Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster"
(→Mockery and Pastafarianism?) |
(→Food for thought) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The whole problem with this ID discussion is that both attackers and defenders of ID don't see the difference between the scientific and the religious domain. The scientific domain describes WHAT happens, and here the only theory available is evolution. The religious domain however, describes WHY it happens, and here everybody should be free to find an explanation. Christians will say God coordinates the whole process, while atheists will say it is just a natural process, where everything happens by accident and without a deeper meaning. | ||
Revision as of 10:45, April 11, 2007
Somebody screwed up the references.
Mockery and Pastafarianism?
The Discovery Institute has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."[3] Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".
I don't quite get the connection between those two sentences. How does them calling themselves "Pastafarians" argue for or against FSM mocking traditional religion? I get that the entire thing is (intelligently) designed to mock a whole bunch of stuff, but those two sentences made me go "Huh?" in the current form. --Sid 3050 11:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's not the designation of themselves as Pastafarians but their establishment of FSM as a deity which is the mockery. Anyway, it's a good parody and I always get a laugh out of it. --Ed Poor 12:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, those are my thoughts, too. Just found those sentences next to each other a tad confusing. Thanks for verifying/clarifying. --Sid 3050 12:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Food for thought
Finally a theory I can sink my teeth into. I can't stomach much of the tripe that evolutionists bring to the table.
- If naturalistic laws do not explain life's origin, then life must have been created. This theory is called intelligent design. (back cover of Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design)
This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --Ed Poor 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The whole problem with this ID discussion is that both attackers and defenders of ID don't see the difference between the scientific and the religious domain. The scientific domain describes WHAT happens, and here the only theory available is evolution. The religious domain however, describes WHY it happens, and here everybody should be free to find an explanation. Christians will say God coordinates the whole process, while atheists will say it is just a natural process, where everything happens by accident and without a deeper meaning.
