Slashdot Mirror

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the almighty spaghetti monster for all that He has done for me.

Not only has He used divine intervention in Dover but He has shown me the way! I await his presence in pirate heaven with the stripper factory and beer volcano.

Believe.

I wonder what the noodly one had in mind when he created these creatures.

god's party is the majority of his favorite country

Since when were Republicans touched by his noodly appendage?

Piracy sells consoles which in turn sells games

I don't think piracy means what you think it means...


Unless you're actually suggesting a shipful of pirates and their activities, in which case I have a nice graph for you here.

Please don't forget FSM'ism.

http://www.venganza.org/

We want our equal time, too.

Piracy is forceful, violent and often results in mayhem, rape and death.

Infringing intellectual property often results in lack of profits.

Not quite the same - but somehow calling someone an "infringer" lacks the exaggerated emotional appeal of calling them a pirate, no?

Correlation does not imply causation.

But it almost always warrants looking into.

Yes, for example, the sales of alcohol and bibles are highly correlated. And, of course, eveybody knows that the global temperature and the number of pirates are highly correlated as well. Proof: http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Someone gets it! I have been saying this for a long time as I have been trying to get a research grant to investigate the relationship between a decrease in the number of pirates and an increase in average global temperatures (see graph).

There is also a written record of the creation, where the creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now, what makes JHWH the more likely creator? Every time you pull the 'written record' argument, you should be ready to defend your specific mode of creation and creator. I can't see anything special about the judeo-christian creation myth in comparison with the creation myths of other religions. Your faith in this specific creation myth is based on a cultural bias.

There is a record of evolution. It is in our genes. It is beneath our feet. It is everywhere around us in the biosphere.

1. It is a well-known fact that pirates are cool. This is evidenced by the existence of Errol Flynn and Jack Sparrow (aka Johnny Depp)
2. There is a strong and well-documented correlation between the reduction in the number of pirates worldwide and increases in global temperatures

It's pretty clear that a reduced level of global coolness caused by a lack of pirates would result in increasing global temperatures, and we have in fact observed such a predicted upswing in temperatures. It's less clear how factors such as increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, reductions in solar output, or any of the other things driving Earth's natural warming/glaciation cycle might contribute.

What's wrong with flying?

This has been twisted to mean that religious men and women in government can somehow not express their beliefs or base their decisions on them.

Oh, nonsense. No one has ever said that Amendment I forbids an office holder or official of the government from expressing their personal beliefs on their own time, or of voting on a bill a certain way because they ask themselves, "How would Buddha vote?"

A situation is created where a belief in a religion is regarded as somehow a bases to exclude practitioners (see current supreme court nominations) and victimizes those who dare to follow their religious beliefs.

Bullshit. How many atheists on the Court? Zero. Holding religious belief is clearly not being used an excuse to exclude SCOTUS nominees.

For instance it is just as wrong for the government to force acceptance of "gay marriage" as it is for the government to force censorship of television programming.

No one has ever suggested forcing "acceptance" of gay marriage, you are free to cluck your tongue and disapprove and your church is free to call such unions void in the eyes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever; that doesn't change the legal requirement for the government to extend equal protection under the law to homosexual unions.

You insensitive clod! Everybody knows it is because of the pirates!

I take issue with the conclusion of this submission headline, as there is plenty of evidence suggesting the possibility that we're not much of a contribution at all.

Yes, I agree. If you want irrefutable evidence of the real cause of global warming, allow me to introduce exhibit A.

Can I hear a Ramen!

... anyone?

Saw it linked on www.venganza.org

Stop debating creationism vs Darwinism. I want equal time (and coroprate support) for the FSM Theory (and religion). I just spent the last night working on education material for my new found religion.

Stop debating creationism vs Darwinism. I want equal time (and coroprate support) for the FSM Theory (and religion). I just spent the last night working on education material for my new found religion.

How can think that?

It's obvious that this is the result of His Noodly Appendage.

Actually it's "pirate-stimulating late-night conversations". You try to convince other people to become pirates. You want to do that to reduce global warming, of cource.

But have they been touched by His Noodly Appendage?

That would also help with global warming! Just look at http://www.venganza.org/

Ummm, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Please show me how religion is illogical. Just because it isn't science doesn't make it invalid. I challenge you try to explain how something not described by science can't exist.

Let existence be divided into two distinct non overlapping sets M and E. Let M be the material/(scientifically explainable) realm set. Let E be the ethereal(scientifically unexplainable) realm set. By definition the intersection of M and E is a null set.

Everything in out universe lies within set M. God, if such a being exists, does not by definition lie within M. Therefore God must be an element, or elements, of E.

If elements in M are to be influenced by elements in E then some physical particle, force or other effect must in some way originate or be connected with an element in E. This implies that at some time or place, there exists an element which is both a member of M and E.

But by definition, the intersection of M and E is the null set. Thus, elements in E cannot effect elements in M directly.

One can postulate the set E', whose intersection with M and E is not a null set. Then element in E can influence elements in M, via influence of elements in E'.

It falls then to define the set E', which contains elements both in the material set and the ethereal set. Also, this set must contain at least one element wich does not lie with in either M or E, otherwise it is simply a subset of M union E.

So we have at least one element in existence with is neither explainable or unexplainable by science. This is a clear contridiction. We have reached a logical contridiction, thus one of our assumptions was false.

The only unjustified assumption we made was the existence of this one element. Thus E' less (E union M) is a null set. Therefore E' is a subset of E union M and so elements in E cannot influence elements in M.

Therefore, the existence of God in set E is the equivalent to the existence of any element in set M, as neither element can affect the other. We may inverse the sets M and E and any set of elements in M with the God set in E and the argument still holds. Religion holds that the existence of God is greater than the existence of any element in set M. Clearly this is not the case, therefore religion is illogical.

I think you will find the argument is really quite solid.

I would refer you to http://www.venganza.org/ and http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ for further insight into this topic.

He's talking about the many cases where no amount of selection pressure will get from organism A to organism B (or from squat to Organism A), just as two or more small hops won't get you across a chasm.

There are two effects at work here.

Natural selection needs something distinct to select between and since mutation inevitably degrades the organism, natural selection becomes an agent of homeostasis, not change. No, don't bother raising sickle-cell anaemia, once the mossies are gone, it will be selected against as well.

The other effect is... well, Stephen Hawking stated outright that literally anything could pop out of a black hole occasionally, leading to drawings of physicists and pianos escaping the Roche Limit of a nearby singularity. Yet if a fully functional space cruiser (say for example one of David Weber's mighty machines [complete novel on line]) were to pop out of a black hole, nobody (well, except a few excitable people in places with soft walls) is going to claim that it was an accident. Aliens will have dunnit (using black holes as a transport system somehow), or a wormhole sucked it from somewhere else. Yet the simplest cell is far more complex than even the latest pod-laying Apollo-equipped Invictus superdreadnought [see At All Costs for details], and we're prepared to accept that as an accident. The odds of accidentally forming a living, replicating cell of any kind, given all of the time and resources in the universe, are essentially zero -- well beyond mathematical values routinely labelled "impossible".

Intelligent Design concerns itself not with origins per se, but with those aspects of existing life-forms which are, for Naturalism, unbridgeable gaps, far too wide for any conceivable combination of mutation and selection to have bridged, absent the gentle caress of a holy noodle or whatever.

You only have to look at the pathetic "scaffolding" theories fabricated out of whole cloth as alternatives to ID to understand that this is a genuine problem (well, set of problems) for Naturalistic Evolution.

Become a pirate to stop global warming!

http://www.venganza.org/

Funny, I thought it was because of the decline in the number of pirates since the 1800's.

Is there any reason to suppose that Intelligent Design is more or less likely than, say, The Flying Sphagehtti Monster or The Sneeze of the Great Green Arkleseizure

It is the nature of a theory to be "purely undeniable" in any context that involves it being provably true.

Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is _not_ provably true. We can make observations that suggest it is true, and we can posit experiments that could potentially prove it false.

Quantum Mechanics is _not_ provably true. We can make observations that suggest it is true, and we can posit experiments that could potentially prove it false.

Evolution is _not_ provably true. We can make observations that suggest it is true, and we can posit experiments that could potentially prove it false.

Intelligent Design is _not_ provably true. We _cannot_ make observations that suggest it true. We _cannot_ posit experiments that could potentially prove it false.

Feel free to teach Intelligent Design. In either literature, sociology, or history. It has _no_ place in Biology. I believe I'm quoting Sagan, but if you taken an infinite universe, the chance of an infinitesimally small event occuring _repeatedly_ is 100%.

And theologically, I'm far more inclined to believe that the creator would have set the ball rolling towards evolution, rather than manufacturing the universe out of nothing in seven days several thousand years ago.

The bible should not be taken literally. If you read the bible literally, Jesus answers all prayers for healing, and PI is equal to _exactly_ 3.

Not that I'm even a Christian, but I don't understand why the concept of intelligent design is even necessary, except to advance a particular fundamentalist religious cause.

Even the Vatican has thrown its weight behind evolution.

Intelligent Design belongs with flat earth, earth as the center of the universe, and heaven as a literal place 800 miles up.

Note that evolution may belong with the epicycle system; as in, a better theory may come up. But that _sure_ as hell won't be Intelligent Design.

Of course, I expect Kansas's schools to handle all challenges to the theory of evolution equally, including the belief that we were brought to this world by means of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... http://www.venganza.org/

The real question is when are they going to add the theory of the FSM:

http://www.venganza.org/

lol

Once again, one need only refer to the related news: http://www.venganza.org/ Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

My main gripe is the fact that they teach ID, but no other alternative theories. Being a member of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am appaled that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is not also being taught. If we convert more pastafarians, maybe the schoolboard will hear our pleas!

The controversy in Kansas over the educational value of Intelligent Design has polarized a nation, raised the hackles of scientists, and produced one of the greatest satirical works since Swift's Modest Proposal.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by an Oregon State alumnus with a physics degree and a keen wit. Bobby Henderson (www.venganza.org) created his "parody religion" in protest of the decision by the Kansas Board of Education to allow the theory of Intelligent Design to be taught in science class.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster--whose followers are known as Pastafarians--asserts, among other things, that an invisible and undetectable being made of pasta and meatballs created the world. Their god bestows grace upon his followers by touching them with "His Noodly Appendage." A graph is provided that charts--and ostensibly proves--the causal relationship between a decreasing number of pirates in the world and increasing global temperatures.

As absurd as these claims may seem, they are actually new interpretations of old ideas: Creationism, salvation by the grace of God alone, and the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation. These ideas, when applied in the context of an anthropomorphic and established deity, are accepted by an incredible amount of the world's population. It is in the context of worshipping an airborne Italian dinner that such beliefs seem so outrageous.

But the ridiculous nature of the claims made by the Pastafarians is exactly the point. Henderson recently sent a letter to the Kansas Board of Education saying that he was pleased with their decision, since it would open the door to alternate theories of creation (i.e. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) being discussed seriously in the science classroom. And as someone who, during high school, transformed from a zealous Christian to an uneasy agnostic, I can appreciate Henderson's point.

The doctrine of Intelligent Design is based on one principle: that the "irreducible complexity" of organs and organisms implies the guiding hand of a creator, as the complexity of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. Therefore, proponents conclude, Intelligent Design is just as scientifically valid as the theory of evolution, and deserves equal time in the classroom.

The problem with this argument is that Intelligent Design is not scientifically valid. My education in science--both at the college and high school levels--noted that, to be considered scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. It must be possible to prove it wrong.

Evolution passes this test. Intelligent Design, however, fails miserably. By asserting the guiding hand of an unseen but omnipotent being, it reveals itself to be both scientifically invalid and based on religious faith. Certainly, it is impossible to prove that there is not a guiding hand in the process, but that is no reason to presuppose one. Evolution functions quite well without a guiding hand--it violates the principle of parsimony to assume the existence of one.

Intelligent Design is perhaps best described as an empty argument provoked by incredulity. It is fundamentally unscientific. Science suggests that, if we do not understand how something works, we have an incomplete understanding of it. The doctrine of Intelligent Design suggests that if we do not understand how something works it is the product of supernatural intervention. It is, as one member of the SciTech website Slashdot.org put it, the "Oz" explanation: since we can't perceive the science behind the curtain, the supernatural is the only explanation. It is doubly ironic when one considers that the mechanisms of evolution are well documented. Those who accept Intelligent Design are a scientific theory

The Spaghetti Monster made the universe.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.venganza.org/

Yay, now I'm going to move to Kansas and get my kids to learn about the FSM!

Wait, what do you mean they're not teaching about His Noodliness? I thought the purpose of this exercise was to expose schoolkids to other theories! Now we see the religious oppression inherent in the system!

If Al Gore created the Internet, he only did it at the behest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Speaking of which, does anybody else notice the alarming similarities between ethernet cables and spaghetti? Divine inspiration, derived from His Noodly Appendages, to be sure...

--Petey

The fact that pirates are in the news should please His Noodly Appendage. That means the number of pirates is going up. And if the numbers of pirates are going up that means the Earth will start cooling again. Check out this graph er I mean this graph which shows the current trend. Expect it to trend downwards. Ramen.

The fact that pirates are in the news should please His Noodly Appendage. That means the number of pirates is going up. And if the numbers of pirates are going up that means the Earth will start cooling again. Check out this graph er I mean this graph which shows the current trend. Expect it to trend downwards. Ramen.

.. to combat pirates is more global warming! http://www.venganza.org/

It's actually the disappearance of pirates that cause global warming, as proven by this explicit graph[/url]

We simply cannot afford to kill any pirates, since the worldwide decline in the number of pirates is clearly responsible for global warming.

I could make up a story right now that explains just as much as ID.

FSM Rules!

Curious; you have yet to name one fact that contradicts the Bible. Do you have evidence that the Tower still stands? If so, where in the Bible does it say that it doesn't?

I bet you can't come up with one fact that contradicts the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Do you believe in him?

An open letter to the Kansas School board arguing that the creation story provided by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also needs to be recognized...

An open letter to the Kansas School board arguing that the creation story provided by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also needs to be recognized...

• Don Pirate Attire
• Go "Arrrrrrrrr!!!!"
• Violate DMCA
• Help Save The World

Well there are so many good reasons that have been mentioned that the only one I can think of is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Also see the Wikipedia entry for an explaination of what it means.

Ofcourse he cannot.. Bless you for your insight, fellow Pastafarian!!

http://www.venganza.org/

Will the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster try to enact something similar? It would be a terrible day if children can no longer learn and coerced into believing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)

I scoff at your ID, unbeliever. Learn the truth and light at the temple of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!! http://www.venganza.org/