Flying Spaghetti Monster

[GoldenBoy89]

Gee, do I have to continue to explain it's the make-believe first cell atheist have to believe in in spite of all the evidence point to the fact there is a minimum requirement for a living cell to reproduce.

Nobody told me I have to believe in some "frankencell."

Being an atheist just means I don't believe Gods exist. After that, I can believe whatever I want and it won't have any impact on my atheism.

Atheism isn't something you believe because you want to. You know, like a religion.... It is something you are because you don't believe the religious claims of others.

 

[variant]

And what is the probability of such nonsense is true.

To calculate probability you need to know the conditions and exactly what is happening.

 

[variant]

No, the FSM isn't real, Jesus is.

Religious people tend to think their claims are real.

 

[variant]

Gee, do I have to continue to explain it's the make-believe first cell atheist have to believe in in spite of all the evidence point to the fact there is a minimum requirement for a living cell to reproduce.

You've yet to show anyone who actually thinks that either than you.

Here's a survey paper of the topic for you:
The Origins of Cellular Life

 

[True Scotsman]

They're the same ones Christians make - reality exists, that sort of thing. Believers add in a bunch of other stuff about gods and whatnot, but ignoring those they share the same basic assumptions about reality as scientists use.

So I guess it makes for great sounding rhetoric to show that science has assumptions. Unless the believer in question is going to admit that they believe that reality is an illusion and the sun could just as easily rise in the west tomorrow they're not really making a substantive critique about the failings of science by doing so.

Actually KCfromNC, if you examine the fundamental principles of science and Christianity, you will see that they are diametrically opposed.

Science presupposes that reality is Objective and that things are what they are and do what they do independent of anyone's conscious desires. Science rests on the principle that A is A. Christianity affirms metaphysical subjectivism.

Christianity rests explicitly on the premise that A is not A or rather that A is whatever a conscious god wants it to be and imagines it to be and that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can say to the mountain move and it will move and nothing will be impossible to you.

Science rests on the fact that the mountain will bloody well stay right where it is no matter how much someone might wish that it would move.

Science rests on the law of non-contradiction and Christianity rests on the principle that contradictions are fine if a god says so.

 

[Colter]

Religious people tend to think their claims are real.

......And Atheist tend to think the claims of religious people are not real. What, have we reached the end of the internet and are now starting over in the Atheist vrs religion discussion?

 

[Colter]

Actually KCfromNC, if you examine the fundamental principles of science and Christianity, you will see that they are diametrically opposed.

Science presupposes that reality is Objective and that things are what they are and do what they do independent of anyone's conscious desires. Science rests on the principle that A is A. Christianity affirms metaphysical subjectivism.

Christianity rests explicitly on the premise that A is not A or rather that A is whatever a conscious god wants it to be and imagines it to be and that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can say to the mountain move and it will move and nothing will be impossible to you.

Science rests on the fact that the mountain will bloody well stay right where it is no matter how much someone might wish that it would move.

Science rests on the law of non-contradiction and Christianity rests on the principle that contradictions are fine if a god says so.

Religion in general recognizes Gods immutable laws which true science uncovers and observes, religion deals specifically with spiritual realities. But being material and wholly intellectual, science is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual reality or religious experience.

The miracles preformed or willed by Jesus were not violations of Gods immutable laws, the celestial beings at Jesus' disposal simply knew how to carry out those commands, they are far more intelligent than mortal man. In fact to God nothing is a miracle.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You bolded the part about "in a certain respect". I'm saying that respect is so limited as to be worthless for any intelligent, meaningful purpose.

Good for you. I don't see it that way. Both are supernatural entities that can be claimed to exist, and in that respect: they are the same.

And imagine the lens had never been invented; no emperical knowledge of germs and more distant celestial bodies. Therefore they couldn't be shown to exist. The conclusion?

The conclusion would be the same. If it can't be shown to exist, there's no valid reason to assume they exist. And that is, off course, also assuming that there are no other, perhaps more indirect, reasons to point in the direction of their existence.

A good example here would be black holes. Einstein's theories suggested they exist. Einstein actually thought he had to be wrong somewhere, becaue the idea of a black hole didn't sound very appealing to him and there was no observational evidence of such bodies. Nevertheless, his theories seemed to be very accurate, which was quite strong evidence that those black holes just might be real. And several years later, lo and behold, they were discovered - by prediction of Einstein's theories.

So I feel the need to nuance your example a bit.
Having said that, we have nothing even remotely close to such suggested existence for either gods or spaghetti monsters.

They may exist or they may not. So the FSM hasn't demonstrated anything for which a useful analogy might be helpful.

Now, you're simply misrepresenting the point of the analogy.
The FSM is not (repeat: NOT) a plea for god's non-existence. In fact, I explicitly stated that "they are claimed to exist, but can't be shown to exist".


To not accept the claim "they exist" as a truth statement is not the same as accepting the opposite of the statement.

If you flip a coin, don't show me the results and then assert "it's heads" and I reply "I don't accept your claim as a truth-statement", it does not mean that I accept the claim "it's tails" as a truth statement.

There's a huge difference.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The flying spaghetti monster never incarnate as a man, reveled God in his life, allowed himself to be killed so that he could resurrect a likeness of his former incarnate body for believers to witness. Then ascend into heaven with all power and authority in heaven and on earth.

And Jawhe doesn't provide rivers of beer, blackjack and hookers in the afterlife like the FSM does.

Nore can I hit the earth with my foot after which it will fly away like with a football, eventhough both are spheres.

Pointing out the differences between two things that are analogous to one another in some way, is to miss the point of an analogy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Gee, do I have to continue to explain it's the make-believe first cell atheist have to believe in in spite of all the evidence point to the fact there is a minimum requirement for a living cell to reproduce.

I guess that makes me the evidence that this statement is false.
When people ask me how life came into existence, I simply say that I don't know. Because I don't.

I don't feel the need to "have to believe" anything.
I'm not required to take a position on subjects I'm ignorant of.

 

[Colter]

And Jawhe doesn't provide rivers of beer, blackjack and hookers in the afterlife like the FSM does.

Nore can I hit the earth with my foot after which it will fly away like with a football, eventhough both are spheres.

Pointing out the differences between two things that are analogous to one another in some way, is to miss the point of an analogy.

The childish analogy of the spaghetti God is based on a false premise that the spiritual experience of the religionist was invented like the spaghetti God was.

 

[quatona]

The childish analogy of the spaghetti God is based on a false premise that the spiritual experience of the religionist was invented like the spaghetti God was.

The analogy invites you to provide evidence that its premise is faulty. Just like a good reductio ad absurdum should.
That´s the very point of the analogy: From the pov of an unbiased observer any two claims involving the allegedly "supernatural" are indistinguishable in terms of their "truth value". There is no method to make such a distinction.

That fact that this point has never been addressed (a method proposed) in the responses here, but instead we hear but a lot of complaining about the analogy not being analogous in respects that it isn´t even intended to compare suggests the conclusion that the point stands firmly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The childish analogy of the spaghetti God is based on a false premise that the spiritual experience of the religionist was invented like the spaghetti God was.

The only reason you think it is childish is because you happen to believe in god. If you would not believe in god, but in the FSM instead, you'ld have the same reaction. Only then it would be other way round.

Secondly, that's not the premise of the analogy.
The premise of the analogy is that both are supernatural entities that can be claimed to exist and that neither claim can be supported by actual evidence.

I actually have never denied the "spiritual experience" of anyone. Everyone has experiences. What I can recognise however, is that we are easily mistaken. That these people experience "something" is not the point of disagreement. The point of disagreement is what that "something" is.

Millions of theists of rivalling religions have such "spiritual experiences" about mutually exclusive gods. By very definition, they can't all be correct in their interpretation of those experiences. But they most certainly can all be wrong. And most likely, they are all wrong.
By necessity, you must agree that people can misinterpret their "spiritual experiences". Budhists, muslims, hindu's, hare krishna's etc, ... all of them have such experiences and all of them attribute it to their particular gods. Clearly, you won't agree those gods exist. So that MUST mean that you agree that people can be mistaken in interpreting/understanding their experiences. So then the question is: how do you know that you aren't one of them?

As it turns out, within the field of psychology we actually have quite a good understanding of how those experiences can manifest. And gods are not part of that equation.

Never forget: the easiest person to fool, is yourself.

 

[Colter]

The only reason you think it is childish is because you happen to believe in god. If you would not believe in god, but in the FSM instead, you'ld have the same reaction. Only then it would be other way round.

Secondly, that's not the premise of the analogy.
The premise of the analogy is that both are supernatural entities that can be claimed to exist and that neither claim can be supported by actual evidence.

I actually have never denied the "spiritual experience" of anyone. Everyone has experiences. What I can recognise however, is that we are easily mistaken. That these people experience "something" is not the point of disagreement. The point of disagreement is what that "something" is.

Millions of theists of rivalling religions have such "spiritual experiences" about mutually exclusive gods. By very definition, they can't all be correct in their interpretation of those experiences. But they most certainly can all be wrong. And most likely, they are all wrong.

As it turns out, within the field of psychology we actually have quite a good understanding of how those experiences can manifest. And gods are not part of that equation.

Never forget: the easiest person to fool, is yourself.

One God, many interpretations by many finite minds, hence many religions and theologies. Still one God.

Religions aren't invented like the spaghetti God, they grow up over long periods of time, periodically modified by revelations great and small.

Not everyone within the so called field of psychology is a biased Atheist. Faith in God was solving very real psychological problems before the field of psychology existed.

 

[Colter]

The analogy invites you to provide evidence that its premise is faulty. Just like a good reductio ad absurdum should.
That´s the very point of the analogy: From the pov of an unbiased observer any two claims involving the allegedly "supernatural" are indistinguishable in terms of their "truth value". There is no method to make such a distinction.

That fact that this point has never been addressed (a method proposed) in the responses here, but instead we hear but a lot of complaining about the analogy not being analogous in respects that it isn´t even intended to compare suggests the conclusion that the point stands firmly.

straw man noun

: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

1) a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2) a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

 

[quatona]

straw man noun

: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

1) a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2) a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Cool. Now that you have analysed and labeled your responses accurately, you may want to address the actual point.
At this point I am not sure if you haven´t understood it, or if you are deliberately ignoring it.
Maybe it would help the conversation if you´d rephrase in your own words what the point of the reductio ad absurdum "FSM" is - so we can see if it needs to be explained another time.

 

[KCfromNC]

No.

Weird you'd bring a subject up only to later tell us it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually KCfromNC, if you examine the fundamental principles of science and Christianity, you will see that they are diametrically opposed.

Science presupposes that reality is Objective and that things are what they are and do what they do independent of anyone's conscious desires. Science rests on the principle that A is A. Christianity affirms metaphysical subjectivism.

I get what you're saying - with an inscrutable omnipotent god there's no reason to think that reality would be consistent since god would be doing whatever it wanted with the universe for no reason we could every figure out. Cause and effect wouldn't work, our memories of the past could be faked, and so on, all as part of gods mysterious plan for the universe.

But I honestly doubt that most Christians think things through like that. Instead, when the rubber hits the road they sure act as if things we've observed in the past let us make models which predict the future. If they've lost their keys, they don't just throw up their hands and say "who knows where in the universe god teleported them to, assuming I can even trust my memories that I have a car aren't manufactured by god in the first place". Instead, they backtrack and look in the places where they last remembered having them under the assumption that the core nature of reality didn't change while they were sleeping.

That's my point - all of the hypothetical objections that believers come up with relating to the potential fallibility of science due to its assumptions are moot because those same Christians accept and successfully make use of those assumptions every day. Science is way more rigorous at correctly applying them, but until you can get a believer to say [and more importantly, act as if] they have no reason to assume a chair will hold them them up off the floor even though chairs have worked that way every time in the past, then the objections are pretty hypocritical.

 

[Colter]

Cool. Now that you have analysed and labeled your responses accurately, you may want to address the actual point.
At this point I am not sure if you haven´t understood it, or if you are deliberately ignoring it.
Maybe it would help the conversation if you´d rephrase in your own words what the point of the reductio ad absurdum "FSM" is - so we can see if it needs to be explained another time.

"Reason is the test of ridicule, not ridicule the test of truth." -Warburton, William

 

[quatona]

"Reason is the test of ridicule, not ridicule the test of truth." -Warburton, William

So you still don´t understand the point.
Do you want to understand the point? I am asking sincerely, since I don´t want to waste my time.