Flying Spaghettit Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns
-
I hope that one day I will be able to find men dressed as women running around in triple-speed with silly music to be the funniest thing that ever was.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
You're going to have to explain that one. Unless you mean Monty Python which I never found even slightly funny. Hey, I must be a born-again American.
-
Can't be done I'm afraid, the inability to comprehend is part of being "outside the walls" as you put it. Only the Spirit of God can interpret the word of God. Unless the Spirit lives in you, you cannot understand the word. The miracle of conversion is that the Spirit comes to those who are dead(outside the walls) and shows them a glimpse of the world the other way around and offers them an oportunity to come in. This tends to happen to those who pray sincerely and ask for it. This is why no man can convert another either by argument or coersion, it is always and only the work of God, changing the heart. All that we can do is tell people the Good News, for "how can they believe if they have not heard".
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The miracle of conversion is that the Spirit comes to those who are dead(outside the walls) and shows them a glimpse of the world the other way around and offers them an oportunity to come in. This tends to happen to those who pray sincerely and ask for it.
In my experience, this kind of conversion -- the kind that involves a level of connection with the Christian God that includes the absolute and unshakable certainty that he is a real and personal, and speaks to you in a voice only you can hear -- tends to happen to those who have experienced some life-changing negative event, like the loss of a family member, attempted suicide, divorce, a lengthy prison term, or a prolonged period of substance abuse and recovery. This has lead me to conclude that it is a form of trauma-induced mental illness. That said, aside from a tendency toward aggressive proselytizing, it seems to be a rather benign form, perhaps even beneficial in some respects. No offense :).
-
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
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
-
Nice bit of circular reasoning. Nonsense, of course, but elegant, nonetheless. You can understand why religion appeals to simple-minded people: it certainly hooked you.
It's always easiest to dismiss what we don't understand as nonsense. Simple minded is just a silly jibe though, if you knew anything about me you wouldn't be saying that. Your oft-repeated inability or rather unwillingness to differentiate the term 'religion' is the clearest indication that it is you who has an oversimplified conception, redolent more often of a lazy than a simple mind but no less stupid.;P
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The miracle of conversion is that the Spirit comes to those who are dead(outside the walls) and shows them a glimpse of the world the other way around and offers them an oportunity to come in. This tends to happen to those who pray sincerely and ask for it.
In my experience, this kind of conversion -- the kind that involves a level of connection with the Christian God that includes the absolute and unshakable certainty that he is a real and personal, and speaks to you in a voice only you can hear -- tends to happen to those who have experienced some life-changing negative event, like the loss of a family member, attempted suicide, divorce, a lengthy prison term, or a prolonged period of substance abuse and recovery. This has lead me to conclude that it is a form of trauma-induced mental illness. That said, aside from a tendency toward aggressive proselytizing, it seems to be a rather benign form, perhaps even beneficial in some respects. No offense :).
No offense taken. None of the traumatic things you mentioned have happened to me or to many millions of other believers (real ones, which is what you're describing) so your experience must have mislead you. The kind of situation you describe is very dramatic and makes for 'good copy' which might explain why you've recieved this impression.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
It's always easiest to dismiss what we don't understand as nonsense. Simple minded is just a silly jibe though, if you knew anything about me you wouldn't be saying that. Your oft-repeated inability or rather unwillingness to differentiate the term 'religion' is the clearest indication that it is you who has an oversimplified conception, redolent more often of a lazy than a simple mind but no less stupid.;P
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Who said I didn't understand? Wasn't me, was you putting words in my mouth. Tsk, tsk: not very Christian of you, old chap.
-
No offense taken. None of the traumatic things you mentioned have happened to me or to many millions of other believers (real ones, which is what you're describing) so your experience must have mislead you. The kind of situation you describe is very dramatic and makes for 'good copy' which might explain why you've recieved this impression.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No offense taken. None of the traumatic things you mentioned have happened to me or to many millions of other believers (real ones, which is what you're describing) so your experience must have mislead you. The kind of situation you describe is very dramatic and makes for 'good copy' which might explain why you've recieved this impression.
I should have mentioned that I am aware of cases where there has been no trauma, but depth of belief seems to be proportional to suffering. Perhaps the relationship isn't causal. In any case, I find the arguments for a personal and communicative God to be arbitrary and unconvincing. I do, however, very much enjoy your posts.
-
No, you have an American sense of humor which is the same as having no sense of humor at all. The mere fact that it impacts you enough to have to analyse it beyond the ordinary is proof that you are a humorless pedant who takes himself and his own ideas far too seriously. Get over yourself.
digital man wrote:
American sense of humor which is the same as having no sense of humor at all
1...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
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
Red Stateler wrote:
the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody is predicated on accepting arbitrary, idiotic ideas as being as valid as other sensible ideas
Actually, it's predicated on the absurdity of accepting and defending one arbitrary and unprovable belief while rejecting another.
-
Who said I didn't understand? Wasn't me, was you putting words in my mouth. Tsk, tsk: not very Christian of you, old chap.
digital man wrote:
Who said I didn't understand? Wasn't me,
No it was me and I wasn't putting words in your mouth simply stating that you cannot and did not comprehend what I had written.
digital man wrote:
Tsk, tsk: not very Christian of you,
Clearly you're in a great position to judge :laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody is predicated on accepting arbitrary, idiotic ideas as being as valid as other sensible ideas
Actually, it's predicated on the absurdity of accepting and defending one arbitrary and unprovable belief while rejecting another.
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
-
You're going to have to explain that one. Unless you mean Monty Python which I never found even slightly funny. Hey, I must be a born-again American.
digital man wrote:
Monty Python which I never found even slightly funny
Oh come on, Philosophers football? Not funy? And as for Life of Brian! There is more political satire and plain humour in that film than almost any other. "He has a wife you know. Incontinentia... Incontinentia Buckets" excellent stuff by Palin!
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
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.
-
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.