Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many things you don't get. That human culture or history could be one of them is largely my point.
What does this have to do with the OP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
If you can't see the difference between God and FSM than this implies a poor grasp of culture and the humanities. Or it could be because of a narrow literalism or some other difficulty.
The only difference is time. If you can not see the parallels between the FSM religion and every other theistic religion, then say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Spaghetti is clearly something made by people. It does not exist outside of people or in nature. Nor did it exist for most of human history. So a "spaghetti monster" is obviously a man-made invention.
"God" is clearly something made by people. It does not exist outside of people or in nature. Nor did it exist for most of human history. So, "god monster" is obviously a man-made invention. dun dun duuuunnnnnnn.
This is "opinion as fact" rather than an actual fact. Many people certainly believe this, but it's merely a claim not an argument or evidence of anything.
LOL, you answer your own question.
You are the best caller ever... lol...
Yes, but not for the reasons you are implying. Both Scientology and Mormonism have core claims that can be verified by science or the humanities and are also disproved. There was no ancient Jewish kingdom in the Americas and psychiatric medicines do help certain people. Several forms of Christian fundamentalism can also be rejected for similar reasons.
No, they can't lol. The FSM lines up with all the empirical evidence we have, unlike other theistic religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Those were claims about natural phenomenon. Those things are properly the subject of science, particularly if we mean repeatable natural phenomenon.
You miss the point that just because the belief is old, doesn't make it true..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
As for age it's just one factor not all. A belief system that survives for millennia in some isolated spot is likely not being tested. It's also not being shown as universal. Christianity has managed to survive in numerous cultures, including those where it was always a minority, for many centuries.
Sigh.... I guess you will be worshiping the Egyptian gods soon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
There are a few other religions that could be said of, but I find Christianity more compelling than those. Unlike Judaism or Zoroastrianism it is not as based in a specific tribe. It seems to me if something is true it is probably going to be more than just a specific tribal issue. I see it as less undermining of material reality than Buddhism. In Buddhism one detaches yourself from nature and desire, in Christianity nature is flawed but not something to flee. We unite with Christ as a physical being and will have physical bodies in the afterlife. The study of nature is therefore potentially of greater value. And I could get into more, but will demure.
You haven't read the bible have you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
In your opinion. In this case your opinion does not conform actual reality that the majority of the world's people have lived or experience. People did not build hospitals for the fairies. They did not credit the fairies for getting them off alcohol or curing an incurable illness. They certainly did not credit the Flying Spaghetti Monster with building a spiral staircase or helping them with theorems of transfinite numbers.
Your inability to see the difference is unfortunate or represents a lacuna in your education, but that's about all. It says nothing real and I think human history or anthropology supports that it says nothing real.
Coming from the guy who thinks a invisible man is watching his every move.. that's rich..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Well there's also the intellectuals I mentioned, the actual experiences of thousands of people, actual events in history, and so forth. You did understand more of what I wrote than I gave you credit. Perhaps I can look for some books for you to read so you can be able to argue with me on a more even level next time.
Wow... It always surprises me how so many ignorant people think they know it all..
I congratulate you on ignoring every part of my post that discusses the OP, you are truly well train at the art of blind faith.
The only difference is time. If you can not see the parallels between the FSM religion and every other theistic religion, then say so
I thought I did. Although I suppose I came closer to saying I don't see parallels between FSM and every other theistic religion. Can't could imply there actually are parallels and I just don't see them.
FSM is an intentional satire with no confirmed sincere believers. It's not simply a matter of time either as there are new religions that have managed to accomplish something. That have shown an understanding of human experience and history. FSM is not one of them. Baha'i in its first decade or so did much more useful and interesting in the world as well as having useful or interesting comments on past human religious experiences or human history. FSM has nothing, it is nothing, it does nothing.
I might read the rest of your post for amusement or something, but I have a feeling any further response would waste both our time. (I just read it all, all I have to say is wow! You're not even pretending to read what I'm writing at this point. Just sputtering bile and Youtube videos. It's almost laughable. Waste of time indeed.)
Last edited by Thomas R.; 11-01-2009 at 03:05 AM..
I really don't care if you believe in God or Vishnu or Shang-Ti. I do care about groups, any group, that seems intent on maligning a religious group or (in one case here) even advocates "eradicating" it.
If you (plural) are an atheist and you really don't care what others believe than I don't care what you disbelieve. If you're an atheist who deems "de-conversion" and ridicule a major goal than you're not really that different than the missionaries who compare the Hindu gods to comic book characters or even destroy works of non-Christian religious art. Such people deserve to be criticized and others protected from them.
Personally, I truly don't care what you wish to believe as long as you don't try to convince me that only you are correct and all others are going to he!!. Such a stance is not what your religion teaches and is extremely counterproductive, causing others such as myself to point out its hypocrisy.
I don't believe people of other faiths go to Hell. I don't believe in teaching Catholicism in public school. I might even favor kids being able to "opt out" of theology courses in Catholic schools provided they or their parent have a reason. (That step is because it's probably not a good idea to let kids opt out of any class without a reason) I don't favor banning contraception, vasectomy, divorce-and-remarriage, homosexual sex, or apostasy.
I think I've been clear on that while I'm here, but I think for some atheists that's insufficient. It's necessary we bask in the superiority of atheism or agree that any puerile joke an atheist makes is really quite wise. I'm not going to do that and that makes me the bane of a certain kind of atheist.
Oh, I don't blame you. I just call BS on the whole thing. Constantly revised and re-interpreted to fit an individuals (or religions) current stance.
To me, just further truth as to its lies.
Interesting (if ambiguous) point of view. I thought that one of the virtues of science was its capacity for revision and re-interpretation to fit advancing knowledge. Why, then, is it an an indication of lies when it is applied to belief in God? Religious beliefs, like most of our emotionally-laden cognitive structures, serve as need-satisfiers for a variety of otherwise unsatisfiable emotional needs. Perhaps that is why, unlike other belief systems, so many religious beliefs have resisted change, despite the overwhelming evidence that every other area of human concern has clearly benefited from a natural intellectual evolution of knowledge. I see the Fundamentalist literalist retention of primitive and savage interpretations of God as the enemy of truth. As R.L. Wing suggested,
. . . Once we understand the folly in this, we gain power by using the evolution in nature to our advantage - accepting, incorporating, and supporting change when and where it wants to occur. . . . Our decisions become astute because they are based on a dynamic evolving reality, not on fixed or wishful thinking.
I don't believe people of other faiths go to Hell. I don't believe in teaching Catholicism in public school. I might even favor kids being able to "opt out" of theology courses in Catholic schools provided they or their parent have a reason. (That step is because it's probably not a good idea to let kids opt out of any class without a reason) I don't favor banning contraception, vasectomy, divorce-and-remarriage, homosexual sex, or apostasy.
I think I've been clear on that while I'm here, but I think for some atheists that's insufficient. It's necessary we bask in the superiority of atheism or agree that any puerile joke an atheist makes is really quite wise. I'm not going to do that and that makes me the bane of a certain kind of atheist.
A bane only by your own definition. As for the rest of your statement, didn't say you do these things but if you start, expect to be called on them.
Interesting (if ambiguous) point of view. I thought that one of the virtues of science was its capacity for revision and re-interpretation to fit advancing knowledge. Why, then, is it an an indication of lies when it is applied to belief in God?
Science changes when facts change, not decisions to reinterprete the same evidence when it is shown to be faulty. Since religion claims that all things god are by definition perfect, there whould be no need to change. Yet the change is continual. Ambuiguous? No. Restating lies? Yes.
Quote:
Religious beliefs, like most of our emotionally-laden cognitive structures, serve as need-satisfiers for a variety of otherwise unsatisfiable emotional needs. Perhaps that is why, unlike other belief systems, so many religious beliefs have resisted change, despite the overwhelming evidence that every other area of human concern has clearly benefited from a natural intellectual evolution of knowledge. I see the Fundamentalist literalist retention of primitive and savage interpretations of God as the enemy of truth. As R.L. Wing suggested,
. . . Once we understand the folly in this, we gain power by using the evolution in nature to our advantage - accepting, incorporating, and supporting change when and where it wants to occur. . . . Our decisions become astute because they are based on a dynamic evolving reality, not on fixed or wishful thinking.
Religious beliefs have resisted change in spite of the evolution of ideas? Yes, they refute any type of evolution and claim perfection in all they believe and do. They deny the benefit of these changes, hence the lie.
As for your supplies reference from this Wing person, it is (in my opinion) basically refuting the theist point of view and supporting calling it a lie.
The arguments I see here about the faliability of the FSM is based solely in the fact that Christianity has been around longer.
Well gosh, if that is the metric to prove validity, then why are you all not practicing Hinduism, which has been around 5000 years, or Judaism which has been around 4000 years, or Buddhism which has been around 2500 years?
The longer a legend has been around has no bearing at all on the validity of the legend.
Oh, I don't blame you. I just call BS on the whole thing. Constantly revised and re-interpreted to fit an individuals (or religions) current stance.
Indeed, not "revised" but interpeted on an individual by individual basis because GOD, as are all subjective things, mean different things on an individual by individual basis. There is nothing new about an non-literalist, esoteric understanding of religious scripture, indeed, that goes all the way back to the Notzrim Gnostics. It is not "revised" but understood as it was meant to be, i.e., not literally. As Joseph Campbell once said:
Quote:
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.
An individual interpretation is one of the pillars of Mysticism, which is ancient, as is non-literalists interpretation. Nothing "new" or "revised" there...granted, people who attack religion without ever formerly studying it might, in their ignorance, call it "new" or a "cop-out", but one cannot blame them for their lack of education on religion as a whole.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
