Nun Bun on the Run
29 December 2005 by Sean
Nashville police and residents were searching Monday for clues to the Christmas Day theft of a cinnamon bun that found unlikely fame for its resemblance to the late Mother Teresa’s face.
The bun has been a draw for curious tourists since it was preserved and put on display in a glass case at the shop where it was discovered by a customer in 1996.
It’s 2006 soon, folks. We have war, starvation, poverty, bigotry and religious hatred still rampant throughout the world. But clearly we have our priorities straight.
Mother Superior jumped the bun. (that was for you, Dena)
29 December 2005, on 3:29 am
It looks a lot more like a muppet than Mother Teresa. Why the fuck do people continue to see faces in baked goods and think what they’re seeing is divine? Wouldn’t the ghost of Mother Teresa have something better to do than show up at the local Cinnabon? Let’s think about this, a woman who worked with poor, starving people her whole life would want her image to appear on a fatty breakfast food which the poor, starving people she worked with would love to be able to eat but can’t because they’re poor and the roll was preserved and rendered inedible. Sounds Xtian to me.
29 December 2005, on 3:54 am
I thought it looked like a muppet, too!
29 December 2005, on 9:17 am
King of all Retards:
If I may, it’s basically a case of paeidolia, the effect of seeing something clear and distinct in something obscure. Says Carl Sagan:
So basically we evolved the ability to quickly recognize faces. But some of us turn illusion to delusion.*
*Robert Carroll “The Skeptic’s Dictionary” 8-27-05
29 December 2005, on 9:25 am
Seriously, I can’t see how that looks like anything but a cinnamon bun. Besides, Teresa was a psychotic bitch- I can think of far better humanitarians to find on a roll.
Sean,
What a grand headline for my morning; it has inspired me to Haiku:
Chuckles aplenty,
then Cheerios on my sleeve-
Sean, one keyboard please.
29 December 2005, on 9:45 am
Rockstar — you quoted Carl Sagan as saying, “Those infants who a million years ago were unable to recognize a face smiled back less, were less likely to win the hearts of their parents, and less likely to prosper.” You appear to accept the validity of that statement (correct me if I’m wrong). My question is this: given your insistence on evidence for everything, could you provide some evidence to support the notion that children a million years ago could not recognize faces? That they could not win the hearts of their parents?
Who recorded those facts? Where are the historical records to support such claims? Just curious why you seem perfectly willing to blindly accept a claim from “millions of years ago.”
29 December 2005, on 11:04 am
You really should go into the scarecrow making business Frank. Sagan was simply stating theory; would you disagree it is hardwired in our heads as infants to recognize faces? While I don’t necessarily believe it was evolutionary requirement, it’s an idea from a brilliant man.
The point is this: People are hardwired to recognize faces at a very early age. Be it due to Sagan’s reasoning or the fact that baby jeezus created it from nothing is nil to my point. Paredolia is a natural explanation for many “supernatural” things. Therefore it passes the most plausible hypothesis test and is correct until new data is found.
Or do you really think Mother Theresa manifistated her dead body through a cinnamon bun?
29 December 2005, on 11:12 am
Okay. I got your original point and I don’t disagree. And I wasn’t trying to be contentious, I was just curious.
Oh, and good grief NO! I don’t think Mother Theresa appeared in a cinnamon bun.
29 December 2005, on 1:13 pm
I think I saw Pope John Paul II on my forzen waffle this morning.
29 December 2005, on 3:09 pm
Rockstar said “These days, nearly every infant is quick to identify a human face, and to respond with a goony grin.”
I think the real miracle is that now buns have evolved to such a point that they too now respond with a goony grin to avoid being eaten. (Joke - Of course we all know that buns are the creation of an Intelligent Baker)
29 December 2005, on 3:26 pm
Hehe, Marcus. Wish I could take credit for the headline, but it was in the original article. I did come up with “Mother Superior jumped the bun”, though… even though it don’t make a whole lotta sense!
29 December 2005, on 3:57 pm
Ahh… Frank… I still demand that you have no right to comment until you answer the following:
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/10/19/behe-in-dover/#comment-2841
This is a challenge you have left unanswered for over two months! Are you “still checking” with your “science guy”?
29 December 2005, on 5:34 pm
Marcus, I gave you my response regarding that. I don’t care if the study of ID is considered a “theory” or not (based on the official scientific guidelines for theories). It’s irrelevant. I maintain that if scientists see things in nature which indicate to them a creator of some kind then it needs to be pursued, whether or not it conforms to the criteria for a “theory.”
Rockstar perferred the term “Bullshit.”
Personally, I don’t care what you call it. But I think it is irresponsible to ignore findings in nature because they don’t conform to preconceived notions of biogenesis. In fact, that is contrary to the scientific method and betrays a bias. Don’t you think?
29 December 2005, on 6:42 pm
Not to get too off topic with the whole evolution thing, but in response to Frank’s last post, that would be a hypothesis, and yes, the scientists that think so are free to do research and study into it, nobody is stopping them or arguing that they should be stopped at that. But unfortunatly, they don’t have a real (testable) hypothesis, haven’t done any sort of research (because they don’t even have a real hypothesis to test) and they are claiming it’s now a theory that they need to teach (indoctrinate/proselytize) to school kids. They just have a half-formed hypothesis that isn’t really testable. All ID is is criticism of holes (most of them imaginary or misconceptions or even lies) in the theory of evolution with a little goddidit wedged in there. ID is creationism with new indoctrination tactics. Creationism has evolved.
29 December 2005, on 7:33 pm
What else can you expect from a faith that turns a cracker into Jesus and orders it’s followers to eat him?
29 December 2005, on 9:28 pm
Frank,
I see; so, you are running away from the logical challenge. Thank you for invalidating yourself.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAA!
30 December 2005, on 1:58 am
Marcus says:
Besides, Teresa was a psychotic bitch — I can think of far better humanitarians to find on a roll.
I sometimes think Christopher Hitchens is a psychotic drunk, but he had balls to write this.
4 January 2006, on 9:22 pm
How come I don’t see Mother Theresa? I’m Jealous! lol
5 January 2006, on 12:10 pm
What I don’t understand is how are theist NOT embarassed by these jackasses who think stains on a wall are an aparition of the Virgin Mary, and a fucking sticky bun bears the likenes of MT. I’m embarrassed for them.
6 January 2006, on 6:05 pm
Ummm lya…I am embarassed! There are nuts in all walks of life.