Flying Spaghettit Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns
-
This is great[^] - fabulous music (wait for it...) For those of you who don't get the theology, you may wish to start with Flying Spaghetti Monster[^] and Invisible Pink Unicorn[^] Sorry if it's a repost...(but it's worth it!) Fred
-
If your trying to appear normal with this I would point out that unless the thread grows significantly your previous one, you know the one where you appear to be in a psychotic rage, will be visible and override the theory that you are... normal.
Why psychotic? Isn't being angry allowed? Just dismissing arguments on the grouds that the other person is angry is pretty weak, really, and all too often just a refuge for someone who has no arguments of their own, and looking for a way out. I really coulsdn't care less whether or not you think I am "normal".
-
This is great[^] - fabulous music (wait for it...) For those of you who don't get the theology, you may wish to start with Flying Spaghetti Monster[^] and Invisible Pink Unicorn[^] Sorry if it's a repost...(but it's worth it!) Fred
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
It is not an argument, but a parody of superstitious people Like Catholics.
-
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
stupid ideas
What, like Intelligent Design...? That is what the "religion" was set up to parody... Not quite sure what multiculturalism has to do with it (and which, incidently, I am not a proponent of.)
-
It is not an argument, but a parody of superstitious people Like Catholics.
I Have No Username wrote:
It is not an argument, but a parody of superstitious people Like Catholics.
It's a parody argument that rests on the multiculturalist attitude that idiotic ideas need to be given consideration. It appeals to left-wing atheists for that reason. Reasonable people, like Catholics, have the intellectual capability to recognize its absurdity (and not its intentional absurdity, but rather the absurdity that it's supposed to be a rational parody).
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
I Have No Username wrote:
It is not an argument, but a parody of superstitious people Like Catholics.
It's a parody argument that rests on the multiculturalist attitude that idiotic ideas need to be given consideration. It appeals to left-wing atheists for that reason. Reasonable people, like Catholics, have the intellectual capability to recognize its absurdity (and not its intentional absurdity, but rather the absurdity that it's supposed to be a rational parody).
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Quote: "multiculturalist attitude that idiotic ideas need to be given consideration." I thought that was the attitude religious people had. :confused: Quote: "Reasonable people, like Catholics, have the intellectual capability to recognize its absurdity" But yet not their own?
-
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
That must make me a multiculturalist - I firmly believe that stupid ideas should warrant the same, and equal, contempt.
Me: Can you see the "up" arrow? User:Errr...ummm....no. Me: Can you see an arrow that points upwards? User: Oh yes, I see it now! -Excerpt from a support call taken by me, 08/31/2007
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
That must make me a multiculturalist - I firmly believe that stupid ideas should warrant the same, and equal, contempt.
Me: Can you see the "up" arrow? User:Errr...ummm....no. Me: Can you see an arrow that points upwards? User: Oh yes, I see it now! -Excerpt from a support call taken by me, 08/31/2007
martin_hughes wrote:
That must make me a multiculturalist - I firmly believe that stupid ideas should warrant the same, and equal, contempt.
;P You know what I mean.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Quote: "multiculturalist attitude that idiotic ideas need to be given consideration." I thought that was the attitude religious people had. :confused: Quote: "Reasonable people, like Catholics, have the intellectual capability to recognize its absurdity" But yet not their own?
Your opinion of religion and Catholicism is irrelevent and, given your past considerations, it offers me great comfort that you oppose both. However, that's irrelevant to my point. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually a parody on the absurdity of accepting arbitary ideas. It's an accidental parody of liberalism, which is what makes it so funny.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Your opinion of religion and Catholicism is irrelevent and, given your past considerations, it offers me great comfort that you oppose both. However, that's irrelevant to my point. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually a parody on the absurdity of accepting arbitary ideas. It's an accidental parody of liberalism, which is what makes it so funny.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Red Stateler wrote:
stupid ideas
What, like Intelligent Design...? That is what the "religion" was set up to parody... Not quite sure what multiculturalism has to do with it (and which, incidently, I am not a proponent of.)
Fred_Smith wrote:
What, like Intelligent Design...? That is what the "religion" was set up to parody...
Actually it was set up to oppose the approach that intelligent design should be "represented" equally because it was an opposing viewpoint and not based on its merits. Oddly, the guy who came up with it was apparently attempting to parody religion, but the real issue was multiculturalism.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Quote: "it offers me great comfort that you oppose both." Good for you. I am glad that people with the intellectual capacity of the people in the video I linked to are usually religious, because they would be an embarrassment to atheists.
I Have No Username wrote:
I am glad that people with the intellectual capacity of the people in the video I linked to are usually religious, because they would be an embarrassment to atheists.
It certainly has nothing to do with you LOOKING for dumb religious people. Of course I don't even have to look for dumb atheists. You and Fred Smith are right here. What are the odds of that?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
I Have No Username wrote:
I am glad that people with the intellectual capacity of the people in the video I linked to are usually religious, because they would be an embarrassment to atheists.
It certainly has nothing to do with you LOOKING for dumb religious people. Of course I don't even have to look for dumb atheists. You and Fred Smith are right here. What are the odds of that?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Err, get a sense of humor.
-
This is great[^] - fabulous music (wait for it...) For those of you who don't get the theology, you may wish to start with Flying Spaghetti Monster[^] and Invisible Pink Unicorn[^] Sorry if it's a repost...(but it's worth it!) Fred
So absolutely, terribly, awfully bad that it is hilariously, brilliantly, irreverently funny. Why so many 1's and so much antagonism?
-
Err, get a sense of humor.
digital man wrote:
Err, get a sense of humor.
Read up a few posts and you'll see that I find it funny because the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody is predicated on accepting arbitrary, idiotic ideas as being as valid as other sensible ideas. While you might find the parody funny, I find the underlying psychology behind it funny. Therefore, my sense of humor is better than your sense of humor.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
This is great[^] - fabulous music (wait for it...) For those of you who don't get the theology, you may wish to start with Flying Spaghetti Monster[^] and Invisible Pink Unicorn[^] Sorry if it's a repost...(but it's worth it!) Fred
Nice. The fallacy, that I wouldn't expect any atheist to see, is of course that we have a speaking God who has revealed himself and his character. When you've met someone then, no matter how impossible it might be to prove or disprove their existence, the fact that someone else hasn't met him is never going to persuade you he doesn't exist. You can try this for yourself, see if your friends can persuade you that someone you've met and they haven't is really a figment of your imagination. They can surely persuade you that's it's possible, plausible, explicable, useful, benficial, but not that it's true. Of course even if they pulled the full Orwell on you and 'really' persuaded you that the person in question didn't exist all that would happen is you'd be joing them in a collective delusion. It still wouldn't make it true.:laugh: There are many things that the scientific method can discover and many things that it can't. Those who insist that all the questions science cannot in priciple answer therefore don't exist are simply proclaiming the limits of their own understanding to be the defining limits of reality. A very foolish mistake indeed as every time they discover anything new they're repeatedly proved wrong. He who "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" is not subject to the mind of man or to any of his creations. He reveals himself to whom he will and cannot be reached. Rather he reaches out to those who are willing to recieve him and reveals to them only what their puny minds can comprehend. Now we see "as through a glass darkly". One day "we will know even as we are known". This is revelation and holds a place above all the words of man.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Nice. The fallacy, that I wouldn't expect any atheist to see, is of course that we have a speaking God who has revealed himself and his character. When you've met someone then, no matter how impossible it might be to prove or disprove their existence, the fact that someone else hasn't met him is never going to persuade you he doesn't exist. You can try this for yourself, see if your friends can persuade you that someone you've met and they haven't is really a figment of your imagination. They can surely persuade you that's it's possible, plausible, explicable, useful, benficial, but not that it's true. Of course even if they pulled the full Orwell on you and 'really' persuaded you that the person in question didn't exist all that would happen is you'd be joing them in a collective delusion. It still wouldn't make it true.:laugh: There are many things that the scientific method can discover and many things that it can't. Those who insist that all the questions science cannot in priciple answer therefore don't exist are simply proclaiming the limits of their own understanding to be the defining limits of reality. A very foolish mistake indeed as every time they discover anything new they're repeatedly proved wrong. He who "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" is not subject to the mind of man or to any of his creations. He reveals himself to whom he will and cannot be reached. Rather he reaches out to those who are willing to recieve him and reveals to them only what their puny minds can comprehend. Now we see "as through a glass darkly". One day "we will know even as we are known". This is revelation and holds a place above all the words of man.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
see if your friends can persuade you that someone you've met and they haven't is really a figment of your imagination.
I suspect that your friends feel compelled to do this a lot.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Nice. The fallacy, that I wouldn't expect any atheist to see, is of course that we have a speaking God who has revealed himself and his character. When you've met someone then, no matter how impossible it might be to prove or disprove their existence, the fact that someone else hasn't met him is never going to persuade you he doesn't exist. You can try this for yourself, see if your friends can persuade you that someone you've met and they haven't is really a figment of your imagination. They can surely persuade you that's it's possible, plausible, explicable, useful, benficial, but not that it's true. Of course even if they pulled the full Orwell on you and 'really' persuaded you that the person in question didn't exist all that would happen is you'd be joing them in a collective delusion. It still wouldn't make it true.:laugh: There are many things that the scientific method can discover and many things that it can't. Those who insist that all the questions science cannot in priciple answer therefore don't exist are simply proclaiming the limits of their own understanding to be the defining limits of reality. A very foolish mistake indeed as every time they discover anything new they're repeatedly proved wrong. He who "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" is not subject to the mind of man or to any of his creations. He reveals himself to whom he will and cannot be reached. Rather he reaches out to those who are willing to recieve him and reveals to them only what their puny minds can comprehend. Now we see "as through a glass darkly". One day "we will know even as we are known". This is revelation and holds a place above all the words of man.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
What is it you're actually trying to say? Maybe you could write it in, you know, English. That's comprehensible. By people who "live outside the walls".
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" - Fred_Smith (on respect for living things)
"I misread "on respect for living thigs" as "no respect for living things" I must retract the libel charge. I stand by thr rst though" Fred_Smith (on literacy)
"You don't know me well enough to diagnose me.