He Exists!!
-
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was originally created as a mockery of Christians, in particular, the Intelligent Design belief held by some Christians. You'll see this on /. or digg anytime a discussion on evolution, ID, or creationism comes up.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: And in this corner, the Party of Allah The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was originally created as a mockery of Christians, in particular, the Intelligent Design belief held by some Christians. You'll see this on /. or digg anytime a discussion on evolution, ID, or creationism comes up.
Ah ok - I wasn't aware of this. Explains why I got four 1-votes :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
:-D Sigh...32 years old and I still miss those cartoons... ;)
thealj wrote:
I still miss those cartoons...
I always preferred Tex Avery cartoons.... :-D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hot_Riding_Hood[^]
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Yeah it wasn't the "making fun of part that bothered me" as a Christian I certainly appreciate the humor aimed at my beliefs. I have to or I'm ignorant. I just felt it belonged in the soapbox and my counter was that if it had made fun of muslims then it would have been moved post-haste. My religion is my own and I normally will not speak of it here sometimes though I decide to kick at the goad and say something. I'm no evangelist and have no desire to ever be one. But if we are going to through the word "respect" around then I believe it should be mutually applied to all parties. I have a right to express my opinion that something belongs in the soapbox, others have the right to challenge that and I have the right to defend it. When it degrades to insults and comments that have the intent to belittle it exposes the insulters and the belittlers as the children they are.:rose: - Rex
I only read cp for the articles.
Iron Speed Designer MVP
Check out my 7 Part Series on Networking[^]code-frog wrote:
But if we are going to through the word "respect" around then I believe it should be mutually applied to all parties.
Well said Rex. To many do not think about what respecting others really mean.
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
even though I wish we were mature enough that it wasn't.
I guess I have a hard time with this. I'm constantly hearing, reading and seeing evidence of my beliefs being criticized and belittled. It happens and it happens all the time. I enjoy the lounge a lot and I don't think this topic belongs here. I went to that page and saw the content then I read further and yet again a subset of my beliefs under attack. I get so sick of it. To me it's like a programming question in the Lounge. You write code all day long and really don't want to see it here. For me my religion is who I am all day long so when I see a page like that I think.. DAMN! This *is* the Lounge I shouldn't have to see stuff that remotely encroaches upon my beliefs here. I should not. The media does it, the news does it, the internet does it, most people do it. I see, hear, encounter it all the time. I drew a line in the sand. Not here! It doesn't belong. I'm sick of it! It greives me. That's how I feel. You guys are my peers and I don't sit here and post links to evidence that *HE* Jesus Christ, Lord of all things I do exists and I never would. You are my peers! I enjoy your company, your sharp minds and intellect. I don't want your religion as badly as you don't want mine. In that vein, leave my religion or tenents of my religion or topics of my religion in the soapbox. This has nothing to do with maturity. It's the lounge for me to and I don't want to see topics that encroach upon my beliefs and if that's immature then I apologize but it's how I feel. There's a lot of people here that I respect a lot and I know things about them that I could choose to slander especially their sexual preference and orientation. I don't. Not because I want to and choose not to but because I don't believe in antagonizing people especially people I value and respect. So I don't make any comments on that stuff because it doesn't matter and it breaks down relationships. I don't think I'm being immature in requesting that this stuff be in the soapbox. I just get *sick* of seeing it everywhere else and I don't want to see it here. To much of it and I'll be gone like the wind and I won't come back. That isn't a threat either. I'll quietly leave and be done with no tirades or huffiness I'll just *poof* disconnect because I don't want to be a burden and if respecting how I feel becomes a burden then I'll quietly go. Am I making any sense?:rose: - Rex
Yeah, I regretted the way I phrased it after I wrote it, but something else took me away from fixing it to be closer to what I meant. I was just making a point about the FSM and couldn't care less about this post being in one forum or the other. My frustration with the level of discourse in the soapbox spilled over. I wasn't meaning to comment on your level of maturity and I'm sorry if it came across that way. One of the great things about the code project is the diversity of people that come here. The only common thread is that they love to program and tend to do it for a living. It's great that there isn't a common mindset that everyone shares. Your leaving especially for something silly like this would be a really bad thing. On a mostly unrelated note, I'm going to take the advice of one of the other cpians and take an indefinite leave of this place.
and of course [they] outsource their technical support to a land where English bears little resemblance to the language I speak - Christopher Duncan
-
Yeah, I regretted the way I phrased it after I wrote it, but something else took me away from fixing it to be closer to what I meant. I was just making a point about the FSM and couldn't care less about this post being in one forum or the other. My frustration with the level of discourse in the soapbox spilled over. I wasn't meaning to comment on your level of maturity and I'm sorry if it came across that way. One of the great things about the code project is the diversity of people that come here. The only common thread is that they love to program and tend to do it for a living. It's great that there isn't a common mindset that everyone shares. Your leaving especially for something silly like this would be a really bad thing. On a mostly unrelated note, I'm going to take the advice of one of the other cpians and take an indefinite leave of this place.
and of course [they] outsource their technical support to a land where English bears little resemblance to the language I speak - Christopher Duncan
Andy Brummer wrote:
take an indefinite leave of this place.
sad. please do lurk though.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
That local school boards should have the freedom to decide what they want to teach without outside interference. That is a democracy in the truest sense. While democracies are not efficient in large scales (heck the United States isn't and has never been a democracy) it works great on the local level. Why can't a group of people who all live together in one community decide, that as a community they want something outside the "norm". I think, uh oh opinion coming, that if more people minded there own business and focused on problems inside their own communities the world would be a much better place.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Why can't a group of people who all live together in one community decide, that as a community they want something outside the "norm".
Because when it comes to religous matters like this, assertion of state power for one or the other in any way is just lighting a match and chucking it into a powder keg (especially in the US at this point). Religious belief and interpretation are never matters of consensus - which makes them off-limits for democratic decision making processes. If people want their children to learn to believe specific religous things, that's totally their decision. Teach them what you want, and tell them to ignore their teachers for certain subjects. If you're convinced that your kids need to be immersed in religous dogma all the time, send them to a private religous school. If you can't afford one, start up some sort of religous study group and make your children attend. Long story short - do it yourself. Keep the State out of it. COMPLETELY out of it. Of course, the high-minded discussion of the separation of church and state isn't even necessary in this case, as the Intelligent Design stuff simply doesn't qualify as science in any way, shape, or form. :) It posits no testable or falsifiable hypotheses, explains no current mysteries, is primarily constructed from arguments-from-incredulity, and generally devolves into fancy ways to say 'God did it'. It's not science; it's a defense mechanism.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Why can't a group of people who all live together in one community decide, that as a community they want something outside the "norm".
Because when it comes to religous matters like this, assertion of state power for one or the other in any way is just lighting a match and chucking it into a powder keg (especially in the US at this point). Religious belief and interpretation are never matters of consensus - which makes them off-limits for democratic decision making processes. If people want their children to learn to believe specific religous things, that's totally their decision. Teach them what you want, and tell them to ignore their teachers for certain subjects. If you're convinced that your kids need to be immersed in religous dogma all the time, send them to a private religous school. If you can't afford one, start up some sort of religous study group and make your children attend. Long story short - do it yourself. Keep the State out of it. COMPLETELY out of it. Of course, the high-minded discussion of the separation of church and state isn't even necessary in this case, as the Intelligent Design stuff simply doesn't qualify as science in any way, shape, or form. :) It posits no testable or falsifiable hypotheses, explains no current mysteries, is primarily constructed from arguments-from-incredulity, and generally devolves into fancy ways to say 'God did it'. It's not science; it's a defense mechanism.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
LMAO I guess some one should just decide for us when it comes down to the really important matters when democracy cannot be trusted.
Russell Morris wrote:
Religious belief and interpretation are never matters of consensus - which makes them off-limits for democratic decision making processes.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
-
LMAO I guess some one should just decide for us when it comes down to the really important matters when democracy cannot be trusted.
Russell Morris wrote:
Religious belief and interpretation are never matters of consensus - which makes them off-limits for democratic decision making processes.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
LMAO I guess some one should just decide for us when it comes down to the really important matters when democracy cannot be trusted.
I agree (but with the non-sarcastic version of that ;))
The Bill of Rights wrote:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I think that the spirit of our Constitution is such that it is primarily concerned with the rights of individuals, not collections of them. I think that means that the "will of the people" takes a back seat to the "will of the person" when the two are at odds. The State has no business in an individual's religious belief. I think this means that it should be wholly enjoined from participating in any individual's religious beliefs - be it for or against. The State cannot 'sort-of' support a set of religious beliefs without 'sort-of' trodding on another. It's got to keep it's mits out of the whole affair. It shouldn't get to teach anything religious in schools that it funds. It shouldn't give money to any organizations whose primary goal is to spread a religion. It shouldn't thrust its weight behind any religion or subset thereof. It shouldn't allow itself to be used as an outlet of any religious dogma just because a lot of people thought it would be really convenient and a good idea at the time. And of course, the above is certainly arguable opinion. Feel free to disagree. As far as Intelligent Design and Science go - it's a different discussion. ID just isn't science, and doesn't have a place in a science classroom.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
Yeah, I regretted the way I phrased it after I wrote it, but something else took me away from fixing it to be closer to what I meant. I was just making a point about the FSM and couldn't care less about this post being in one forum or the other. My frustration with the level of discourse in the soapbox spilled over. I wasn't meaning to comment on your level of maturity and I'm sorry if it came across that way. One of the great things about the code project is the diversity of people that come here. The only common thread is that they love to program and tend to do it for a living. It's great that there isn't a common mindset that everyone shares. Your leaving especially for something silly like this would be a really bad thing. On a mostly unrelated note, I'm going to take the advice of one of the other cpians and take an indefinite leave of this place.
and of course [they] outsource their technical support to a land where English bears little resemblance to the language I speak - Christopher Duncan
Hopefully not because of me. I've always enjoyed your comments and even in this thread you've had good things to say.:rose:
I only read cp for the articles.
Iron Speed Designer MVP
Check out my 7 Part Series on Networking[^] -
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
LMAO I guess some one should just decide for us when it comes down to the really important matters when democracy cannot be trusted.
I agree (but with the non-sarcastic version of that ;))
The Bill of Rights wrote:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I think that the spirit of our Constitution is such that it is primarily concerned with the rights of individuals, not collections of them. I think that means that the "will of the people" takes a back seat to the "will of the person" when the two are at odds. The State has no business in an individual's religious belief. I think this means that it should be wholly enjoined from participating in any individual's religious beliefs - be it for or against. The State cannot 'sort-of' support a set of religious beliefs without 'sort-of' trodding on another. It's got to keep it's mits out of the whole affair. It shouldn't get to teach anything religious in schools that it funds. It shouldn't give money to any organizations whose primary goal is to spread a religion. It shouldn't thrust its weight behind any religion or subset thereof. It shouldn't allow itself to be used as an outlet of any religious dogma just because a lot of people thought it would be really convenient and a good idea at the time. And of course, the above is certainly arguable opinion. Feel free to disagree. As far as Intelligent Design and Science go - it's a different discussion. ID just isn't science, and doesn't have a place in a science classroom.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Number X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Congress is part of the federal government. Of course I am for a weak federal government in favor of strong State governments so I take a more literal interpretation of the constitution.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
-
My point wasn't about religion being mocked. My point was that I believe the post belonged in the soapbox and I still do. You can mock me and my beliefs in the end the price of mockery will be ultimately decided and I'm not going to comment on the price or the payee. I really don't care if you do but do it in the soapbox where it belongs. I might even come play once a year. It was not the pasta monster that bothered me it was the letter and the comments on the rest of the page (did you scroll down) that made me think it was soapy. But! Krism42, I do value the point you are making and think there is wisdom to be had there-in. I will remember it the next time my religion is mocked but I will still stand up to a post that should be soaped.:rose:
I only read cp for the articles.
Iron Speed Designer MVP
Check out my 7 Part Series on Networking[^]