Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Capitalism

2008-10-22T00:36:52Z

Savedbyjesus: /* Criticism of Capitalism */

[[Image:Tokyo Stock Exchange.jpg|thumb|Tokyo Stock Exchange]]
'''Capitalism''', also called '''free market economy''' is an economic system where the investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in a [[planned economy]]) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions regarding transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see [[law of supply and demand]]).

One self-regulating feature of capitalism is competition, which helps maintain fair market value for goods and services. However, ''unrestrained'' or ''pure'' capitalism may sometimes create a positive feedback loop in which a small number of individual accumulations of capital grow ever larger, eventually becoming so few as to limit effective competition, thus ceasing to strictly be free-market capitalism. In this regard, pure capitalism is unstable. Modern political systems have developed regulation mechanisms in an attempt to render capitalism more stable, including anti-trust regulation, trade tariffs, etc.

Since the fall of [[communism]], and the advent of information technology, capitalism is becoming increasingly widespread.

[[Adam Smith]] described the operation of capital accumulation through the productive powers of labor as such,

{{Cquote|Whatever a person saves from his [[revenue]] he adds to his [[capital]], and either employs it himself in maintaining an additional number of productive hands, or enables some other person to do so, by lending it to him for an interest, that is, for a share of the profits. As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 15,] ''Of the Accumulation of Capital, or of Productive and Unproductive Labour'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
[[Image:Eco Pillars.jpg|right|320px]]
Smith goes on to describe how the productive powers of labor employed by the owner of a capital allow laborers to reproduce with a profit the value of their maintenance, over and above their own consumption, which then allows for an additional set of hands to be employed. <ref>Adam Smith, ''Wealth of Nations'', Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 22.</ref> Smith observes labor is the original purchase price for all the wealth of the world,

{{Cquote|The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, 2<ref>'Everything in the world is purchased by labour.'—Hume, 'Of Commerce,' in Political Discourses, 1752, p. 12</ref> as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book I, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2,] ''Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Real wealth consists not in money, but in the things money will exchange for,

{{Cquote|In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompense for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 37,] ''Of Money Considered as a particular Branch of the General Stock of the Society, or of the Expence of Maintaining the National Capital '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Since wealth does not consist in money, gold, or silver, and labor is the original purchase price, Smith explains how the capitalist system is then put into motion, complete with natural incentives, only Smith does not use the word "capital" here to describe what is needed. Smith explains how a "store of goods", or "stock sufficient to maintain" the original capitalist entrepreneur is necessary;

{{Cquote|When the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2,] ''Of the Division of Stock '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

The [[division of labor]] is the necessary condition that gives rise to the productive powers of labor that allows for large scale economic growth. By "division of labor", Smith is referring to "specialization of labor", where each worker acquires specific knowledge to apply to a specific task.

{{Cquote|In that rude state of society in which there is no division of labour, in which exchanges are seldom made, and in which every man provides everything for himself, it is not necessary that any stock should be accumulated or stored up beforehand in order to carry on the business of the society. Every man endeavours to supply by his own industry his own occasional wants as they occur. When he is hungry, he goes to the forest to hunt; when his coat is worn out, he clothes himself with the skin of the first large animal he kills: and when his hut begins to go to ruin, he repairs it, as well as he can, with the trees and the turf that are nearest it.

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labour has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about.

As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, ...in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things, must be accumulated beforehand. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Introduction, Paragraphs 1, 2, & 3] ''Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock,'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
{{Cquote|When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book I, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 1] ''Of the Origin and Use of Money'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
==Capitalism and Society==
[[Image:Ludwig von Mises.jpg|thumb|100px|Ludwig von Mises]]
Historically, capitalism has fostered freedom, and vice versa. Societies that have tried non-capitalist systems inevitably fall into tyranny.

For example, [[Venezuela]], while not a perfect country before [[Hugo Chavez]], had freedom and wealth unprecedented in its history. As Chavez has nationalized industries, he has also centralized power, and become a virtual dictator.

Non-capitalist societies also tend to be [[atheism|atheistic]] (the [[Soviet Union]]) or intolerant religious societies ([[Iran]]).

== Quotes ==

“Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.”

--[[Milton Friedman]], Capitalism and Freedom, 1962.

“Capitalism is essentially the economic system of poor people. That’s what allowed the people that came from humble origins of the world to have economic rights the way only nobility and the high bourgeoisie had it before. So capitalism is essentially a tool for poor people to prosper.”

--Hernando de Soto, PBS Interview, March 30-31, 2001

(cf: [http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=026a3bda-755c-45d8-84d3-c68eef294612 Values - Free Enterprise])

"The only real cure for poverty is production". [[Henry Hazlitt]], from Man vs. the [[Welfare]] State.

==Criticism of Capitalism==

Only Pinko-commies are critical of capitalism, Pinko-commies are not credible sources.

== See also ==

*[[Capital]]
*[[Free Enterprise]]
*[[Ludwig von Mises]]
*[[Enterprise]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Welfare]]

==External links==
*[http://www.capmag.com Capitalism Magazine]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/capitalism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Capitalism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Business]]

Capitalism

2008-10-22T00:35:52Z

Savedbyjesus:

[[Image:Tokyo Stock Exchange.jpg|thumb|Tokyo Stock Exchange]]
'''Capitalism''', also called '''free market economy''' is an economic system where the investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in a [[planned economy]]) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions regarding transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see [[law of supply and demand]]).

One self-regulating feature of capitalism is competition, which helps maintain fair market value for goods and services. However, ''unrestrained'' or ''pure'' capitalism may sometimes create a positive feedback loop in which a small number of individual accumulations of capital grow ever larger, eventually becoming so few as to limit effective competition, thus ceasing to strictly be free-market capitalism. In this regard, pure capitalism is unstable. Modern political systems have developed regulation mechanisms in an attempt to render capitalism more stable, including anti-trust regulation, trade tariffs, etc.

Since the fall of [[communism]], and the advent of information technology, capitalism is becoming increasingly widespread.

[[Adam Smith]] described the operation of capital accumulation through the productive powers of labor as such,

{{Cquote|Whatever a person saves from his [[revenue]] he adds to his [[capital]], and either employs it himself in maintaining an additional number of productive hands, or enables some other person to do so, by lending it to him for an interest, that is, for a share of the profits. As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 15,] ''Of the Accumulation of Capital, or of Productive and Unproductive Labour'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
[[Image:Eco Pillars.jpg|right|320px]]
Smith goes on to describe how the productive powers of labor employed by the owner of a capital allow laborers to reproduce with a profit the value of their maintenance, over and above their own consumption, which then allows for an additional set of hands to be employed. <ref>Adam Smith, ''Wealth of Nations'', Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 22.</ref> Smith observes labor is the original purchase price for all the wealth of the world,

{{Cquote|The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, 2<ref>'Everything in the world is purchased by labour.'—Hume, 'Of Commerce,' in Political Discourses, 1752, p. 12</ref> as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book I, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2,] ''Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Real wealth consists not in money, but in the things money will exchange for,

{{Cquote|In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompense for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 37,] ''Of Money Considered as a particular Branch of the General Stock of the Society, or of the Expence of Maintaining the National Capital '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Since wealth does not consist in money, gold, or silver, and labor is the original purchase price, Smith explains how the capitalist system is then put into motion, complete with natural incentives, only Smith does not use the word "capital" here to describe what is needed. Smith explains how a "store of goods", or "stock sufficient to maintain" the original capitalist entrepreneur is necessary;

{{Cquote|When the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2,] ''Of the Division of Stock '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

The [[division of labor]] is the necessary condition that gives rise to the productive powers of labor that allows for large scale economic growth. By "division of labor", Smith is referring to "specialization of labor", where each worker acquires specific knowledge to apply to a specific task.

{{Cquote|In that rude state of society in which there is no division of labour, in which exchanges are seldom made, and in which every man provides everything for himself, it is not necessary that any stock should be accumulated or stored up beforehand in order to carry on the business of the society. Every man endeavours to supply by his own industry his own occasional wants as they occur. When he is hungry, he goes to the forest to hunt; when his coat is worn out, he clothes himself with the skin of the first large animal he kills: and when his hut begins to go to ruin, he repairs it, as well as he can, with the trees and the turf that are nearest it.

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labour has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about.

As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, ...in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things, must be accumulated beforehand. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Introduction, Paragraphs 1, 2, & 3] ''Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock,'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
{{Cquote|When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book I, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 1] ''Of the Origin and Use of Money'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
==Capitalism and Society==
[[Image:Ludwig von Mises.jpg|thumb|100px|Ludwig von Mises]]
Historically, capitalism has fostered freedom, and vice versa. Societies that have tried non-capitalist systems inevitably fall into tyranny.

For example, [[Venezuela]], while not a perfect country before [[Hugo Chavez]], had freedom and wealth unprecedented in its history. As Chavez has nationalized industries, he has also centralized power, and become a virtual dictator.

Non-capitalist societies also tend to be [[atheism|atheistic]] (the [[Soviet Union]]) or intolerant religious societies ([[Iran]]).

== Quotes ==

“Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.”

--[[Milton Friedman]], Capitalism and Freedom, 1962.

“Capitalism is essentially the economic system of poor people. That’s what allowed the people that came from humble origins of the world to have economic rights the way only nobility and the high bourgeoisie had it before. So capitalism is essentially a tool for poor people to prosper.”

--Hernando de Soto, PBS Interview, March 30-31, 2001

(cf: [http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=026a3bda-755c-45d8-84d3-c68eef294612 Values - Free Enterprise])

"The only real cure for poverty is production". [[Henry Hazlitt]], from Man vs. the [[Welfare]] State.

==Criticism of Capitalism==

There is none.

== See also ==

*[[Capital]]
*[[Free Enterprise]]
*[[Ludwig von Mises]]
*[[Enterprise]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Welfare]]

==External links==
*[http://www.capmag.com Capitalism Magazine]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/capitalism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Capitalism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Business]]

Anarchism

2008-10-22T00:33:51Z

Savedbyjesus: /* Anarchism in practice */

'''Anarchism''' is a [[political]] philosophy advocating the removal of the State and the establishment of a society without [[government]]. The term is of [[Greek]] origin (coming from the word "αναρχία" (anarchia), meaning "without rulers". Anarchists oppose the use of prisons. Anarchists tend to oppose any form of government, but can be found expressing support for [[direct democracy]], [[freedom of speech]], de-centralism, individualism and anti-authoritarianism.

Anarchists generally oppose what [[Noam Chomsky]] has termed "illegitimate authority": stopping a child from running into a busy street would be an act of legitimate authority. The government and other coercive entities are considered illegitimate.

==Traditional anarchism==

Traditional anarchism is similar to [[communism]], though unlike in communism, traditional anarchists do not favor [[socialism]] as a means to their end, as it requires a state. Traditional anarchists advocate the formation of [[collective|collectives]]. Traditional anarchism rejects all authority, both business and government.

==Branches of Anarchism==

Individualist anarchism, unlike traditional anarchism, does not advocate collectives. Individualist anarchists differ on the status of [[private property]] and other rights.

[[Anarcho-capitalism]], a form of individualist anarchism, favors private police agencies, security companies, and arbitration instead of government. Anarcho-capitalism is the most extreme form of [[libertarianism]].

Traditional anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalists are not true anarchists. This is due to their support of the authority of business and private property. Traditional anarchists argue that one cannot live without wages under a [[capitalist]] system.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that all support of business is voluntary, since one can choose between companies under a capitalist system. Anarcho-capitalists reject collectives, since they focus on the community rather than the individual, which may lead to a loss of individual freedom.

==Christian Anarchism==
[[Image:Tolstoy.jpg|thumb|Leo Tolstoy]]
Christianity has been influential on some anarchists. Russian novelist [[Leo Tolstoy]] is seen as an important figure in this trend. Tolstoy's Christian anarchism was outlined in his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Like all Christian anarchists, he believed that the only authority is God, and that therefore government is illegitimate. To support their views, they will often quote the following passage by [[Paul]]: "there is no authority except that which God has established."

==Anarchism in practice==

Many anarchists believe in a peaceful means of achieving an anarchist system. Some of these means include not voting, secession from government, peaceful protesting and the formation of revolutionary non-hierarchical labor unions.

Other anarchists support violence as a means of achieving anarchism.

During the [[Spanish Civil War]] there occurred in the Republican areas a "Spanish Revolution". It involved the taking over of workplaces by those who worked in them. Industry began to be organized non-hierarchically. The anarchist union the CNT did this with considerable success.

==Other uses==
In addition to being a philosophy, anarchy can also be a description of a system in which there is no higher governmental authority. The world level of political interaction is considered anarchical, because there is no power over the sovereign states (i.e. there is no world government).

==See Also==
*[[Anarcho-capitalism]]
*[[Nihilism]]
*[[Anarchopedia]]

==Sources==
*[http://www.infoshop.org/faq/ An Anarchist FAQ] - From a traditional anarchist point of view.
*[http://www.mises.org/ Ludwig von Mises Institute] - Promotes Austrian [[economics]] as well as anarcho-capitalism.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/anarchy/ What Liberals Say - Category: Anarchy], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[category:International Politics]]
[[category:Political Theory]]
[[category:Politics]]

Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

2008-10-22T00:29:18Z

Savedbyjesus: /* Mockery and Pastafarianism? */

Somebody screwed up the references.

== Mockery and Pastafarianism? ==

{{QuoteBox|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The purpose of this ruse of a vulgar depiction is the same one used in Germany from 1933 to 1945 against certain religious groups. There are still present today those who get a laugh or two from those depictions. The historic use of these types should therefore be presented in their appropriate historic context. Their associations should be noted to allow such distinctions to be presented. You can still go to places where this kind of stereotyping isn't such a light hearted poke in the ribs. Savvy?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::::Yes, these so-called Pastafarians are no better than the Nazis who invented satire in 1936. This must be mentioned in the article. God Bless.
[[User:Savedbyjesus|Savedbyjesus]] 20:29, 21 October 2008 (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 [http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Evolution-Molecular-Knowledge/dp/0976639408 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. --[[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.{{Unsigned|Carcoke}}
:Your analysis is incomplete. The [[Bible]] does indeed say what happened, and in what order. It even says ''when'' it happened. Oh, sure, estimates of the "when" vary, with a range of about 320 years (215 years for the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], 60 years for the birth of [[Abraham]], and 45 years for the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms Northern and Southern). But you can't get around this simple fact: that the Bible contains back-to-back narratives of human history that span the entire time from [[creation]] to the Crucifixion and about thirty years after that. It is the only single source that can make this claim (although ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' reviews history from multiple sources to cover the same period).

:Now the distinction you draw is all very well. But when the Bible ''does'' make a statement on the ''what'' and even the ''when'' as well as the ''why'', you have to deal with it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:So what will you do when the Bible says one thing, and the Koran, Talmud or another religious scripture tells another thing. You may ''believe'' that the Bible is right, but you can't tell other people that they ''have to'' deal with it. Otherwise you say that the Bible (and with it Christianity) is superior to other religions, which seems a very dangerous statement to me.

::See [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Dangerous? If you lived in Nazis Germany between 1933 - 1945, or Russia, China, Cuba, ...etc. I'm currently sitting in a country where freedom of religion and speech still apply. Where anybody can say their religion is superior to every other. Liberty and freedom to say and believe what your conscience believes. Maybe some believe that is dangerous. Is that what you mean by being very dangerous?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:44, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The rational for the Flying Spagetti Monster is as follows:
There is equal evidence for all gods and supernatural beleifs, therefore the likelihood of the spagetti monster is equal to that of any God. If you ridicule the belief in the spagetti monster then you have to apply the same ridicule to all other religous beleifs. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
: That might be the rationale, but that rationale depends on the ''presumption'' that there ''is'' "equal evidence for all gods and supernatural beleifs(sic)". As a Christian, I totally reject that presumption, therefore if I do ridicule belief in the spaghetti monster, it does not follow that I have to apply the same ridicule to other beliefs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:20, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:: But the evidence that Christianity and other theistic religions touts is the complexity of design. As a (pseudo) Theistic religion, the Spagetti monster can inherit the same evidence. I have never heard any evidence of one religion being true over another. One can argue from evidence that there is a creator, but which creator you happen to choose from is a matter of faith. This is why the spagetti monster can be said to be as plausable as Allah, Yawheh or the great JuJu under the sea. Mark Hayward (14:34), 23 January 2008 (GMT)
::: Complexity of design is ''one'' area of evidence that Christianity uses; it is not the sum total of evidence. Before you set about critiquing religions that you know next to nothing about, it's a good idea to learn about the topic that you are critiquing; else all you achieve is displaying your ignorance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Care to present any? It is not enough for you to simply assert it. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::::: Why not? That's all you did. And no, I don't particularly care to present any. Not for somebody who criticises something that he knows next to nothing about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: I have read the bible cover to cover, and most of the Koran. I am not trying to undermine your belief, simply to understand it. I recieve the same reaction from the faithful everytime. They can talk for hours about why there must be a creator, but are stubbornly silent when asked why they have chosen their particular God out of thousands. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::::::: You "received the same reaction ... everytime", but the "reaction" you received here was to a ''different'' question. You have not asked us why our "particular God" is the right one. And this is not really the place to do it anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::There is a great deal of evidence to support the "claims" of Christianity, as well as a 2000 year history, as opposed to a recently made up mockery of religion. It's not equivalent.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Longevity is not evidence. There are older beleifs and religions than christianity. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::::: That depends on how you look at it, but it ''is'' evidence of a sort. See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: Im sorry but that website is a load of waffle. The success of any religion is not a testament to its truth, nor is it a sign of divine favour. If anything religion spreads where there is lack of or poor education and retreats where confronted with it. Hence christianity and islam are on the rise in Africa and latin america, wheras it is in decline in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::::::: If you are going to reject a good web-site as "a load of waffle", then you are not really interested in learning. The article I pointed you to did not say that Christianity is true simply because it's been successful. If that's what you think, then you either didn't read it or didn't read it properly. Christianity is on the rise in other places than those you mention, including, I'm reasonably sure, here in Australia, if you discount those who go to church for social reasons or put "Christian" on the census forms out of tradition. In other words, "true" Christians as opposed to "nominal" Christians are increasing in number in Australia, I'd be reasonably sure. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==FSM and ID criticism==

Critiques of [[Intelligent Design]] should be discussed at [[Talk:Intelligent design]], and they should be aimed at improving the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==A tangle of pasta==

ID opponents argue that [[Intelligent Design]] claims to explain the origin of life, and contrast this "claim" with Pastafarians' nonsensical explanations of [[Global Warming]], [[gravity]] and [[UFO]]s.
*Which opponents have argued this?

Self-professed believers have called themselves "Pastafarians" (reference to FSM's "noodly appendages").
*Very funny, but hardly encyclopediic.

FSM is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]] [http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html], as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]].
*This needs to be fleshed out before mentioning it.

A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref>
*If there's really a book, is it about the parody itself, or is it a critique of [[Intelligent design]]?

The parody was created to mock the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] in Kansas science classrooms. <ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref>
*Too obvious for words.

I explained what's wrong with each thing I cut, using bullet points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0836771-4873759?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178347449&sr=8-1 Yes,there really is a book.] It is both an expansion of the parody and a critiqque of Intelligent design.[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 02:46, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Deceit ==

Could someone explain how this category demarcation is appropriate? I can grant you the "liberal" part (though I personally think that there's nothing actually liberal about it), but there just is no evidence of [[deceit]]. Using the word deceit implies that they are hiding their motives; they say they are a parody religion and they say precisely what their motives are. Maybe a link to the site would help, so you can see for yourself? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:53, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe that they are deceitful because they are really atheists and rather than saying they want God out of the classroom, they make this ridiculous parody that mocks religion and God. That seems like deceit to me --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:41, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

:They are not all Athiests. The Spagetti monster can be used to argue for Deism, Atheism and Agnostisicm.
:It is an anti-dogmatic argument.
: {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
: It was designed to mock creationism, not dogmatism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:: It was designed to mock beleif in particular gods, not specifically creationism. My point is that it does not ridicule beleif in a creator, just what non-theists consider 'man-made' religions. Therefore, it is not inherintly atheist. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::: It was designed, as the article indicates, as a response to the decision to allow teaching of Intelligent Design in Kansas. In the minds of anti-ID people, ID is creationism. Therefore, it was designed to mock ID and creationism. It does ridicule belief in a creator, by implying that believing in God is equivalent to believing in the spaghetti monster. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:51, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:It's fine if you believe it, but this is an encyclopedia not an op ed section. The [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Comandments]] state "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite and give credit to your sources" and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."
:If we take a look at the official site, we find the following statement:
::Q: Are you an atheist / heathen / what?
::A: I don’t have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach Creationism in school, fine, but don’t teach it in a science classroom...."
:So if you want to make the claim that he is flat out lying, you need some way to back that up, other than just a gut instinct. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:10, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Seems more like liberal satire to me. A lot of liberals use satire and snark to make conservatives sound dumb. In fact, you might want to create a new category, "liberal slander," or something like that, and this article might be better suited for that then deceit.-[[User:Darius|Darius]] 13:16, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

:Satire, yes. The creator of the "religion" (and it's "followers") openly admit that Pastafarianism is supposed to be satire. I still don't think anything more serious (such as deceit or slander) has been properly shown, however. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:16, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
::I think it's more [[liberal hypocrisy]] than [[liberal deceit]]. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:53, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
:::How is it hypocritical? Or deceitful, for that matter? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. The user has been blocked for five years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::On a related note, may I ask why my edit removing the words "thinly veiled attempt" was reverted? I feel that the statement as it stands now implies that Pastafarians are hoping to deceive somebody about their intentions. They're not. To say that it is a "thinly veiled attempt" at mockery is like saying that calling someone a "dumb stupid-face" is a "thinly veiled attempt" at insult. The phrase is unnecessary and inaccurate. [[User:Rstaylor|Rstayor]] 14:52, 9 November 2007 (EDT)
:::This doesn't strike me as a mockery of the Christian religion, more of a counter-point to Intelligent Design. Teach the controversy, teach ID, evolution, and Pastafarianism! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== I didn't know straw man arguments were encyclopedic ==

Seriously, why is this even here? That Dawkins uses it and that there's a book about it hardly makes it notable. Dawkins is not the atheist god (though they treat him that way, ironically enough) and his word is not truth, and any idget can get a book published by some no-name company and sold on Amazon.com (e.g. William Rivers Pitt). That being said, I could see this being briefly mentioned in the [[Intelligent Design]] article in a list of the many straw man arguments atheists/evolutionists use against ID, but it really doesn't deserve its own article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:30, 5 December 2007 (EST)

:We've got an article on [[dazzle painting]] but not one on [[camouflage]], I doubt notability is a big concern. Aside from that, it's here because it's useful for debates. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== Fictional Religion? ==
Does not make sense. It implies the religion exists only in fiction, reducing our glorious belief system to the level of, say, Khersistianity. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Do you have anything worthwhile to add or are you just trolling? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Hmm? Khersistianity is a religion from an online serial novel, if that's what you're referring to. On that note, troll is not a word to throw around lightly. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::So that would be a "yes." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:10, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::It's a multiple choice question. The answer can't possibly be yes. Look, man. I've looked at your contributions, and you seem to be doing little than jumping on me since my ban ended. I'm just saying, it seems kind of weird. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== Thinly-veiled mockery? ==

There's no veil. Pastafarianism is an outright mockery of Christianity and is meant to be so.

:Not really. As the article says, Pastafarianism grew from a letter written to Kansas School Board by someone purporting to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all things, and looking forward to the day when both Intelligent Design and Pastafarian Creationism would be given equal time as evolution in the classroom (as Pastafarian Creationism had just as much actual evidence supporting it as Intelligent Design did). So it started more as a mockery of the idea that Intelligent Design could be taught as part of science, due to a lack of evidence backing it up, rather than an outright mockery of any religion, per se. Since then, it has somewhat grown, and some people now use it as a full-on parody of religion in general, and sometimes one particular religion. There are also some people who at least claim to be genuine Pastafarians, but, again, this may be more parody. Of course, this, plus the fact the original letter only refers to 'Intelligent Design', not 'Christianity', means the last sentence in the article is not entirely accurate, and it should be reworded to something like, 'Some people use a purported belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism as a thinly veiled attempt to mock Christianity by reducing it to the level of a religion, like Pastafarianism, that someone made up on the spot.' This is, of course, assuming this website is continuing the claim by proponents of Intelligent Design that ID is not faith-based or anything to do with religion, either generally or specifically, but is, instead, based on the evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:49, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I've changed the line concerned to similar to what you suggested. The claim is not so much that ID has nothing to do with religion, but that it is science. That is, the two are not mutually exclusive. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, you're not like most IDers I have met or seen the views of - they try as much as possible to make the claim that ID has no connection with religion at all, and propose ID is merely an 'alternative scientific theory', based purely on scientific evidence. You, however, seemingly admit that there is a definite link between religion and ID. Good on you that you're not afraid to admit that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:39, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Er, more like "shrink-wrapped mockery", I'd say. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:Last I checked, Philip was a [[young earth creationist]], not an ID advocate. Am I right, Philip?

:In any case, I'm an [[old earth creationist]], and I believe that ID makes scientific arguments that stand on their own - without any connection to religion. ID is simply the argument that life is too complex to have evolved naturally, and that it shows signs of having been designed.

:If you feel this is bad news for [[atheism]], so be it. But that doesn't make ID religious, any more than the theory of evolution is [[atheistic]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, that means that you are claiming that ID does, indeed, have nothing whatsoever to with religion, as I said the claim was, yet Philip came along and said that was not so much the claim as that science and religion are not mutually exclusive (which is, in fact, already perfectly apparant by such beliefs as Theistic Evolution). It's interesting to note, though, that such an statement remains in the article for such a long time without anyone noticing, especially given the recent efforts to distance ID from religion and creationism in order to attempt to get it taught in schools.
::Apologies to Philip - I should have been aware you were a YEC believer. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:12, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I am a YEC, not an ID advocate per se, although YECs have been using design arguments for longer than ID has been around as a movement.

I should clarify my comment above about the relationship between ID and religion. ID proponents do try and distance themselves from religion, and for good reason. First, ID is often described as being a new form of creationism. This ignores the fact that a significant number of ID advocates are not creationists, and a larger group are not YECs. Second, ID advocates deny that they are bringing God into the argument. They are correct in this, as they specifically avoid saying who the designer is.

The point is, for ''some'' (perhaps ''most'') ID advocates, religious views are their ''basis''. But that doesn't mean that ID is religious in nature. They are trying to do real science, regardless of their religious basis. Claiming that ID is religious in nature is exactly like me claiming that evolution is religious (atheistic) in nature (which I do claim). Yet when I claim that, I'm very quickly told that there is a distinction between the ''atheism'' of, for example, Richard Dawkins and the ''science'' of evolution. That is, despite Dawkins having an atheistic basis for his belief in evolution, evolution is still science. The same applies for ID: Just because some/many of its proponents are "religious" and see ID as affirming that, doesn't mean that ID can't be considered science.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, but you see, that is where ID and evolution DO differ. For most IDers, as you say, ID is based in religion, and is based on the notion of the existence of some Designer - which is utterly unproven, and, at it's heart, is a religious belief, even if it does not name the Creator (though, to be frank, on most, if not all, ID literature I have seen, the word 'God' screams from between every line). Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence. To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God (or any other deity), so, until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists. Science and religion can co-exist, but they can't intermingle, except 'at the edges', so to speak (Theistic Evolution, for example, is one example of science and religion intermingling 'at the edges' - science explains the 'Evolution' part, and religion only really adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part) without compromising one or the other, or both. They are, in essence, two completely different ways of looking at the universe. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: "''...some Designer - which is utterly unproven...''". On the contrary, I've offered "proof" (whatever that means exactly) a number of times. It may not be the sort of "proof" that you'd like (or accept—but then would you accept anything?), but it's false to say that a Designer is ''utterly'' unproven. Not proven to your satisfaction would be more accurate.

:::If you add that 'to my satisfaction' is 'based on independant solid evidence', then I'll go along with that. All the 'proof' I have seen offered by anyone, including yourself, relies on circular reasoning - the evidence proves the Creator, and the existence of the Creator proves the evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:: "''...at it's heart, is a religious belief...''": "religion" = to do with God (according to your definition, although that's not the only definition). Creator = God. So your sentence is really saying, "Intelligent Design, at it's heart, is a belief about a Designer". Wow! Really?

:::Yep, I'll agree with that - Intelligent Design, at it's heart, is a BELIEF about a Designer. In other words, a belief lacking solid evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:: "''Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence''": So evolutionists keep claiming. And creationists keep refuting. Simply repeating the claim does not make it so.

::: No, creationists ''attempt'' to refute it. So far, I haven't actually seen any succeed. Yourself, for example, tried to refute it by making the claim that Darwin came up with evolution to 'do away with God', rather than because that's what his study of the evidence suggested. When asked for evidence, you came up with two citations - one quoting Michael Ruse, who appeared to make an easily disproven sweeping generalisation saying that all evolutionists regard evolution as a religion, but didn't actually reference Darwin at all, and another which was an article which claimed Steven Gould said something similar, but didn't even supply what he actually said. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:: "''To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God...''": Simply not true.

:::Really? What is this evidence then? I'd like to see it, bearing in mind that referring to the Bible means you're applying circular logic. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:: "''...until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists.''": In other words, until the existence of God is proved, evolutionists won't even consider the ''possibility'' of an alternative. That's called a closed mind. It is also unscientific.

:::Oh, no, it is perfectly possible for an evolutionist to consider it as a possibility - but then reject it due to lack of evidence. Which is the epitome of 'scientific'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::If an archaeologist finds a stone tool, he is able to determine that it was created by an intelligent designer (i.e. a human being), ''without having to have proof that the designer existed''! In fact, the mere ''existence'' of the intelligently-designed stone tool ''is itself evidence for the designer''!

:::Because such tools show clear evidence of being a tool, as opposed to just another rock, such as showing marks where it had been hit with rocks in order to shape it to an edge or point. To date, no-one has shown evidence of a similar nature in living organisms. As I say below, the nearest there has been to that is people claiming that life is too complex for evolution to explain it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::So your argument amounts to this: (1) I won't believe in a Designer/God until I have proof/evidence. (2) Here's proof/evidence: We can see that living things have been intelligently designed. (3) That proof/evidence is not acceptable because it requires that there be a Designer, which hasn't been proved. Tails you win; heads I lose.

:::Yep, because what you're doing there is applying circular logic - the evidence proves the existence of the Designer, but that self-same evidence is only really valid if you accept the notion that the Designer exists. What is needed to make ID scientific is solid evidence independant of this little circle. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:: "''Science and religion can co-exist...''": Of course they can! Science [[Natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a Christian worldview!

:::Neat trick - the first thing that could really be called science was around significantly before Christianity was. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:: "''evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists''", "''Theistic Evolution,...adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part''": That's one of the problems with Theistic evolution: It essentially says that God used a process that supposedly means that He wasn't involved.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, the whole basis of the 'Theistic' part of Theistic Evolution is, basically, that He (or someone like Him) '''was''' involved, so I'm not really seeing how that's actually a problem. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

== Exactly what does ID have to do with religion? ==

Are there any churches called "the Church of the Intelligent Designer?" Are there any religious books that teach the religious precepts of the ID religion? Are there any theological seminaries devoted to the ID religion? If ID is a religion, then is it exempt from being taxed? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:No, ID is not a religion. But it does have religious implications and it does have a lot of support from some religions (theistic ones) and a lot opposition from others (atheistic ones). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::The [[theory of evolution]] provides a justification for [[materialism]] and [[atheism]], while ID provides a justification for [[creationism]] and [[religion]]. There is no way to separate science from religious ideas (including "anti-religious" ideas).

::Liberals argue that since ID justifies religious belief it '''must be''' religious, but that makes no more sense than to argue that since the theory of evolution justifies atheism it '''must be''' anti-religious.

::Conservatives don't want censorship; they are not afraid of the [[marketplace of ideas]]. Only liberals want censorship. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Slander:_Liberal_Lies_About_the_American_Right&diff=prev&oldid=404454] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:19, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, the argument is that ID purports to be based on science, but the only arguments based on evidence that backs up ID are also based on the preconception that there is a designer - which, at heart, is a religious belief, and remains completely unproven. Conversely, evolution does not definitively say 'God does not exist', it says, 'there is no solid evidence that God exists', which is a slight but important difference, and, to properly apply the scientific process, if you claim that life was designed by God, or some other creator, you either have to come up with independant, solid evidence of the existence of that creator, and/or come up with clear-cut, solid evidence of that creator designing life. To date, no-one has come up with either. The closest people have come is pointing out the complexity of life and claiming that it's too complex to have arose by evolution, and, indeed, many IDers generally submit evidence that, in their eyes, throws doubt on evolution, rather than positively supports ID. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Much of that was a repeat of your other post above, and which I've just answered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::If buildings were found on Mars, would it be a religious beliefs to say they obviously had a designer? And evolution, as it is argued, has no opinion and will never have any opinion on God. Not directly, anyway. Finally, not all science is based on repeatable experiments. One can easily make scientific deductions purely from observation (e.g. astronomy), and that's exactly what ID does. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:05, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::The theory of evolution also has religious implications and also has a lot of support from religions. Try to argue that evolution has anything to do with religion, though, and you'll find yourself on the receiving end of endless mocking and ridicule. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== FSM is nothing more than a reworking of the IPU ==

Atheists originally started mocking Christians using the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Their usage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - from symbols that mock the Jesus fish to phrases like "have you been touched by his noodly appendage" - shows that it is not as much a mocking of ID as it is Christianity. IDers don't have anything like the Jesus fish and they don't go around saying things like "have you been touched by blah blah blah." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:13, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
: Come now, the problem with that argument is that you are assuming that the atheists will be logical and fair. You're right, it's mocking Christianity, but that's not because it was conceived to mock Christianity rather than ID, but simply because those atheists consider ID to be Christianity masquerading as science. Of course evolution is not atheism masquerading as science, dear no; you must remember to keep the beliefs of the evolutionists separate to their science. But with ID, their beliefs and motives can't be separated from the theory. Didn't you know that? <sarcasm off/> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== unprotect ==

Could we try unprotecting this again? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:01, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2008-10-22T00:24:45Z

Savedbyjesus:

The '''Flying Spaghetti Monster''' is a [[parody]] that began as a critique of the [[Kansas Board of Education]]'s decision to allow the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in public schools. Arguing that intelligent design was a thinly-veiled attempt to bring [[religion]] into the classroom, Bobby Henderson constructed "Pastafarianism" as a new theological system and argued that it too should be taught alongside evolution and intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref> on the notion of "teaching the controversy."

The blasphemous foreigner [[Richard Dawkins]] uses the flying spaghetti monster in his book ''[[The God Delusion]]'' attacking belief in [[God]].
Some people use a purported belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism as a thinly-veiled attempt to mock [[Christianity]] by reducing it to the level of an invented [[religion]] like Pastafarianism.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

== External Links ==
*[http://www.venganza.org Official website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]
[[category:culture]]