Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tiresias · Dec 8, 2007, 05:00 AM

So funny. Meet the flying spaghetti monster, if you haven't already.

When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

Shaddim · Dec 8, 2007, 05:18 AM

I have been touched by his noodly appendage, and it was good.

lpkmckenna · Dec 8, 2007, 05:27 PM

Every car needs one of these:

MacinTommy · Dec 8, 2007, 06:23 PM

I own the gospel.. Its just good for conversations and to get into religious arguments. Its also a good toilet read.

design219 · Dec 8, 2007, 06:39 PM

I love the FSM.

I also love this image:

hyteckit · Dec 8, 2007, 07:07 PM

Never knew what the flying spaghetti monster was about until I read the wikipedia page.

I thought it was the monster in new movie by JJ Abrams called the Cloverfield.

besson3c · Dec 8, 2007, 07:10 PM

I think the FSM movement should start creating some religious holidays...

Wiskedjak · Dec 8, 2007, 07:16 PM

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster

olePigeon · Dec 13, 2007, 01:20 PM

One of my favorites. I post links to it occasionally whenever Intelligent Design is mentioned.

Chongo · Dec 13, 2007, 02:29 PM

Science be praised!

olePigeon · Dec 13, 2007, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

Science be praised!

Scientology is about as scientific as Christian Science.

Chongo · Dec 13, 2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Scientology is about as scientific as Christian Science.

That's Richard Dawkins, not L. Ron Hubbard

Dakar the Fourth · Dec 13, 2007, 03:47 PM

Somebody missed a good episode of South Park.

Chongo · Dec 13, 2007, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth

Somebody missed a good episode of South Park.

Go God Go - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On their date, Dawkins and Garrison quickly warm to each other. Dawkins manages to turn Garrison to atheism in a appeal to ridicule citing the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as a form of a logical fallacy.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 13, 2007, 04:02 PM

Does appealing to South Park count as an appeal to ridicule logical fallacy, or is that an appeal to recursion logical fallacy?

olePigeon · Dec 13, 2007, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

That's Richard Dawkins, not L. Ron Hubbard

Ah, I must've missed that one. I thought it was from the Scientology episode.

Kevin · Dec 17, 2007, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

So funny. Meet the flying spaghetti monster

I'd have thought it was funny if they weren't so defensive.

And yes, it has been used many times in this forum as a self defense mechanism as well. So most of us have seen it.

Sven G · Dec 17, 2007, 10:02 AM

Talking of religions... well, the ancient Romans had many gods (they were pagans), and probably were even more free than today on some fronts (for example, sexually); Rome even was a totally pedestrian town during daytime, while goods-delivering traffic - the total chaos of today's cities and towns - was allowed only during the night.

Maybe polytheism wasn't so bad, after all...?

By Jupiter! (Or by Toutatis, for the ancient Gauls...)

P.S.: Of course, personally I'm agnostic.

lpkmckenna · Dec 17, 2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sven G

Talking of religions... well, the ancient Romans had many gods (they were pagans), and probably were even more free than today on some fronts (for example, sexually)...

This isn't quite true. For instance, ancient pederasty was quite different than modern homosexuality. The societies that permitted homosexuality still insisted on non-egalitarian relationships. Just as a man was socially above his wife, one man had to be socially superior to his lover. The "top" had to be higher class, older, and wealthier than his partner. Moreover, the relationship was expected to be dissolved once the "bottom" became socially-established.

olePigeon · Dec 17, 2007, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sven G

Talking of religions... well, the ancient Romans had many gods (they were pagans), and probably were even more free than today on some fronts (for example, sexually); Rome even was a totally pedestrian town during daytime, while goods-delivering traffic - the total chaos of today's cities and towns - was allowed only during the night.

Romans (initially) were very successful because, unlike Christianity and Islam, they didn't murder people for not worshiping their gods. The Romans figured out pretty quickly that if you let people continue with their own religious beliefs, they're less likely to rebel against the new authority. The Romans did off incentives for people who offered respect to their gods.

peeb · Dec 17, 2007, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'd have thought it was funny if they weren't so defensive.

And yes, it has been used many times in this forum as a self defense mechanism as well. So most of us have seen it.

I'm not sure I see your point - it's a satire of religion, for sure, but I don't see how it is a 'defense mechanism'.

powerbook867 · Dec 18, 2007, 10:54 PM

Living in Kansas right now and the wife and I almost fell over laughing.

Gotta get two of those car emblems and share the funny!

hyteckit · Dec 19, 2007, 04:12 AM

Whoa, which thread got Kevin Baninated?

Now I have a chance to catch up the his post count. Maybe in 5 years. Okay, maybe 20 years.

Sven G · 11:34 AM

Anyway, I didn't think about the minor aspects, like pederasty: rather, a more free sexuality in general (i.e., in today's (?) context, being non-petit-bourgeois, for example).

Well, here we could start weeks and years of discussions about monotheism and polytheism, and the related sexual freedom o not - maybe better not, thinking about previous threads on this forum.

Returning into the topic of this discussion, who really needs a One True Entity? Certainly not a free man or woman...

olePigeon · Dec 19, 2007, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

And yes, it has been used many times in this forum as a self defense mechanism as well. So most of us have seen it.

Defense mechanism against what? It's satirical religion to drive the point home that religion does not belong in the science class. Plain and simple. You can stick Intelligent Design in the theology class with numerology and astrology.