X
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's just that i've also heard it used to try and dismiss the idea of theism.
Now, all I'm looking for is a logical way to refute this idea, and i appreciate anyones input.
op said:and demonstrates the idea that there are an infinite amount of religions that can be created around "intelligent design, thus it must be false
however recently I've been getting into apologetics, and one thing has troubled me - The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
FSM is a form of theism (albeit, satire of theism).
You haven't? It's out and about in ID conversations quite a bit, and the official FSM site starts with an open letter asking FSM to be taught as an alternate version of ID should ID be taught as alternative to evolution in public schools.Blackguard_ said:I've never heard the FSM in the inteligent design debate
I've always regarded FSM as a rather lighthearted parody religion - rather than a heavy satirization of Christianity, it seems more or less a whacky, pirate and noodle-themed craziness all its own.the FSM and other "you can't prove religious claim X" objections is light skirmishing in the battle of Apologetics. You have to learn that or the heavy artillery will flatten you.
The only way that you could resolve the problem would be to provide logical evidence that Christianity is substantially different than FSM.xroadrunnerx said:Now, all I'm looking for is a logical way to refute this idea, and i appreciate anyones input.
That's a good point - but a good place to go would be the persecuted churches in china, where thousands of athiests are coming to Christ everyday.ReluctantProphet said:The only way that you could resolve the problem would be to provide logical evidence that Christianity is substantially different than FSM.
I don't see how you can do that without exposing exactly who God is and Christianity seems to be avoiding doing that for unknown reasons to me.
Expose who God actually is, and the entire issue is resolved and 100,000 atheists "come to Jesus" so I don't know what the hold up is.
It all seems a bit ridiculus to me.
Yes, you can talk about Faith. You cannot talk about evidence or try to explain science by using the Bible.xroadrunnerx said:That's a good point - but a good place to go would be the persecuted churches in china, where thousands of athiests are coming to Christ everyday.
now I could try with all my might to quote scripture, argue and expose God, but in the end it will be pointless. But when you hear the testimonies that I just heard this past week (at a camp), the sheer reality and intensity of it shines through and the identity of God is revealed.
I guess thats all I can say..
One thing I see wrong with FSM is "Does the church of the FSM REALLY believe that it exists?"
I could sit here and make up religions all day and not believe a single one of them. Why give equal classroom time to a religion that no one really believes?
It should be obvious to both of you that the actions and beliefs of the supposed adherents of a certain belief system are of absolutely zero consequence in regards to whether or not that belief system is objectively true.
This is such an obvious point that I feel patronizing even discussing it. However, so many people still use it as some sort of argument for their faith. If it is a coherent and strong argument for their faith, it must also be an equally cogent argument for thousands of other faiths. People die for their beliefs all the time. They have for thousands of years. And they have all been different. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs...
It proves absolutely nothing for other religions, as I'm sure you would agree. Until, that is, we get to Christianity. As Hitchens said, just go one god further, and you're nearly there.
It's progress of a kind.
You conveniently missed my point. I said that no one would willingly die for something the knew to be false. Every religion you listed contains adherents who believe their faith to be true. I doubt very seriously anyone would die for their faith if they knew it to be based on falsehood.
Seriously? I guess I do have to be patronizing. You have conveniently missed the entire point.
It doesn't matter. None of it. It does not matter at all what humans think or do. There is an objective reality outside of what we think and feel. It does not matter at all what we do or do not do. Why are you bestowing this strange power upon us?
One thing I see wrong with FSM is "Does the church of the FSM REALLY believe that it exists?"
I could sit here and make up religions all day and not believe a single one of them. Why give equal classroom time to a religion that no one really believes?
I don't think you really believe what you are saying. If you did, then your very own words and thoughts about this subject do not even matter. Therefore your position is self-contradictory!
Originally Posted by Elioenai26You conveniently missed my point. I said that no one would willingly die for something the knew to be false. Every religion you listed contains adherents who believe their faith to be true. I doubt very seriously anyone would die for their faith if they knew it to be based on falsehood.
Except with Christianity of courseSeriously? I guess I do have to be patronizing. You have conveniently missed the entire point.
It doesn't matter. None of it. It does not matter at all what humans think or do. There is an objective reality outside of what we think and feel. It does not matter at all what we do or do not do. Why are you bestowing this strange power upon us?
It doesn't matter at all what the believers of Jesus 2,000 years ago thought. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually believed it or were just playing around. It doesn't matter if they died for it, or if they didn't die for it. It doesn't matter in regards to the truth of the claims made. At all.
For the purposes for which the FSM protest was conceived, it was in the same category.I agree with your point here. People can sit around all day and come up with satirical conjecture to muddy the waters a bit but they deliberately overlook the fact that their inventions are not even categorically similar to the Judeo-Christian worldview.
That individuals died for their beliefs does not establish the validity of them. How could it be, as it is not unique to any particular religion.The history of the persecutions and sufferings that Christians over the millenia have willingly endured becasue of their faith is oftentimes willfully and deliberately overlooked.
I challenge one person to die for something they know to be false. It has oftentimes been claimed that Christians just made up some stuff about a Jewish guy they liked and decided to start spreading it around (for what reason I cant really understand), and then when things got tough, they decided to die for this lie. Seems brilliant to me! Right? No. It is nonsense.
The scientific theory of evolution is science, and should be taught in the science classrooms. The point of the FSM protest is that creationism, the bible, and the FSM are not. That is not to say they cannot be taught in history, literature, or similar classes.Nonsense in the same way that someone who thinks evolution should be taught in school and not creationism or the Bible.
Actually, it was successful.FSM all boils down to a pathetic attempt...
Let's use the Nobel Foundation as a reference:to promote "equality" among views, when really it is saying: "If we cant have it our way, and teach only evolution, (how teaching that we evolved from primates and are nothing more than civilized animals is going to benefit anyone in this world is still unknown to me)...
I do not know what you mean by "fallen", but you are right in that the FSM protest said that if the a school board wants to put a non-scientific topic into the science class, it would only be fair to open it to other non-scientific topics.then we should allow our children and young adults to be taught every form of nonsense the fallen human mind can fathom."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?