The flash game is up again: convert the masses.
great game once you get the hang of it. If it could only work in real life!!!!! Maybe we could go to a baptist congregation and really save the world
RSS Feeds on your blog sometimes does not work..`:.~
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is wonderful blog. A fantastic read. I will definitely be back.
I converted 9 people!
Wow! I see you rolled up Jupiter as well! (Oh, wait: that’s another game).
i got 26. if you hit an administrator enough, they eventually convert and you get a time bonus.
As an ordained minister of the CoFSM, I naturally converted one million on my first try. Okay, not really, but it sounded good, right? I wish I could carry around a great big noodle sort of like Indiana Jones carries his whip, and just use it to ‘touch’ those who are in the process of attacking others over religion.
I naturally accept what you say as the truth because you are a minister of religion. No minister of ANY religion would ever, ever lie, right?
It’s over…..over….I let the spaghetti God down. I only saved three and I had so much time in my life to share about the sauce of the spaghetti. How will he ever forgive me? And damn those loose women. They deserve it. It’s all good, though, cause I’ll be rockin’ out in heaven laughing in glee, drinking spaghetti juice, and eating meat balls forever, and ever, and ever. Don’t you want to come along too?
I like the dress but know you would appear fab in both! I cannot believe almost everything in the store might be 1/2 off! WOW, wish I lived closer because I really like The Limited.
“There is a fundamental distinction between the way that Christian apologists approach proving a negative, and the way that atheists approach proving a negative.
The distinction is that Christian apologists give good reasons to accept that something doesn’t exist or isn’t true, whereas atheist apologists will commit a fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. The atheist will say “If you can’t prove to my satisfaction that God exists, then I am justified in not believing.” It is an argument from ignorance to say that “X” does not exist because it hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction. However, Christian apologists will say, “We have good reasons to not accept your claim.” and then will proceed to give those reasons…
..It should be recognized that when the atheist is arguing for a deity in order to refute any type of theism, including Christianity, that the atheist is forsaking their own worldview for in favor of another. The presuppositions of Pastafarianism are inconsistent with the presuppositions of atheism. Since the arguments and objections that atheism brings to the table in regards to Christianity are not sufficient, it is necessary for atheists to posit something as absurd as a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Since the presuppositions of Pastafarianism are inconsistent with atheism, when they adopt this worldview to try to challenge the Special Revelation of Christianity, they are actually forsaking their own belief that no gods exist. If the arguments that atheists used against Christianity were so consistent, there would be no need for them to mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It seems that the atheists have not realized that if could successfully prove the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then atheism would be false. The Flying Spaghetti Monster undermines the entire atheist worldview.”
Learn more here: http://answersforhope.com/falsifying-flying-spaghetti-monster/
Yeah, you’re wrong.
Cutting and pasting from a site that uses big words to sound authoritative isn’t an argument. You still have nothing that stacks up as evidence and you’re not contributing anything new.
Why do so many religious people think we’re trying to prove the non-existence of God? I don’t care that people believe in something I don’t. In fact, I welcome it. I just have a problem with people trying to prove something claiming they’re using scientific method or logic when really they’re just using something designed to look like scientific method or logic when it ain’t.
Case in point; the above misappropriation of the term ‘argument from ignorance’, or what the author probably is referring to, an ‘argument from incredulity’. It’s an argument from incredulity to say ‘I don’t see how animals can have evolved, so it didn’t happen’. I don’t believe in God, but I don’t claim to be able to prove he doesn’t exist. But the vast amount of mutually consistent evidence for evolution and the formation of the Universe and Earth over billions of years simply doesn’t suggest the existence of God, so there’s no reason to include him. He simply doesn’t emerge from the data. Believe in him, as an item of faith, if that’s your thing, but the existence of God is not a scientifically arguable case.
But then, anyone who thinks we’ve all converted to Pastafarianism because we’ve failed to construct consistent arguments against theism is probably unable to comprehend the proper use of logical fallacies.
It seems to me that the “God of the gaps/ argument from ignorance” is a double argument from ignorance. Firstly, the believer does not personally know the cause and effect of something: therefore god did it. Secondly, he/she also does not seem to realise that science does not claim to have all of the answers and therefore has a false idea of what science is about.
There is a logical proof that an omnipotent being cannot exist: the omnipotence paradox. They are free to worship their god, but their god cannot be omnipotent. Nothing can. I’ve seen a god-botherer almost break down in tears when the ramifications of the paradox finally sunk in. Then he shook his head, turned off his brain, and said “well I still believe anyway”. Textbook.
I’ve never had a fondness for the omnipotence paradox. To begin with, if I encountered a being able to be everywhere, know everything, and create, destroy and transform anything at will, I wouldn’t think of it as a realistic threat to its omnipotence that it was unable to suspend it under some circumstances. It’s the sort of technicality I simply wouldn’t regard as important. Secondly, in the world of the omnipotent and omniscient creator, all things would effectively be illusions, holograms under its control. There would be no rock, from his perspective.
You could also argue that the ability to exceed you own abilities is a feature of omnipotence.
Mail (will not be published) (required)