FSM created hamburgers

[Lonewulf]

Discuss.









(Just making fun of all the new "<Blank> created <Blank>" threads)

[fuelair]

Why yes, yes he did - to use the extra beef left over after his vegetarian followers overdosed on the non-meat sauce. The FSM protects his environment - and I am sure followers of other so-called gods will perish in the strands of his eternal presence (I have a couple of names in mind here!!)

[Apathia]

But I thought hamburgers evolved from FSM's meatballs.
And where did veggieburgers come from?

[Lonewulf]

But I thought hamburgers evolved from FSM's meatballs.
And where did veggieburgers come from?

It occured during the Meat Sauce Heresy of 1000 B.F.S.M. Some claimed that FSM abhorred meat, and that the meat balls were an integral part of the Great Evil that is a part of FSM, which leads us to temptation.

Thus, they protested against the eating of the cow, the flesh of the pig, the succulent chicken, etc. The only thing that we could eat were pasta and tomatoes.

And, if we can avoid the great temptation that comes with the Great Evil, we will then ascend into the sky to be embraced by His Noodley Appendages, much like a Japanese girl often descends when grabbed by a...

...Nevermind. I forgot, that was just a bad porno flick.

[bruto]

I sincerely doubt that the FSM invented hamburgers for this reason: it is generally acknowledged that hamburgers were invented in New Haven, Connecticut. It is also generally acknowledged by anybody who is a true skeptic (r) ,* that New Haven is (to put it I hope outside the bounds of rule 8) the rectum of creation, the lair of the antipasto and its minions, onions and scallions.

* you can tell a true skeptic (r) by the quality of his answers. A true skeptic (r) will, according to the experts, seek answers to everything, and thus knows everything about everything. There are, by the way, 1+1+2+3+5+8+13....+n answers to everything.

[Kopji]

Surely someone's done one of these...




In the beginning the FSM created the hamburger
Now the bun was formless and empty
And the FSM hovered over the waiting bun

And the FSM said, 'let there be a plate'
And he saw it and it was fine Bone China
he seperated the forks from the knives
knives point inward! He intoned
and it was good

And the FSM said
let there be a table to hold the plate
and he made a tablecloth to divide the table from the plate
and it was good

And the FSM said
'let there be a roadside diner'
and the lights came on
and lo, condiments appeared
a jukebox played Buddy Holly
and it was good

And then the FSM said
let us make meat in our image
the image of my balls
pressed flatly
and cooked till juicy
and it became so

But the hamburger was lonely
and without purpose
so the FSM reached forth
and created a waitress

[rachaella]

This is patently absurd! As a vegetarian, I can tell you that the FSM has spoken to me directly to tell you that she has nothing but love and respect for all of her noddliness' creatures! Her "meet"balls are nothing more than a delectable mix of TVP and texturized wheat gluten (with some healthful oils and natural binding agents mixed in as well, of course), mixed generously with her noodliness' secret blend of herbs and spices. Should any mortal taste this divine concoction, she or he would be overcome with an instant taste-induced orgasm so overpowering that death would occur within seconds. This was all conveyed to me by none other than FSM herself, so it must be true.

[Lonewulf]

This is patently absurd! As a vegetarian, I can tell you that the FSM has spoken to me directly to tell you that she has nothing but love and respect for all of her noddliness' creatures!

FSM is male. D'uh.

I mean, tentacle monsters usually are. Either that or "gender neutral". Either way, you never hear of 'em grabbing nubile school boys. So then FSM would either be female, gender neutral, or gay...

[RationalReverend]

Discuss.




(Just making fun of all the new "<Blank> created <Blank>" threads)

Your response to religion is irrational, if you were truly an athiest, you would simply be without God, but your behavior is tantamount to an anti-theist, someone who is against the concept of God, in this case especially the Christian concept. Atheism is a faith. You believe something that can't be proven. That is faith. The rational thing to do would be to simply examine the claims and make a conclusion. The end.

[Lonewulf]

Your response to religion is irrational, if you were truly an athiest, you would simply be without God...

Which I am.

...but your behavior is tantamount to an anti-theist, someone who is against the concept of God, in this case especially the Christian concept.

I'm for skepticism. I'm for questioning. I'm for seeking answers and actually being willing to see your answers for what they are. Religion (faith) is lack of skepticism; anti-skepticism, you could say, and that is what I am against.

Why are you personally attacking me, though? Why not any of the other people in this thread?

Atheism is a faith.

Actually, I rate myself only *close* to the 7 on the Dawkins' scale of agnosticism/atheism/theism. Not quite 7 (or 0 faith, I guess you could say), but still gettin' there.

Christianity can be correct, but only in the same sense as fairies in my garden, or an invisible dragon in my garage. I consider all of these claims to be equiprobable. Now, I consider the existance of a powerful deity that may or may not have created the entire universe to be "more probable" than simply taking Christianity's version (any given Christian sect's version). I take the idea of a First Cause to be more probable than the powerful deity; especially if that First Cause need not essentially be intelligent (or at least, not in our mind of intelligent; for all I know, it could be Azathoth, the Mad God).

You believe something that can't be proven. That is faith.

Actually, I am not completely discounting God as existing. Though if He exists, I highly doubt that it will be your version that is correct, or most versions available here on Earth, for many reasons. I doubt in the Christian God in the same way I doubt in the Greek gods, or the Roman gods, or any of the others.

Humans have a propensity for a heavy amount of imagination, for a heavy amount of trying to explain the world around them, and they often end up incorrect. We once explained astronomical bodies using Aether. Now Aether has been disregarded as a faulty theory. Religion in itself should be questioned just as much.

The rational thing to do would be to simply examine the claims and make a conclusion. The end.

I do examine the claims. I have made a conclusion. You do not agree with that conclusion.

...And?

I guess I could say "The End" here, but I am not a "The End" kind of person. I'm always willing to learn more things. But as of yet, there are no convincing arguments for religion that make sense to any but those who have been subjected to the idea of that religion for long enough that they have become desensitized to some of the more questionable and rather silly ideas of that religion.

So, are you through getting through your prejudices and assumptions, and proclaiming what I do and do not believe already? Or do you have some more?

I've taken plenty. I went to a Private Catholic High School (Holy Cross) in New Jersey. Most people there were more ignorant than anyplace I've ever seen. I've been baptized and gone through my first confession. I haven't quite read the bible from cover to cover, and I'm not sure if I could accomplish that feat. The writing's just not in my style, see, and I've somewhat lost interest. I've also read the works of Dawkins, read parts of the New Testament and Koran (part of my World Literature assignment!), as well as the works of Augustine's "Confessions" (Short summarization: "Oh, my life sucked, I was a bad boy. But I found you, God. Yay God." Still an interesting read, though).

I still find Christianity, or any given religion given today, to be lacking. And the fact that it's very believers do not even question or look to their source, only rely on assumptions (based in "faith", which is just another word for "assumption"), makes me question the entire process.

but please, go on and worship your religion. Pray to your God. I would not infringe you of that right. In this way, I am not an "anti-theist", though I will speak my opinion on the matter and question believers on the matter in the designated locations for such a thing (No more discussions in the work place!).

If asking questions and attempting to point out illogical or irrational claims is "antitheism", then yes. I am an "antitheist". But do not claim that I do it on "faith".

[Taffer]

Do we really have to explain, yet again, how atheism is not a faith? A lack of believe != a negative belief.

[Shrike]

Uhm, Lonewulf, Taffer, I think RR is having you on...

[Taffer]

Uhm, Lonewulf, Taffer, I think RR is having you on...

Well if he is, then "oops :o".

[Lonewulf]

Uhm, Lonewulf, Taffer, I think RR is having you on...

What, you mean he's kidding? He's toying with me?

Pfah.






(Now I feel all silly)

[Darth Rotor]

Discuss.

(Just making fun of all the new "<Blank> created <Blank>" threads)
Nope.

Primus: any grain food product other than pasta is a heresy, and unclean food. A hamburger requires the non-canonical use of wheat to make buns, rather than the Holy Pasta.

Secundus: heretical use of tomatoes. In pursuit of ketchup, and sliced tomatoes on the burger, tomatoes are profaned rather made into a Divine Sauce with olive oil, basil, garlic and salt. Alfredo is still in debate as to canonical status.

Tertius: flattening of the holy balls into unholy patties (ouch, damnit that hurts!) is apostasy, and an excommunicatable offense.

Quartus: FSM abhors mustard and mayonaise, being French concoctions. Spaghetti is Italian.

Note: Bar B Q sauce, being tomato based and saucy, is not heretical, although most orthodoxy limits its use to ribs.

Splitter!

DR

[Ipecac]

The FSM creating hamburgers is the one thing that would convert me instantly. Any being capable of creating the perfect food is worthy of my instant worship.