What in life do you think is messed up?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed it is. I find the idea of a giant flying spaghetti monster pretty messed up.

hynemanclean.jpg
 
Well, yes.

But apparently it was made as a counter argument to those who believed in divine beings or whatever, so not really.
 
I wouldn't say brilliant. The message is good but the mascot is stupid. Kind of like how some atheists can appreciate the moral values of christians but think slapping Jesus on as the prerogative is dumb. I think that forcing ID as a substitute for evolution is absurd and agree with the other points of FSMism but a flying spaghetti monster? WTF. That's just stupid. I have a LOT of trouble reasoning how spaghetti will ever be able to be a living organism deity or not let alone be able to fly and create the universe.
 
Thats the whole point.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is ridiculous. In turn, it shows exactly how ridiculous all other religions are in comparison. Pastafarianism is a satire on religion, which is what makes it brilliant.

You should also read the letter to the Kansas School Board. Then you might get a better understanding of what Pastafarianism stands for.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter
 
Pastafarianism, in short, seems to be founded off of a desire to mock other religions that they claim to have thrown science out the window. Rather, intelligent design is just, well, a mere part of science. I mean, sure, you can say God created us. As a scientist, shouldn't you be saying "So?" Science would then just be trying to explain the world that was created by God. No big deal, just science.
 
If someone were to state that God (or some other power) created us, shouldn't a scientist say, "Prove it?"

Thats the reason why Pastafarianism was created. The Kansas School Board wanted to teach ID alongside evolution in their schools. The point the letter was trying to make was that ID has no more scientific ground than Pastafarianism does. Hence making the case of why ID shouldn't be taught in schools.

If I'm not mistaken, the Kansas School Board voted against adding ID to their curriculum due to that letter and other considerations.
 
XsoniccoreX (814) said:
Dark Warrior said:
I'd love some real evidence that supports the "We're in the war for oil" theory.
Click to expand...
Sorry I'm just making an assumption on that. Face it, there were never any WMDs, not that Iraq made anyway, if it was some kind of "war on terror/9-11 revenge plot" Afghanistan would have been the target, not Iraq, and please, Operation Iraqi Liberation? Lol is all I have to say to that. Liberating life from bodies. There are plenty of other countries ruled by dictators and non-democratic politicians that we could have "liberated" so that is a lie. Every war comes down to a simple struggle for power or property/wealth. What's our struggle there when every excuse provided by the military is bull? Pfft, it's a war for wealth, and what does the US have to gain from it? Hmmm, the fact that Iraq holds the 2nd greatest Oil reserve in the world couldn't possibly mean anything, nor the fact that the US needs oil and the Center for Global Energy Studies and Petrolog & Associates estimates that Iraq holds up to 300 Billion Barrels in reserves or Cheney's ties with Halliburton...

None of that could mean anything could it? Maybe I'm just stupid. :P
Want evidence? http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
Want more? Google it yourself and see what you find.
Click to expand...

I believe a lot of people have forgotten what the reason we went into Iraq was in the first place. Because Iraq was refusing (and has been hampering them for years) to allow the inspectors in. So there weren't any WMDs found. So what? That was never the specific reason we went in there in the first place.
I'm also not going to believe things just because there's an acronym there. That's horrible logic, and anyone with a bit of sense would realize that if there was a conspiracy to get oil from there, they'd better not actually use an acronym for oil. And that you linked to is using horrendously old sources, one of which is down. (While it does have all old information, I'm not going to hunt it down). Especially for an article that's supposedly new.
And of course, none of this explains the President's pushing for alternative energy sources and proposals for the same. I doubt that if he had that much vested interest in foreign oil, he'd be pushing for a decrease in the stuff.

XsoniccoreX (814) said:
And what about Hilary? Her husband was probably one of the most successful presidents in history. Who cares about Monica Lewinsky? He stabilized our economy and had plans to eliminate our debt by '09 plus he actually cared about the environment and supported the Kyoto Accord. I would think some of that would rub off? Bush > Hilary? I'm sorry but IMO that statement is fail, then again not everyone agrees on everything in politics. Except in communism. Think what you will but I feel she'd do a FAR better job than Bush.
Click to expand...
The same Hillary that used her husband's presidency to push her own agenda. All your arguments are for Bill. Not Hillary. And in politics, a husband-wife relationship between two politicians means nothing. I'd beware of that thought process there. Hillary and Bill are two different people. I have no trouble believing that Hillary would dump any support for her husband if it meant her getting into power. Something that must be avoided.
then again not everyone agrees on everything in politics. Except in communism.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly what I'm afraid will happen, should Hillary become president.
 
Well, guess I'm glad that I live here in Canada, [mostly] free of indecisive conflict within government regimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top