Flying Spaghettit Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Actually, it's predicated on the absurdity of accepting and defending one arbitrary and unprovable belief while rejecting another.
Christianity is not "arbitrary" like the Spaghetti Monster in that it is based on historical texts. You know...Kind of like our understanding of Socrates. However, multiculturalists do believe as you do: That the two should theoretically deserve equal merit. That is why you find the idea so appealing, whereas more sensible people find the inherent multiculralist fallacy humorous.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Christianity is not "arbitrary" like the Spaghetti Monster in that it is based on historical texts. You know...Kind of like our understanding of Socrates.
While there are parts of Christianity that are based on historical texts, the supernatural aspects are certainly not. Add to that the inaccuracy of historical texts, the widespread misinterpretation of obvious metaphor as literal truth, the acceptance of relatively modern additions -- and omissions -- as divinely inspired, and the fact that which mythology you believe is largely an accident of birth, and you'll understand why more rational people find religious satire humorous.
-
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:
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.
So, we can't hear god unless we believe in god? Kind of circular don't you think?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
When you've met someone then, no matter how impossible it might be to prove or disprove their existence,
Nonsense. It is quite simple to prove someone's existence.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
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.
This is just silly. The only people that would have an issue are those who don't abandon their imaginary friends as they grow up.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There are many things that the scientific method can discover and many things that it can't.
Like what perchance?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
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.
You can't name a single scientist worth his salt that makes such a claim. It is widely understood and acknowledged amongst scientist that we are continually learning more and revising our understanding of the universe. This is a very silly and uninformed argument.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
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
Yep. Pastafarism absolutely cracks me up.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Christianity is not "arbitrary" like the Spaghetti Monster in that it is based on historical texts. You know...Kind of like our understanding of Socrates.
While there are parts of Christianity that are based on historical texts, the supernatural aspects are certainly not. Add to that the inaccuracy of historical texts, the widespread misinterpretation of obvious metaphor as literal truth, the acceptance of relatively modern additions -- and omissions -- as divinely inspired, and the fact that which mythology you believe is largely an accident of birth, and you'll understand why more rational people find religious satire humorous.
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity :-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the supernatural aspects are certainly not
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Add to that the inaccuracy of historical texts
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
widespread misinterpretation of obvious metaphor as literal truth
Such as?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
acceptance of relatively modern additions -- and omissions -- as divinely inspired
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the fact that which mythology you believe is largely an accident of birth
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree. You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion' , throw mud and expect it to stick to anyone but yourself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
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.
So, we can't hear god unless we believe in god? Kind of circular don't you think?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
When you've met someone then, no matter how impossible it might be to prove or disprove their existence,
Nonsense. It is quite simple to prove someone's existence.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
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.
This is just silly. The only people that would have an issue are those who don't abandon their imaginary friends as they grow up.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There are many things that the scientific method can discover and many things that it can't.
Like what perchance?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
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.
You can't name a single scientist worth his salt that makes such a claim. It is widely understood and acknowledged amongst scientist that we are continually learning more and revising our understanding of the universe. This is a very silly and uninformed argument.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
Nonsense. It is quite simple to prove someone's existence.
You can't prove your own without assuming something more important so don't get cocky.:)
Chris Austin wrote:
Like what perchance?
Whether science is the best method for discovering things.
Chris Austin wrote:
You can't name a single scientist worth his salt that makes such a claim.
Quite true but plenty of people on this forum are quite prepared to dismiss, ridicule and deny things they are 99% ignorant of and of which they have no understanding whatsoever. I'll leave their worth as scientists for you to judge.
Chris Austin wrote:
This is a very silly and uninformed argument.
You can say that again.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Nonsense. It is quite simple to prove someone's existence.
You can't prove your own without assuming something more important so don't get cocky.:)
Chris Austin wrote:
Like what perchance?
Whether science is the best method for discovering things.
Chris Austin wrote:
You can't name a single scientist worth his salt that makes such a claim.
Quite true but plenty of people on this forum are quite prepared to dismiss, ridicule and deny things they are 99% ignorant of and of which they have no understanding whatsoever. I'll leave their worth as scientists for you to judge.
Chris Austin wrote:
This is a very silly and uninformed argument.
You can say that again.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can't prove your own without assuming something more important so don't get cocky.
Sure I can. "I think therefore I am." It takes much more assumptions to prove that I don't exist in any "Through The Looking Glass" manner.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Whether science is the best method for discovering things.
And what are the measurable alternatives?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity :-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the supernatural aspects are certainly not
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Add to that the inaccuracy of historical texts
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
widespread misinterpretation of obvious metaphor as literal truth
Such as?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
acceptance of relatively modern additions -- and omissions -- as divinely inspired
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the fact that which mythology you believe is largely an accident of birth
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree. You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion' , throw mud and expect it to stick to anyone but yourself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity
And you truly do not see any irony in the fact that members of other religions see Christianity as an "irrational nonsense religion"?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Have you actually read the Bible? Both testaments? You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy, nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Such as?
Genesis? Revelations?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
What is the evidence of divine inspiration? (And not all changes are that old.)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree.
Yes, Judaism and Islam also exist in China. They were brought by missionaries -- who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth, by the way -- and are still a relatively tiny minority.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion'...
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
-
Ah yes.. pink unicorns. If I told you I believed in invisible pink unicorns, you'd think I'm a dumbass. But if I told you I believed in burning and talking bushes, or that walking on water was possible, I'd be perfectly ok in doing so. Strange isn't it? Kaiser, I'm really not interested in your pseudo intelligent babble, so keep it to yourself.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though. :rolleyes: This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th. http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can't prove your own without assuming something more important so don't get cocky.
Sure I can. "I think therefore I am." It takes much more assumptions to prove that I don't exist in any "Through The Looking Glass" manner.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Whether science is the best method for discovering things.
And what are the measurable alternatives?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
Sure I can. "I think therefore I am."
:laugh:Wasn't it you who was complaining just a moment ago about circularity of reasoning:laugh:If you think that proves anything then just worry about reasoning at all to start with.
Chris Austin wrote:
And what are the measurable alternatives?
I assume you mean the scientifically measurable alternatives so that you can evaluate the alternatives to science in term of science thus invalidating any comparison and proving nothing? Just checking but that is what you were about to suggest isn't it:laugh::laugh: I shouldn't tease but you make it too easy.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though. :rolleyes: This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th. http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
I Have No Username wrote:
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though.
And those are the saner parts...
I Have No Username wrote:
This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th.
Real nice picture you shot there! Ok, that settles it. The budget for next fall includes a telescope...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Sure I can. "I think therefore I am."
:laugh:Wasn't it you who was complaining just a moment ago about circularity of reasoning:laugh:If you think that proves anything then just worry about reasoning at all to start with.
Chris Austin wrote:
And what are the measurable alternatives?
I assume you mean the scientifically measurable alternatives so that you can evaluate the alternatives to science in term of science thus invalidating any comparison and proving nothing? Just checking but that is what you were about to suggest isn't it:laugh::laugh: I shouldn't tease but you make it too easy.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Wasn't it you who was complaining just a moment ago about circularity of reasoning
I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I was trying to hit that nail right on the head.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
assume you mean the scientifically measurable alternatives so that you can evaluate the alternatives to science in term of science thus invalidating any comparison and proving nothing? Just checking but that is what you were about to suggest isn't it
Not necessarily. But since you brought it up, if you aren't using a set of proven standards to measure progress, how do you know if you are discovering things or making them up in your head? I think it is a valid question that is worth more than just dismissing.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though. :rolleyes: This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th. http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
I Have No Username wrote:
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
Great Shots. Did you get any of Jupiter this summer?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity
And you truly do not see any irony in the fact that members of other religions see Christianity as an "irrational nonsense religion"?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Have you actually read the Bible? Both testaments? You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy, nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Such as?
Genesis? Revelations?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
What is the evidence of divine inspiration? (And not all changes are that old.)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree.
Yes, Judaism and Islam also exist in China. They were brought by missionaries -- who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth, by the way -- and are still a relatively tiny minority.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion'...
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And you truly do not see any irony
Of course I see the irony, it's simply unfounded.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified?
Genesis.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Who was the observer
God, a 100% reliable witness.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
and author of this historical text?
Moses under divine inspiration, probably actually transcribed by Aaron.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Have you actually read the Bible?
Yes
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Both testaments?
Yes
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy
There are none.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Everything can be considered subjective by anyone who chooses to. Doesn't mean they're right of course. There are many misunderstandings of Genesis and Revelation and in fact every book in between. Many people do fail to distinguish symbolism from the literal in both directions. Only the Spirit of God can interpret the word of God. All mans attempts and all his understanding is to some degree incomplete and flawed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth
You cannot be a Christian by accident of birth for 2 simple reasons. No birth is an accident in the sight of God and no one becomes a Christian by being born once, only by being born again of the Spirit of God can you become a Christian. Repeating this nonsense just shows a lack of understanding.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
Only by utterly misunderstanding everything that it is. There is simply nothing useful that can be applied to the generalisation 'religion' much beyond a simple definition because they have so little in common. Failure to recognise this just disqualifies you from passing comment anyway.
Nothing is
-
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.
You have it bass ackwards. The whole reason the FSM was created was to point out that stupid ideas (Intelligent Design in this case) don't deserve equal consideration.
-
I Have No Username wrote:
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
Great Shots. Did you get any of Jupiter this summer?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity
And you truly do not see any irony in the fact that members of other religions see Christianity as an "irrational nonsense religion"?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Have you actually read the Bible? Both testaments? You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy, nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Such as?
Genesis? Revelations?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
What is the evidence of divine inspiration? (And not all changes are that old.)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree.
Yes, Judaism and Islam also exist in China. They were brought by missionaries -- who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth, by the way -- and are still a relatively tiny minority.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion'...
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Christianity is not based on Genesis and Genesis lays no claim to first-hand accounts like many other biblical books. Christianity is based on the New Testament. It is a set of first-hand eyewitness accounts and being Christian is every bit as reasonable and "logical" as believing that Cleopatra was the ruler of Egypt. In fact, there are more first hand accounts of Christ's life than Cleopatra's. But let's not let that get in the way!
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
I Have No Username wrote:
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though.
And those are the saner parts...
I Have No Username wrote:
This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th.
Real nice picture you shot there! Ok, that settles it. The budget for next fall includes a telescope...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Wasn't it you who was complaining just a moment ago about circularity of reasoning
I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I was trying to hit that nail right on the head.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
assume you mean the scientifically measurable alternatives so that you can evaluate the alternatives to science in term of science thus invalidating any comparison and proving nothing? Just checking but that is what you were about to suggest isn't it
Not necessarily. But since you brought it up, if you aren't using a set of proven standards to measure progress, how do you know if you are discovering things or making them up in your head? I think it is a valid question that is worth more than just dismissing.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
if you aren't using a set of proven standards to measure progress
Who's talking about measuring? you're thinking scientifically again.
Chris Austin wrote:
or making them up in your head?
If you don't know if you're making things up in yor head then you have a serious problem:)
Chris Austin wrote:
think it is a valid question that is worth more than just dismissing.
Of course. I hope you begin to see my point, science is your paradigm, your way of thinking, you cannot escape it, neutrally evaluate it, or even apply the tests of science to science itself. This is not a critisism but it is precisely the warning I gave earlier, don't impose the limits of your own thinking on external reality and refuse to look beyond the boudaries you've set. You cannot use science to evaluate Christianity any more than you can use science to evaluate science, or climb outside your own head or eat the universe for breakfast. It's what is known as a domain error. Christianity is the exterior domain and all arguments should proceed from there.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Christianity is not "arbitrary" like the Spaghetti Monster in that it is based on historical texts. You know...Kind of like our understanding of Socrates.
While there are parts of Christianity that are based on historical texts, the supernatural aspects are certainly not. Add to that the inaccuracy of historical texts, the widespread misinterpretation of obvious metaphor as literal truth, the acceptance of relatively modern additions -- and omissions -- as divinely inspired, and the fact that which mythology you believe is largely an accident of birth, and you'll understand why more rational people find religious satire humorous.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
While there are parts of Christianity that are based on historical texts, the supernatural aspects are certainly not.
I thought you said you've read the Bible. Apparently you lied.
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.
You have it bass ackwards. The whole reason the FSM was created was to point out that stupid ideas (Intelligent Design in this case) don't deserve equal consideration.
James L. Thomson wrote:
You have it bass ackwards. The whole reason the FSM was created was to point out that stupid ideas (Intelligent Design in this case) don't deserve equal consideration.
That was the point I made[^]. However, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is widely used by atheists as a parody against theism (as it was here).
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall