Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Blessedj01]

What's worse is that people actually spent a lot of time creating this "religion."

 

[variant]

What's worse is that people actually spent a lot of time creating this "religion."

Yours took thousands of years to develop.

 

[Blessedj01]

I bet someone gets paid from it too. I bet there's whole businesses surrounding it.

And all so some people can make some petty point. Instead of being out doing the "good" they are always talking about.

Naysayers won't see the value in my Christ so won't understand why they took the time to record His achievements. They will compare their ridiculous fantasy based on His work.

Yes, they'd rather give credit to some fools who made up a silly religion out of spite, than look honestly at the merits of the God of Love.

In all this, their end goal is to stumble little children and prevent them from meeting their best friend and Father in the Universe.

 

[variant]

I bet someone gets paid from it too. I bet there's whole businesses surrounding it.

It was developed as a response to creationists asking for equal time in science class rooms.

And all so some people can make some petty point. Instead of being out doing the "good" they are always talking about.

Naysayers won't see the value in my Christ so won't understand why they took the time to record His achievements. They will compare their ridiculous fantasy based on His work.

Yes, they'd rather give credit to some fools who made up a silly religion out of spite, than look honestly at the merits of the God of Love.

In all this, their end goal is to stumble little children and prevent them from meeting their best friend and Father in the Universe.

I wouldn't talk.

Your religion started as a pact with a war god.

At least with the FSM we don't have to see so many baby goats dead.

 

[True Scotsman]

The promotion of a the theory that life evolved itself requires more gullibility than the most primitive religious system. What would be even more ironic is an uncaused evolutionary mechanism that evolved people who have consistently attributed their origins to an unseen deity! It would then be evolution, born out of existing existence that thinks there is a God.

I didn't say that life and evolution were uncaused did I? You have a very bad habit of putting words into people's mouths. I said that life and evolution are the result of entities acting and interaction according to their metaphysically given nature. There is no "chance" in nature if by chance you mean an uncaused action. Actions are caused by entities and the nature of the action is determined by the Identity of the entities that act. I said that scientist have already shown that a primitive cell membrane with self replicating RNA inside can form naturally in the presence of certain helper molecules such as a common form of clay mineral. QED. since living organisms are composed of matter and energy then it is proven that matter and energy have it within their nature to form a living organism's given the right conditions and enough time.

Life came from existence. The only other alternative is that is came from non existence. Since we know that existence exists, what point is there in going outside of existence to look for an unknowable cause. The only point I can see in doing it is that you are not satisfied with reality and wish to re-write it.

 

[True Scotsman]

Science has implicit truth claims just like God does. This, again, goes back to the ideas and philosophical presuppositions underlying science.

I'm not claiming God via ex negativo. What I am claiming is that there is an epistemological comparison between stuff that can't be empirically proven (note the "empirical" here, which presupposes science) in terms of God and FSMs. Because science can't be proven empirically (given that it is essentially a philosophy with assumptions that can't be rationally, empirically, or anything other than intuitively "proven"), it also fails the test. That simple. So for you this probably goes back to the "category error" claim.

Science rests on the axioms and the primacy of existence principle. These are not assumptions but directly observable facts. Science, unlike mysticism, has a proper philosophical starting point. That is why science is the single best method we have of learning about reality. No other method comes close to the record of science.

 

[Blessedj01]

Some people will justify anything and say anything to hold onto their justifications.

 

[variant]

Some people will justify anything and say anything to hold onto their justifications.

 

[Blessedj01]

Some people think that, "I know you are but what am I?" is the height of debating technique.

 

[variant]

I'm merely demonstrating that your religion is not above contempt without comparing it to anything.

Feel free to continue putting on airs though.

 

[Blessedj01]

A random verse:

"Romans 2:4; Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?"

Also, some people like to avoid the subject instead of focusing on how sad it is to spend time creating a false religion just to spite another.

 

[variant]

A random verse:

"Romans 2:4; Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?"

I counter with:

Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (Genesis 22:10-13)

Also, some people like to avoid the subject instead of focusing on how sad it is to spend time creating a false religion just to spite another.

The topic is comparing two ideas and how they are justified, you are the one who is off on a tangent my friend.

 

[Blessedj01]

Some people show contempt for what's written in the Bible, especially when they think it refers to "cruelty," but they don't understand the justifications that are provided for those actions is solid and sound.

These same people will eat a hamburger and denounce God as a monster.

Also, some people don't seem to see that the idea of creating a comparison is completely a separate issue from wasting your time creating a fake religion to spite a real one.

 

[variant]

Some people show contempt for what's written in the Bible, especially when they think it refers to "cruelty," but they don't understand the justifications that are provided for those actions is solid and sound.

I'm not the one justifying killing innocent animals to appease invisible beings.

Also, some people don't seem to see that the idea of creating a comparison is completely a separate issue from wasting your time creating a fake religion to spite a real one.

If it is a completely separate issue go make your own thread and pontificate there.

It wasn't created to spite anything except the concept of giving religious ideas equal time in science class rooms...

 

[Blessedj01]

Some people don't seem to see how a thread criticising the FSM can entirely relate to how much of a waste of time it is to create, then get confused about what other people mean when they are really saying that just because you can create a comparison - does not mean your comparison was worthy of the time spent.

Also, some people make ridiculous assertions about what is cruel. They themselves are hypocrites though and do not realise it is God's kindness that they are showing contempt for through their unrelated accusations.

 

[variant]

Some people don't seem to see how a thread criticising the FSM can entirely relate to how much of a waste of time it is to create, then get confused about what other people mean when they are really saying that just because you can create a comparison - does not mean your comparison was worthy of the time spent.

Considering that you don't even have the first clue why the FSM was created in the first place or what purpose it served I find it hard to understand how you get to be the person who declares it a waste of time...

Also, some people make ridiculous assertions about what is cruel. They themselves are hypocrites though.

Well having never killed anything to appease an invisible being I don't consider myself a hypocrite.

Comparing killing for food and killing to appease the Gods is odd though, maybe you're not very good for the comparisons of things debate either?

If I criticized Abraham for eating meat I would be a hypocrite. Hopefully that clears it up for you well enough.

 

[Blessedj01]

Some people just like arguing for argument's sake, on forums about things they despise.

 

[variant]

Some people just like arguing for argument's sake, on forums about things they despise.

You should probably address the arguments rather than the arguer in those cases.

 

[Blessedj01]

Don't forget to have a nice day, everyone!

 

[Ana the Ist]

The promotion of a the theory that life evolved itself requires more gullibility than the most primitive religious system.

I'm guessing by "life evolved itself" you meant that life arose without the aid of any gods....

So....it's a bit weird for you to say that in response to a post claiming there's evidence that shows it's entirely possible for life to have arisen without any interaction from gods. When you make such a claim....what's the thought process behind it? Do you think, "I won't look into this because it contradicts what I already believe!" or is it something like..."Whatever evidence they do have must've been concocted/faked by some evil cabal of atheists working for Satan!"

I'm just curious, because your statement above which I've quoted is so far outside the realm of truth and reality that it appears you've insulated yourself inside a completely opaque bubble. The perspective that you try to protect by creating this bubble... what possible benefits could it provide? Would it really be so dangerous to your beliefs to actually look into the evidence yourself? Are your beliefs so fragile that any contradictory evidence must be ridiculed and then ignored? What makes any belief that valuable?