minders,
>spooks, crooks, and organized criminals.
>
>What you see there is all their handiwork, _without_ the tempering hand of
>intelligence and prudence from, say, GHW Bush.
So the Right is smarter than the Left?
>
>Fascism is not a strict conspiracy with a single ringleader. It arises
>naturally when the people let down their guard.
Oh..then thats like the DNC.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Curly
> No god has ever been proven not to exist.
Please desist in this erroneous assertion.
Phlip
>
> Please desist in this erroneous assertion.
Are you aware you A> just responded to this, and B> agreed you can't prove a
negative?
--
Phlip