Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Davian]

Welcome to ignore.

Well, that about wraps it up for God.

 

[True Scotsman]

The easiest way to find out what the "more", is, is to to start with the Book of Matthew and work your way up to the Book of John.

Each individual also has their own personal experience of God.

Also, you're being highly offensive when you suggest anything "lessens" us in the eyes of our Savior.

On the basis of that statement, welcome to ignore.

Wow you sure are sensitive. Didn't mean to offend you. Did not Jesus say that if one was "lukewarm" in their belief that he would spit them out. That sounds like it would lessen you in his eyes.

I have read the Bible including the old testament. I have no experience of God, although when I was younger I very much wanted to. Didn't though. But feel free to ignore me, I'm not offended by that.

 

[True Scotsman]

Well, that about wraps it up for God.

It's typical behavior in my experience. The discussion is fine as long as it remains on the concrete level but ask questions on basic principles of metaphysics and epistemology and the anger starts coming out and they flee.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The nuancing of the example doesn't help. If someone had created a Flying Spaghetti Hole to mock Einstein's idea, would it have influenced any thinking person?

That wouldn't have been a proper analogy.
Black holes were suggested / predicted by Einstein's equations. These equations could be tested, verified and applied in technology by anyone. They didn't require any "faith".

Unlike the definitions of gods and other supernatural entities, the definition of a black hole in those days was not an arbitrary thing being the result of "dreams", "revelations", "visions" of goat herders living and nomads in 900 BC.
The existence of black holes could also be investigated and tested.

So spaghetti analogies here wouldn't be appropriate. A black hole is a very specific thing resulting from a very specific physical model that can be tested and falsified.

Gods are nothing like that. Gods are more like flying spaghetti monsters that can't be detected.

Again, we seem to be in agreement. But maybe I can't tell what you're actually saying. But it raises the question "what is the point of FSM?".

Isn't that like the question of this thread?
The point obviously is that there is no way or method to differentiate obvious nonsense supernatural claims as opposed to "serious" supernatural claims (according to theists).

The point is to show that god claims have the same evidence going for them as supernatural spaghetti monsters.

Honestly, if FSM were just a cartoon/idea that someone came up with and a lot of people found funny, I wouldn't give it a second thought, not even enough to talk about it here. But it intrigues me that top atheist spokesmen like Dawkins and Hitchens have actually referred to it in books, lectures and debates as if there were something serious in the idea.

It is a serious idea. In the sense that it demonstrates that any supernatural claim is just as (in)valid as any other.

Wheter you are talking about Zeus, Thor, Jawhe, fairies or the FSM.

 

[quatona]

That people have faith is proof of the existence of generic religion in the heart of the believer regardless of the quality or consistency of a given theology. An honest religionists would concede that the vast gulf between the mortals conceptual capacity and the absolutes of the I AM leads to gross distortion of understanding of God. Living faith bridges the gap (not to be confused with wishful thinking) rather the faith gift is itself a spiritual entity.

That´s all fine and dandy. We aren´t talking about the existence of religion (which is undisputed), though, but about the existence of "God".

I assume that you have moral values, if I were a nihilist pressing you for proof of the existence of morals, values or love, then you would find yourself in the same position as the religionists who has faith, a conscious contact with what we call God.

I do have values, morals, thoughts, beliefs and feelings, but I´d never say that they are entities out there or that they point to entities out there (even less supernatural ones).
If you feel that what you call God is just a product of your brain (as are my values, thoughts, feelings etc.) there isn´t much to discuss. However, I was under the impression that you believe that God is an externally existing supernatural entity. Correct me if I´m wrong.

The nihilist would also present a bunch of intellectual mumbo jumbo Latin crapundum that sounds cute but demonstrates nothing. You know the existence of your values, but they are super-material and not adequately provable in the science lab.

I´m not a nihilist, to begin with.
Plus I am not positing that my values are existing somewhere out there, but that they are a product of my mind. If you posit the same for your God your comparison is relevant. If not, not so much.

 

[Colter]

That´s all fine and dandy. We aren´t talking about the existence of religion (which is undisputed), though, but about the existence of "God".


I do have values, morals, thoughts, beliefs and feelings, but I´d never say that they are entities out there or that they point to entities out there (even less supernatural ones).
If you feel that what you call God is just a product of your brain (as are my values, thoughts, feelings etc.) there isn´t much to discuss. However, I was under the impression that you believe that God is an externally existing supernatural entity. Correct me if I´m wrong.

I´m not a nihilist, to begin with.
Plus I am not positing that my values are existing somewhere out there, but that they are a product of my mind. If you posit the same for your God your comparison is relevant. If not, not so much.

The true God of religion is a personality reality, the source of personality and of all creation, not a mere phantasm of a frightened mind. The God realized by faith, who reciprocates with conviction, is just as real to the religionist as the values of the humanist or Atheist yet are just as unprovable to the skeptic. The religionists strive for the perfection ideals of divinity that come from the divine and insure life eternal. The humanists claim values that are ultimately meaningless that they assurt arise from mater, an experiential growing life that is then rewarded only by the crowning insult of death. There is no recollection in death.

The religionist then becomes more like his creator, the humanist becomes more like the focus of his materialistic ideals, lifeless mater.

"Spiritual growth is first an awakening to needs, next a discernment of meanings, and then a discovery of values. The evidence of true spiritual development consists in the exhibition of a human personality motivated by love, activated by unselfish ministry, and dominated by the wholehearted worship of the perfection ideals of divinity. And this entire experience constitutes the reality of religion as contrasted with mere theological beliefs."


"The cosmic-mind-endowed, Adjuster-indwelt, personal creature possesses innate recognition-realization of energy reality, mind reality, and spirit reality. The will creature is thus equipped to discern the fact, the law, and the love of God. Aside from these three inalienables of human consciousness, all human experience is really subjective except that intuitive realization of validity attaches to the unification of these three universe reality responses of cosmic recognition." UB 1955​

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[quatona]

The true God of religion is a personality reality, the source of personality and of all creation, not a mere phantasm of a frightened mind. The God realized by faith, who reciprocates with conviction, is just as real to the religionist as the values of the humanist or Atheist yet are just as unprovable to the pig headed skeptic. The religionists strive for the perfection ideals of divinity that come from the divine and insure life eternal. The humanists claim values that are ultimately meaningless that they assurt arise from mater, an experiential growing life that is then rewarded only by the crowning insult of death. There is no recollection in death.

The religionist then becomes more like his creator, the humanist becomes more like the focus of his materialistic ideals, lifeless mater.

That doesn´t even attempt to touch the point in question.
Have you still not understood it? Want me to rephrase it once again?

 

[Colter]

What is the "more"? That's what I would like to know. If Jesus said it was better to believe without seeing, which I take to mean without objective input, then I can see why Christians bristle at being asked for evidence. It lessens them in the eyes of their savior. I would think that if Christians truly believe this passage then they would be proud to say that they have no evidence to base their beliefs on.

Jesus said that future generations who believe without the need for seeing are "blessed." We are blessed with the gift of faith, living faith. He didn't imply that it was better not to have known him in the flesh, rather because he was returning to the spiritual realm one would need to find him in spirit.

 

[Colter]

Do you presume to speak for all truth seekers now?

No, only sincere truth seekers who are not prejudiced by preconceived anti-God formulas.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The true God of religion is a personality reality, the source of personality and of all creation, not a mere phantasm of a frightened mind. The God realized by faith, who reciprocates with conviction, is just as real to the religionist as the values of the humanist or Atheist yet are just as unprovable to the skeptic. The religionists strive for the perfection ideals of divinity that come from the divine and insure life eternal. The humanists claim values that are ultimately meaningless that they assurt arise from mater, an experiential growing life that is then rewarded only by the crowning insult of death. There is no recollection in death.

The religionist then becomes more like his creator, the humanist becomes more like the focus of his materialistic ideals, lifeless mater.

So many words and you said so little. After reading this, I still have no idea what your actual answer is to quotana's question... That question being: is god an externally existing entity (an entity that exists independently from human minds) or is it just something in your brain?

Also, I laugh every time I see a theist say things like "ultimatly meaningless". Yes, "ultimatly" as in "on a cosmic scale", life on this planet is "meaningless". In the sense that if the solar system and every single star you can see with the naked eye would disappear tomorrow, the universe on a cosmic level would remain almost exactly the same. It would be comparable to removing a scoop of a sand from a large beach.

That does NOT mean however, that we should just not care about anything.
Within the confines of our lives and our solar system, there is much meaning. Meaning that we impose on it. And clearly our lives our important to us. Why else would we have a survival instinct? Why else would we value life over death?

The big picture is not the same as the pixel. We might not matter in the big cosmic picture, but we sure do matter in the pixel that is the present time and our planet.

 

[Colter]

Nice deepities. So then it would follow that belief without proof is brave.

God has already reciprocated, I have found proof of his truth. The coward hides behind the creation of a straw man argument, he already knows that a religionist can't provide convincing proof to another who is too lazy and rebellious to search for God, let alone respect his creator Father.

You don't understand faith or spirituality. If you ever experience ego deflation at depth then you may come to find what other former Atheist have found. Theses are people who made the same arguments that you make but discovered how foolish they had been.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God has already reciprocated, I have found proof of his truth. The coward hides behind the creation of a straw man argument, he already knows that a religionist can't provide convincing proof to another who is too lazy and rebellious to search for God, let alone respect his creator Father.

Funny how you accuse people of a strawman to then engage in one yourself in the same breath.

pssst: if you can't share the evidence, you have no evidence.

You don't understand faith or spirituality.

Or... perhaps you don't understand rational reasoning?

If you ever experience ego deflation at depth then you may come to find what other former Atheist have found.

Says the guy in a condescending tone.

Theses are people who made the same arguments that you make but discovered how foolish they had been.

You are aware that there are people who made the same arguments as you make now, but who then discovered how irrational they were and became atheist instead, right?

Not that such examples (one way or the other) mean anything at all off course.

100% of people can believe X and be wrong about it.

 

[Colter]

So many words and you said so little. After reading this, I still have no idea what your actual answer is to quotana's question... That question being: is god an externally existing entity (an entity that exists independently from human minds) or is it just something in your brain?

Also, I laugh every time I see a theist say things like "ultimatly meaningless". Yes, "ultimatly" as in "on a cosmic scale", life on this planet is "meaningless". In the sense that if the solar system and every single star you can see with the naked eye would disappear tomorrow, the universe on a cosmic level would remain almost exactly the same. It would be comparable to removing a scoop of a sand from a large beach.

That does NOT mean however, that we should just not care about anything.
Within the confines of our lives and our solar system, there is much meaning. Meaning that we impose on it. And clearly our lives our important to us. Why else would we have a survival instinct? Why else would we value life over death?

The big picture is not the same as the pixel. We might not matter in the big cosmic picture, but we sure do matter in the pixel that is the present time and our planet.

* Ultimately meaningless to the individual. There is no recollection in death, the self is gone. All that was lofty, noble and good in the life of those who promote the godless ideal, is extinguished by death. Even that work left behind that benefits other selves is ultimately meaningless in that those selves will be extinguished by death. Its a philosophy of pessimistic despair.

* Even if the religionist were merely imagining the perfection ideals of divinity that he hungers for, those ideals are greater than the doctrines of death promoted by atheist. As a way of life you just don't have anything appealing that the religionist would want as a philosophy to live by.

 

[Colter]

Funny how you accuse people of a strawman to then engage in one yourself in the same breath.

pssst: if you can't share the evidence, you have no evidence.



Or... perhaps you don't understand rational reasoning?



Says the guy in a condescending tone.



You are aware that there are people who made the same arguments as you make now, but who then discovered how irrational they were and became atheist instead, right?

Not that such examples (one way or the other) mean anything at all off course.

100% of people can believe X and be wrong about it.

We have evidence of our faith, Jesus had evidence, but for those committed to godlessness no amount of evidence will convince you and frankly there are no short cuts to spiritual growth. I find atheist to be intellectually dishonest people riddled with pride of self.


Yes, I know people who fell in love with their own rationalism and became adherents to the doctrines of pessimistic despair. The greatest was Lucifer who lost his faith and in turn mislead the whole world.

 

[True Scotsman]

No, only sincere truth seekers who are not prejudiced by preconceived anti-God formulas.

Will you please stop with the character attacks and just refute the two arguments That I presented in response to your claim that atheists have no proof to offer. If you won't do that then please retract your statement.

 

[KCfromNC]

The noble idea of a great being, greater than ourselves, beyond space and time, contrasted with meatballs.

What is it that Christians use to take communion, again? Is the exact type of carb and alcohol a supernatural being is associated with a distinguishing factor between plausible and ridiculous?

No.

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

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that.

So what are you trying to say - does being associated with a type of food make a god concept ridiculous or not?

 

[True Scotsman]

We have evidence of our faith, Jesus had evidence, but for those committed to godlessness no amount of evidence will convince you and frankly there are no short cuts to spiritual growth. I find atheist to be intellectually dishonest people riddled with pride of self.


Yes, I know people who fell in love with their own rationalism and became adherents to the doctrines of pessimistic despair. The greatest was Lucifer who lost his faith and in turn mislead the whole world.

So in other words "for those who understand, no evidence is needed. For those who don't no evidence is possible.". The classic response of a mystic when pressed. You continue to be a text book example of everything you accuse others of. You are amazing.

 

[Colter]

So in other words "for those who understand, no evidence is needed. For those who don't no evidence is possible.". The classic response of a mystic when pressed. You continue to be a text book example of everything you accuse others of. You are amazing.

Not exactly, no evidence is needed for us (to ourselves) who perceive the presence of God. But you would have a point if we arrived on an atheist forum claiming that we now had irrefutable proof of our experience with God, or if we were presenting to a science panel that we now had scientifically verifiable proof of God.

Jesus used the analogy of the wind in nature:


Jesus said: “Nevertheless, I declare to you, except a man be born of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. But you should not marvel that I said you must be born from above. When the wind blows, you hear the rustle of the leaves, but you do not see the wind — whence it comes or whither it goes — and so it is with everyone born of the spirit. With the eyes of the flesh you can behold the manifestations of the spirit, but you cannot actually discern the spirit.” Jesus of the UB 1955

If you were born of the spirit you wouldn't need our proofs, you would have your own and would understand what religious people are trying to communicate to you.

 

[True Scotsman]

Not exactly, no evidence is needed for us (to ourselves) who perceive the presence of God. But you would have a point if we arrived on an atheist forum claiming that we now had irrefutable proof of our experience with God, or if we were presenting to a science panel that we now had scientifically verifiable proof of God.

Jesus used the analogy of the wind in nature:


Jesus said: “Nevertheless, I declare to you, except a man be born of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. But you should not marvel that I said you must be born from above. When the wind blows, you hear the rustle of the leaves, but you do not see the wind — whence it comes or whither it goes — and so it is with everyone born of the spirit. With the eyes of the flesh you can behold the manifestations of the spirit, but you cannot actually discern the spirit.” Jesus of the UB 1955

If you were born of the spirit you wouldn't need our proofs, you would have your own and would understand what religious people are trying to communicate to you.

I am born of spirit in that I am a conscious being and since knowledge does not come to me automatically beyond perception and requires integration and identification, it is essential to have a rational means of validating what I know. Hence Logic. Now for the third time, will you please refute the arguments I presented to you using logic. Please show how either of the two premises is false or please point to a problem of the form of the arguments. Either that or concede that you can't refute them and we'll move on.