1078405 Views
936 Comments

We shouldn’t live with absolute frivolity

Published August 12th, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

While life should not be taken too seriously, this doesn’t mean we should live with absolute frivolity. Yes, so-called religions attempt to mandate all sorts of opinions and behaviors about morality and social conformity. This does not mean that actual religion — the sincere attempt to understand the unknowable — is inherently stupid or necessarily bullshit.

Quantum mechanics tells us that all possibilities exist simultaneously until foreclosed by inconsistent observations. So, with regard to what we truly cannot know or observe, it’s possible that all beliefs are equally "true" and very much real. It’s an incredibly powerful thought: that we can design our own eternity simply by imagining it.

Personally, I’d want much more from my eternity than to party on a pirate ship with a bunch of beer and strippers. The ability to have that experience at any time and for any duration? Sure, that would be great. But plain old life has plenty to offer that’s much more sublime and extraordinary than simple hedonism. And it’s not even a very ambitious vision of hedonism.

World history is replete with terrible evils committed in the name of "religion." Certainly, it’s an important message that moral and social "values" should not be elevated to the level of religious beliefs. But our ability as humans to recognize the fundamental unknowable questions — where are we from, why are we here, and where are we going — creates a fundamental human need to discuss and confront these questions.

Pastafarianism does indeed celebrate the power of the individual to choose his or her own answers to these questions. Some might like the idea of choosing answers that are deliberately silly or absurd. But to do so simply to make a point about the beliefs of others is to degrade and dishonor one’s own spirit.

-Tom



936 Responses to “We shouldn’t live with absolute frivolity”

1 17 18 19 20 21 25
  1. Maxwell Raincloud Stevenson says:

    Sighting:
    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/145/fsmf.png/

  2. Ryan says:

    thats the best hate speech ive heard so far. Why cant haters just be like this guy and make sense. he actuly makes sense but doesnt offend any of us. I respect you as you respect the pastafarians. <3

  3. rrpostal says:

    I stopped reading at “quantum mechanics tells us…”. Sorry there, Deepak, but you don’t understand quantum, and I don’t either. But I’m not pretending that I do nor that you do.

  4. A Christian says:

    I have no animosity towards this group. I feel you are all lost and need to be found. It sounds like your trying to justify your right to party and not be held accountable. Yet so many of you hold religion accountable for everything. So what I think you are saying is your group is perfect and you have no pedophiles, rapists or addicts in your mists. Last time I checked beer drinking pirates have raped many woman and children. Are you saying that we should stereo type all of your members that way? People who “just want to have a good time” do disgusting things to hurt others are you one of those people with no moral compass of any kind? You are using examples of events that are pretty horrible but do not depict Christianity as a whole. Christians are taught to help their neighbors and give to the poor. Christians travel around the world on mission trips helping people of all cultures, races and religious beliefs. Another thing Christians believe in is praying for others and with that said I will pray for all of you non believers of anything Holy that you will receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior and come out of the lies and snares that the devil has held you captive in. I pray you will open your eyes and turn from the darkness to the light! In Jesus’ name, amen.

    • Atsap Revol says:

      Of course our “MISTS” contain nothing but the finest examples of Homo sapiens. Please don’t waste time praying for us. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and praying makes no difference in anything…never has:never will. Thank you for not affirming that Pastafarians will spend eternity in Hell for getting caught in the snares that Satan set for us. Hell is a standard message that fundies like to emphasize on their “mission trips.” Fear is a great conversion tool, but it has no appeal for me. I can’t imagine a loving God creating a place where we can be tortured for eternity because we didn’t believe in Him and His Son. Belief without proof is required, and that’s superstition, not reality.

      You get bonus points for mostly decent spelling, grammar, and avoidance of profanity. You are superior to the average Christian that visits here with the standard “Come To Jesus Message.” You are welcome back to discuss differences in our paradigms.

      Atsap Revol

      • Gabe Johnson says:

        I think prayer can be effective in ways that you can’t see, or you’re looking in the wrong direction. Don’t just assume that every Christian uses hell as a tool to bring people to faith. Fear shouldn’t be a part of your faith. In fact, faith should mend fear. It definitely has for me. I believe that hell was NOT created but by God, but was a result of separation from him. Sin is also a result of that separation. The main thing I don’t like about this whole pastafarian thing is that it keeps people from having an open mind and mocks life choices that they know little about.

        • Inge says:

          On the contrary.
          Fact one: I hope to speak for many fellow Pastafarians when I now say that I am very happy that prayer does help you. It also helps People who believe in Buddha, Allah, Vodun, the Hindu or Shinto gods and the like. So for people to find solace in prayer it doesn’t really matter if their god is Nature, a reawakened Jew, an avenging Indian Beauty with too many arms or a noodly meal. Fact is, prayer doesn’t iniciate some higher being to change something for you, it changes your mind and helps you get your act together. Some people do not even call it prayer, some call it meditation. Some do it alone, some in company.

          Fact two: Discussion here is very active and open. Pastafarism has ignited discussion and brought people to thoughts about a higher being who wouldn’t do so otherwise. Of course, it has also brought people of “Why, I believe because people always told me it’s the right thing to do” to second-guess the bible’s contents. But as we were given a brain we are supposed to use it, don’t you think?

          Fact three: You have your very personal concept of hell and I congratulate you for thinking it up for yourself, instead of taking the official picture of hell literally. The whole religion of Pastafarism is an ode to the fight against indoctrination and forcing people what to believe. So in a way, you are on your own path to Pastafarism.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “I think prayer can be effective in ways that you can’t see, or you’re looking in the wrong direction.”

          Prayer is a placebo, it gives one the feeling of having control over that which cannot be controlled, it is a tool of deception, a means of weighting random results in one’s favor. Basically, one is “looking in the wrong direction” by ignoring how many times their prayer does not get answered, by ignoring contributing factors which actually resolved one’s problems, or by ignoring all the people who prayed for opposite results.

        • Gabe says:

          To the comments below: Yes, prayer is useful internally. But I could tell you a few cases where it has helped externally beyond coincidence. And I didn’t make up the whole thing about hell or sin. It’s in the Bible. It’s not a fact about who makes what up, but how you interpret it. It’s not something that just comes from my mind, although I think about it. I also think it’s okay to think about the Bible’s contents because, as you said we have a brain and were encouraged to do so. But in many cases, we are just exposed to the negative side of the belief and we can become biased. And yes, I believe religion should not be forced because a belief should be based on what you’ve experienced. You shouldn’t conform to what people say because they don’t know everything. However, you can find other people’s experiences and revelations to be inspiring. And I think open-mindedness should not be a free range extravaganza that gets people all over the place by just making things up. I know it appears that’s what religion is sometimes, but it goes beyond that for me. Among the open-mindedness there needs to be a strong foundation and guidance. That doesn’t mean everyone in your religion is going to be right, though. Religion isn’t something you’re just supposed to make up, although you can interpret it in the way that you believe is true to it’s nature.
          Also prayer is opening yourself to God and telling him what’s going on. Also as mentioned, It affects you internally. But one reason prayer is effective externally partly because of this fact. Getting your thoughts out is effective and does get your act together. But I believe it’s beyond just yourself. Prayer for me has left sort of a driving force that I feel is beyond me. I feel comforted at times I shouldn’t be. It isn’t an idea to help me through, either. If it were, it wouldn’t directly help what is causing my internal problems. But prayer helps me directly face it. And what goes on internally affects what happens externally. Prayer shouldn’t be about what YOU want to happen and then weighing out how it did answer your prayers. What we want doesn’t always solve what’s really causing the problem. I think we mistake prayer for being useless because what we prayed for didn’t happen. Sometimes things work out, but not in the way you asked for.
          The reason I say ‘I believe’ is so I can communicate without trying to make you feel that you are being forced. Don’t let the word ‘believe’ make you think it’s just an idea for me.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “But I could tell you a few cases where it has helped externally beyond coincidence.”

          Yet you provided none.

          “It’s in the Bible. It’s not a fact about who makes what up, but how you interpret it.”

          Interpretation = opinion. If I travel the world with 1 rock in each hand and I ask everyone I encounter how many rocks I hold the answer, regardless of time of day, religion, walk of life, creed, color, language, weather, zip code, timezone, altitude, society, and class, will always be 2. If I asked about ‘the bible’, the ‘interpretations’ would make the answers as diverse as the people I ask. If I ask who has the correct interpretation, everyone would raise their hands. Ironically if i ask who has the wrong interpretation, all hands would be pointed to the person next to them.

          “But in many cases, we are just exposed to the negative side of the belief and we can become biased.”

          Many cases? No. Believe it or not, religion is not new. History provides evidence of several thousand, in each case, the adherents were certain in their faith. The Mayans were certain that sacrificing animals and the occasional prisoner would appease whatever deity granted them victory in battle. The Puritans (i.e. Christians) who lived in Salem were certain that certain towns folk were actually witches. Those men who flew hijacked planes into the world trade center were also very certain of their faith. And those Conservative Christians who setup shop in Africa to help people are very certain in promoting their homophobic faith on a already homophobic population; The “Kill the Gays” bill is Christianity’s Christmas present to Africa. A “belief” cannot be negative in and of itself, the actions taken due to being certain of those believes is where it goes wrong.

          “Also prayer is opening yourself to God and telling him what’s going on”

          God did not already know?

          “Sometimes things work out, but not in the way you asked for.”

          There is a name for this phenomenon; randomness.

        • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

          “And I didn’t make up the whole thing about hell or sin. It’s in the Bible.”
          OK, you didn’t make it up, Gabe. Someone else did.

          As far as Pastafarians not having open minds and not knowing about religion, I’d say that there are 3 kinds of Pastafarians:
          1. Those who adhere to a religion, but have open minds.
          2. A very small percentage who never belonged to a religion.
          3. Those of us who DID belong to a religion, but having open minds, used common sense to overcome its indoctrination.

        • Gabe says:

          You don’t know that someone else made The Bible up. Did you see it happen? What do you suppose the purpose of religion is?
          The reason I say pastafarians can result in not having open minds is, from the impression I get, (let me know if I’m wrong) you think creationism has ridiculousness to it. I know that it started to make a point that if the view of one religion is taught, then the other viewpoints of other religions have to be taught too. So this guy created the religion and told the school that they have to follow that too. Right?
          But at this point, it gone beyond school, I think. The reason I say that it lacks open mindedness is because it dwells on the ridiculous seeming side of creationism. It seems to communicate that the idea of God is essentially a magic man in the clouds, and is no better than the idea of a flying spaghetti monster. I think that it lacks equality of positive component to each perspective. And I know some might say there is a lack of positive in creationism but I disagree. A lot of people don’t experience religion the way it was supposed to be experienced, and mistake what it’s all about, I think.

        • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

          Open-mindedness does not rule out dismissing ideas. When I was a 6 year old I ruled out Santa Claus, due to world population and improbability of flying reindeer.

          So, I use logic to dispel Creationism, too. I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. If it was created merely as a home to man, why did god wait 4.97 billion years to create him? Why are we 99% identical to chimps? Was god lazy? Why do whales have hip bones – was there a slip-up in the divine quality assurance department?

          You seem to put great stock in eye witness testimony, Gabe. No, I wasn’t there when the Bible was written. By the way, this is a specious argument. It’s not like one person or even 4 people sat down and we now have the unaltered fruits of their labors. The Bible has been changed considerably over the centuries.

          On the other hand, evolution HAS been witnessed. Mosquitoes in different tunnels of the London subway system have diverged into different species in the matter of what? Less than a hundred and 50 years?

        • Gabe says:

          First of all, I apologize for being blunt on the ‘did you see it happen’ thing. But what I’m trying to communicate is that although people have wrote it down and have made different revisions, I believe there’s still a message behind it.
          The whole spirit behind creationism is not that everything was made right away, but everything was made with intention and purpose, instead of randomness. I believe there could be a meta physicality behind all the evidence of evolution.
          I’ve experienced meta physicality, and I believe it holds true to the Bible. The Bible also says that man came later, but it’s a number of days. But those days could’ve been phases of time. I believe doesn’t exactly work like lightning most of the time, but works over time. I believe God works through his pattern of science, but also goes beyond it.

        • Gabe says:

          Many christians have thought about these things. It’s also why I think we shouldn’t rule out creationism.

      • Gabe says:

        Ignore the ‘for the comments below’ thing.

        • Gabe says:

          I can can provide a few cases off the top of my head of prayer working externally. I guy I know had a large amount of flowers and other plants he didn’t need and decided to drop them off at the nearest house (I don’t remember all the details to the story). He gave the plants to the couple in the house and learned that the couple wanted to have kids, but couldn’t. The woman in the couple had prayed that if she couldn’t have children, then she desperately wanted a garden. She got one.
          My friend’s grandfather was running out of money in college. He prayed about it, and a guy he knew (and I think he worked for) showed up at the door with extra money and when asked why he said, ‘I got the feeling that I should’. Feelings are internal and can be affected by prayer, but sometimes not through you’re own prayer, but anthers.
          There was a person praying outside of a church and because God was working through her, she spoke a language she didn’t understand. There was a foreigner walking outside the church and soon heard their own language from the person praying: Greek, which wasn’t commonly spoken in that general area.
          There’s other stories out there, and lots of them. And they are told by many different people all over the world.
          Yes interpretation is based on opinion. But it’s the experiences that drive opinion. Yes, everyone can think that only THEY are right. But does it mean that EVERYONE is wrong? No. I agree with you that interpretations are very diverse. It can make one question the coherency of what the diversity is based on. But sometimes people just have the wrong idea of what scripture says, based on other factors.
          Don’t get the whole religious umbrella smeared into one little thing. Different beliefs have flaws, but what I was trying to say was that people always just look at the negative side, and you provided great examples of flaws that religion has held. But you’re mentioning the Mayans, which is very removed from the issue today. And the spread of homophobia in religion is not something all beliefs participate in. In fact, faith can reverse homophobia.
          As I said, you provided good examples of bad things religion has done, but when was the last time you looked at the good? That’s what I was saying.
          And yes, I do believe that God already knows about what we’re going through, but don’t you face it more directly after talking about it and realizing it? One of the gifts of having faith is having a guidance in your life that will listen. but, a lot of the time we don’t realize HOW he’s listening, or rather putting actions to needs.
          ‘Sometimes things work out, but not in the way you asked for.’
          This doesn’t mean randomness. It means, for example that if there was an internal problem that one couldn’t face and thought that there was a solution to it, and asked for that solution in prayer, but didn’t realize that there was a better solution that would help mend the actual problem itself, then they might not see an end to their longing. Prayer is supposed to be more of a guidance than a Christmas list. If one opens themselves to God and realizes that there is a better solution that will solve the actual problem, then things will work out, but not in the way they initially asked for. It’s not randomness. It’s being on different pages of what will be the best way, because we don’t always know the best way of how things work out.

        • Inge says:

          Gabe, three very good examples of extraordinary things happening. I can tell you a fiew more. Like Two people providing clear roads for a hospital with a snow-plow and the snow-truck breaking down in the middle of it. Middle of the night, no repair stations open, emergency service doesn’t have the very rarely needed spare part “Kupplungs-Sicherung (do not know the English name”. Nobody can enter or leave the hospital, very dangerous situation. Very disspirited the two guys stand in an all-night gas station, one of the points of the nightly odissey. In comes a homeless person, wearing a huge assembly of clothing with countless pockets and crevices. “Good fellow, you wouldn’t happen to have a “Kupplungs-Sicherung” with you, would you? One of the guys (my then almost-brother-in-law) jokes.
          The beardy unwashed man fingers one of his pockets and produces the spare part.

          And guess what? Those two guys DID DEFINITELY NOT PRAY.

          Things happen.
          Now, if they HAD prayed, they could enter this story for the “fulfilled prayer of the year” -award.
          Want a dozen more of those stories without the prayer preface?

        • Inge says:

          One more firsthand example:
          Munich 1980. After a hearty beer session a dozen friends and I are leaving the beer-tent, heading for the octoberfest’s main exit. Some fellow has promised me a ride on a wild merry-go-round and I (probably the beer speaking – normally I am not as egoistical, I hope) insist he fulfill his promise, making everybody else waiting for us. As we climb out again, BOOM! an explosion. It was a terrorist’s bomb, exploding at the very place we all would have been without the spontaneous ride.
          Nobody in our group was the praying kind, not before, not afterwards (believe me, we had a lot of discussions, the incident occupied our minds for a very long time, still does sometimes)
          However, there was ONE guy involved who I know now DID pray a lot. He was a very devout, hard working greek orthodox, striving for the high school diploma, working in his spare time to help his family.
          Contrary to our sorry, non-believing lot, he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and lost both his legs.
          I came to know him afterwards as a volunteer-group I was working for helped to provide aids for his handicap and to put him through university.

          Additional note: Even believing in a higher existence, I would never say thanks for rescuing me in that instance. In my opinion that would be egoistical, as it also means I accept that somebody else was not spared by higher joice. Just like praying to win a war or get a job, a partner, a live-safing inplant instead of somebody else – which happened and happens quite often.

        • Gabe says:

          That’s a very interesting story. I’m not saying you NEED prayer for something extraordinary to happen. Although, it can help. I understand your reasoning, though. If I were in an experience like that I would have plenty of questions. It makes it seem that the higher power you might pray for cares for one, but not the other.
          We can’t pretend we know everything in life, but here’s what I think: sometimes bad things happen and it’s because of people’s free will. I think God does what he can by working through people. Or sometimes it is just a coincidence that keeps people alive. I
          don’t really know. I still have a lot to learn. But I do think that God has a plan, and that isn’t to be confused with predestination. It doesn’t mean that what happened to this man was a part of the plan, it was because of something another man did. And who knows? Even though this man lost his legs, he still had his friends and family to see again. But that doesn’t diminish the traumatic experience.

        • Gabe says:

          Oh by the way, peoples’ bad choices aren’t a part of God’s plan.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “I can can provide a few cases off the top of my head of prayer working externally”

          Again I say, one has to ignore how many times their prayer does not get answered, ignore contributing factors which actually resolved one’s problems, or ignore all the people who prayed for opposite results.

          Your examples are anecdotal at best; wishful thinking, a meaning given to random events.

          The ‘guy you know’ decides to “drop them (flowers and plants) off at the nearest house”. If I had a lot of ‘something’ which I don’t need it makes more sense to find someone local (“nearest house”) to give it to; simply put, it solves my needs with the least amount of investment of time or effort, not amount of prayer or lack of is required for such an exchange. Did this abundance of plants build up over time or was it instant, the former represents a building need which has to be addressed sooner or later, the latter would be more in line with something ‘miraculous’. BTW, I had a lawnmower I did not need, I did not pray and someone came for it. (it may have been the posting on freecycle I placed)

          For the next example, you are ignoring a key point, these people know each other: “a guy he knew (and I think he worked for) showed up at the door with extra money”. This is not a miracle, this is concern for one’s fellowman. Case in point, I have a friend who is unemployed, another victim of a bad economy, his father died. I paid for the funeral. Some would call this a ‘miracle’, I call it being human.

          Your last example is called “glossolalia”. It has been studied quite a bit by professional linguistics experts. Here are their findings in a nutshell; Glossolalia is the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables which lack any readily comprehended meaning. You may also want to look at related linguistic phenomenon like ‘Foreign Accent Syndrome’ where a person spontaneously acquires a foreign accent.

          “But you’re mentioning the Mayans, which is very removed from the issue today.”

          The point, which I may not have relayed clearly, is that ‘religion’ has existed before Christianity and it always repeats the same patterns and cycles:

          A religion reflects the morality of it’s society.
          The deity has to be appeased.
          The religion fills in the knowledge gap of the unknown.
          The deity is always against whoever is not part of one’s society.
          The society’s religion is not wrong, they are ‘certain’.
          A religion is dominant until something else takes it over, usually by force.

          Christianity is just an evolution of religion based on the same cycle.

        • Gabe says:

          First of all, there’s something you’re not quite understanding. I believe God doesn’t work quite instantaneously. I believe he works over time. He also didn’t have these flowers come into existence just for that exact purpose. Something was available, and it benefited others.
          In the second story, yes, the people did know each other, but the guy who gave the money didn’t know his economic situation, if I remember correctly.
          But let me say that it was great of you to do such an act for a friend. Let me point out that that quality for fellow man is something that is an encouragement in Christianity, though there are Christians who don’t necessarily follow it. I know you say that Christianity is a part of a religious cycle that is maintained by it’s own society and doesn’t accept outsiders, but let me remind you that Christianity follows someone who was an outsider to Jewish society.
          Hear me out on this: In the Bible, it says God created humanity in his image. This doesn’t describe the physical characteristics, but a more complex way of thinking and free will. Adam and Eve chose their own path and strayed away from God, then after living in a world of separation. This separation involved includes selfishness that takes away from fellow man.
          My point is that one might not know what’s going on, but if he does the right thing, he is creating less separation. And the whole point of prayer is to reconnect with God and stop some of that separation from occurring. But, prayer is just one way for that to happen. If someone does what’s right for fellow man, then I believe it is a part of what God intended.

        • Gabe says:

          “The deity is always against whoever is not part of one’s society.”

          This isn’t true about Christianity. Jesus taught us to treat all people with equal respect, no matter their social statuses, or the society they belong to, or whatever. There are a good number of Christians who have failed to do so and I feel like people just focus on them, without realizing that there are also many Christians who have sought for it.

        • Barkingspyder says:

          Sorry Gabe but the notion of wonderment that the universe is not random is old hat. Of course it’s not random, there is a thing known as cause and effect, and another one known as the law of identity. Things must behave according to their nature, which is why when you plant corn you get corn and not patio furniture. The law of cause and effect dictates that for an effect there has to be a cause and Christians always want to insist the “first” cause must be God. They do this because there can’t be an endless series of causes, it has to stop somewhere, so your side decided to make up a Supreme Being to explain it. Not exactly one of human beings finest moments then and by now it is simply shameful to exert that little thought process in an era when ones uses computers and we have sent back pictures from Mars and beyond. Why is it that it doesn’t bother you to think of and eternal magic guy floating around in a place we have to die to see, but you can’t conceive that the universe itself is the first cause and that there can’t ever have been a time when it didn’t exist. Consider scientific facts, matter cannot be created or destroyed. That means that everything that exists is everything that exists and there can’t be a time when nothing existed, because “nothing” can not be the cause of “something.” This is why the universe is eternal, it is not possible for to not have been. If you want to posit God, then he had to be someplace and that someplace has to be in the universe somewhere. People talk about the Big Bang being the “creation” of the universe but that really only means the way the universe is now. Something had to be there in order to go “bang.”

          The spirit behind creationism is an attempt to get around science and replace it with something that is supposed sound scientific but is still based on faith and starts with a conclusion and looks for things to back it up. Science works the other way and starts with the notion of discovering why things are the way they are not by assuming the way they are is because of some concept already held. No matter how many rationalization you come up with there is no way around the fact that that they are just that. Add into the mix that nobody can give an intelligent, rational identity to what God is or where he exists and what you are left with is the same as every other faith based system, a myth. Humans don’t need and in fact are done actual harm by believing in things that don’t make rational sense, since they are then free to make shit up and rationalize it as God’s will.

    • Keith says:

      I will say this much about pirates :
      1) As far as tradition goes they ranged from cruel drunken murder/rapists to thorough ladies/gentlemen, so there was no such thing as a “typical” pirate, just as there is no “typical” christian.
      2) Their lives and actions were undoubtedly governed by the morality and beliefs of the time, so it is pointless to judge them by our modern standards.
      3) We no more know about the “true” lives of pirates in the past than we do about the “true” life of Jesus: assuming the biblical Jesus even existed. Most of what we have to go on for pirates are existing trial records (mostly biased in favour of the prosecution) , fanciful romantic histories written by people trying to capitalise on the pirates exploits and self aggrandising “autobiographies”.
      4) Verifiable evidence about the lives of pirates is scarce and cannot be used as representative of pirates in general.
      5) The pirates used as a model for the pirates in CFSM are fictional pirates. If you are going to censure them you may as well censure Captain Blood, Captain Pugwash or the Pirates of Penzance.

      As far as christians travelling around the world helping others on “mission trips” , Integrity Worlwide http://integrityworldwide.com/pages/projects/medicalmissions-21/ states quite categorically: “We believe that medical clinics are a doorway for evangelism.” How many other religious “humanitarian” missions are using humanitarian aid as a vehicle for their own agenda? I know World Vision claim they don’t proselytise but as a faith based organisation it is hard to imagine that if the only school kids can go to is a christian based one they won’t be fed christian propaganda.

      Like Atsap Repol I regard anyone praying for me as useless and time wasting. I am also offended that someone who doesn’t know me has the arrogance to presume that my life is in error and needs rescuing.

    • TiltedHorizon says:

      Poor Christian, completely out of touch with reality. Do yourself a favor and actually research our jail systems, they are filled with those who self identify as ‘Christian’. For all your blustering about accountability one would think jails are overrun with Atheists, Agnostics, and anyone else who is not under the umbrella of Christianity. Yet those groups are strikingly underrepresented. Go figure.

      BTW, people who are not accountable tend to sweep under a rug the wrongs they are associated with, they say things like:

      ” do not depict as a whole”

      Or they substitute ‘Action’ with ‘Intention’ like:

      ” are taught to help their neighbors and give to the poor.”
      ” travel around the world on mission trips helping people”

      All while ignoring the reality that the bulk of adherents never actually live up to those claims.

      As for this offer of prayer, this is also an avoidance of accountability, a hollow gesture that translates into no actual action other than to appease one’s own conscience, a bare minimum so you can feel like you “did something”.

      Not to worry though, I am praying to his noodliness that you will open your eyes and turn from the darkness to the light. In FSM’s name, Ramen!

      • Inge says:

        Very intense thoughts, Gabe. Contrary to blind unquestioning indoctrination I respect that.

        BUT your added thought

        “Oh by the way, peoples’ bad choices aren’t a part of God’s plan.”

        seems to me like a company disclaimer

        “We, the World Creation Company, claim eternal payment (prayers, thanks) for all and every positive little thing on earth. However, we expressly notify that we do not have anything to do with whatever happens in the negative sense. For that we created a sub-company called Satanas which we do not aknowledge as having connections to us. You can send your complaints there.”

        • Gabe says:

          Yeah, it seems like that sometimes. But, I was trying to clarify that I don’t believe predestination is a factor.
          Another thing, like I’ve expressed before, sin is a result of separation. The same thing applies to Satan. God didn’t create him to be evil, but he became evil because he choose leave the goodness of God and then became absent from it.
          And the whole separation concept is a common Christian belief. I think C.S. Lewis wrote about it at one point.

        • Gabe says:

          Prayer isn’t for primarily God’s benefit as if we were paying him; but rather reconnecting with him.

    • Alphy says:

      You say – “I have no animousity towrds this group.” Like hell you don’t, ‘christian’. It sticks out like a sore thumb!

      “It sounds like your trying to justify your right to party and not be held accountable.” Well, I didn’t know we were having a party. Someone must have forgot to tell me. Since when in hell do we or anyone else have to provide anykind of justification to fundamentalist bigots like you for occassionally enjoying life. Of course, all people who party are irresponsible. Right? They are not a bunch of low I. Q. religious fucks with strong backs and weak minds who think that they are the only ones who work. They don’t say their prayers, go to church services and buybull ‘studies’. Right? They are just a bunch or lazy sinners and scoundrels bound for the hell that “loving” fundies’s gawd create to punish us evil sinners for all eternity. Right? Of course, anyone who partys is irresponsible. Right? And; therfore morally lax. We are just a bunch of lazy pleasure seekers. Aye? You say we are -”People who “just want to have a good time” do disgusting things to hurt others are you one of those people with no moral compass of any kind?”

      Such drivel! You rattling nay bomb of negativism. None of your drivel is based on any kind of unbiased research or credible sources. It is nothing more than reactionary ultraconservative crap! Not everyone who engages in the “sin” of enjoying life is a lazy psychopath looking to hurt people or derive pleasure at other peoples expense.

      Yeah, ‘christian’, there are those old “sins” of partying and pleasure seeking. We are on the the fast track to hell. Right? We should all be somber sober, long faced self-righteous bigots like you ‘christians’. We all need to keep our noses to the grindstone and avoid the sin of enjoyment. Fundies are really down on partying just like the puritan bigots from whom they descended. The puritans actually believed it was a sin to laugh on a Sunday. It was a sin which was very severely punished. A fundamentalist’s idea of a party is like apple bobbing followed by a buybull quoting contest and a prayer meeting. Then they could all go around snopping on peoples bedroom business.

      Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah we have all been fooled by “the lies and snares that the devil has held you captive in….” We have heard it all before. Over and over and over again.

      Wish your damn Rapture would come and suck all you delusional simple minded bigots off the face of the earth to float in the clouds with geezus. I am not going with you fucks, No way. I want be left behind with all these bad people who don’t think it is a sin to “have a good time.” I would much rather spend my time with people who are well grounded in reality who don’t have their heads up their asses or in the clouds.

      Also we neither need or want your damn prayers. In case you haven’t got the message. We don’t believe in your crap!

      • Gabe says:

        I’m a Christian, and I think enjoying yourself is definitely okay. As long as it’s not the kind of fun that has the snowball effect that will cause struggles in your life in the long run. Don’t think we believe God created sinners just to punish them. In fact, we believe everyone is a sinner but also has a chance, but we make mistakes and many Christians act as if they’re perfect, and take it out on non-Christians. I think you’ve gotten the wrong impression from many Christians about who they are and the life style they live. Just know this: not all Christians are what you think, because you focus on the negative sides. And every Christian, just like every person, is different in their own way. There are many Christian who DO use unbiased scientific discoveries to support creationism. It’s important to not rule something out so quickly. This could be said to a Christian about evolution, and it could also be said to an Atheist about creationism. There are ways science and religion can coexist. That’s my main problem with this whole pastafarian thing. It prevents open mindedness and in many cases, creates ridicule.

        • Keith says:

          I would be interested in seeing your examples of christians using unbiased scientific discoveries to support creationism (I’m glad, by the way, that you didn’t try to call it “Intelligent design”: one point in your favour. Science and religion can coexist if neither one is used as a crutch or an excuse to support the other.

        • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

          “…many Christian who DO use unbiased scientific discoveries to support creationism.”

          Wrong! There are several steps in the scientific method, leading to a conclusion. The religious approach is to start with a conclusion and discard half the steps – such as experimentation – working backwards in an attempt to justify their position.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “There are many Christian who DO use unbiased scientific discoveries to support creationism.”

          I can’t help but notice your assertion lacks any examples or citations.

        • Gabe says:

          We don’t have all the evidence for evolution, either. It’s a theory. There are many scientific discoveries that go along with it, though. All though there are experiments for EVIDENCE of evolution, there isn’t really a way to prove that evolution happened, but there is a way to prove the evidence. You can prove evidence with creationism too. Also, why is it that people don’t request for citations and assertions when someone backs up their argument with evolutionary discoveries? Don’t you find that just a little biased?
          Here are some websites that offer some evidence to back up the creationist side of science.
          http://www.icr.org/article/177/
          http://tccsa.tc/articles/scientific_evidence_gish.html

        • Keith says:

          You can see and read about Gish here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44LqmktXrg and here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
          About 2 minutes and 20 seconds into the video he talks about man evolving from ape and asks if we can see it happening. Well, no, obviously, because man and ape probably evolved from the same ancestor: it wasn’t an ape. Evolutionary theory (by the way, read up on what “theory” means in science) never said that it was an ape. It’s a fundamental argument repeated ad nauseam by creationists, simply because they cannot be bothered to read what is available even at a primary school level of publication.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “We don’t have all the evidence for evolution, either. It’s a theory. ”

          However we do have mountains of observable evidence which is independently verified and tested when new evidence surfaces; this gives credence to the theory.

          “You can prove evidence with creationism too.”

          I’ve seen a great deal of this “evidence”; none of it verifiable or validated by independent groups. Typically these come from the self named “Institute for Creation Research”. Laughably, every independent news article I come across citing proof of creationism, the proof eventually comes from the same ICR source. Clearly no bias here.

          “Also, why is it that people don’t request for citations and assertions when someone backs up their argument with evolutionary discoveries?”

          My science teacher taught me to question everything, including what he teaches, I’ve been triple checking my understanding of the world ever since. I am not asking for citations because I’ve personally beaten that horse to death. I am satisfied with the answers and have reached a point where the only way to challenge it further would be to increase my IQ and become versed in theoretical physics.

          “Here are some websites that offer some evidence to back up the creationist side of science.”

          ICR in both cases. No surprise there.

        • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

          Gabe, you sited “evidence of Creationism”, yet they do no such thing. They question evolution, and hope creationism wins by default. Citing gaps in the fossil record is a specious argument. There are literally millions of fossils, even though the odds of a living creature becoming a fossil is very slim. This is the “God of the Gaps” fallacy, where if there were a 4 million year span of no fossils of a certain type, then one was found in the exact center, the ID crowd would gleefully point out there would now be TWO 2-million year gaps not accounted for.

          As for the heavier subjects of thermodynamics and physics, why not read up on the subjects, like one of Brian Greene’s books?

        • Gabe says:

          I guess what I’m really trying to say is that Christians take science into account.

        • Alphy says:

          This guy Gabe, like most fundamentalists, has an answer for everything. He is certainly very persistant. Of, course, as we all know with omnipotent Gawd who has no limits “all things are possible”. Like God, Gabe has no limits, there will constantly be an unlimited explanations and excuses for that which is incredulous. It is insanity, endless delusion. Try to convince a schizophrenic with his circular reasoning that there is somthing wrong with his thinking. It is impossible. I am sure Gabe will be here to ‘enlighten’ us heathens quite often.

        • Keith says:

          Most of these threads seem to end up in what I would term “intellectual masturbation” . It can give momentary gratification but in essence everyone recycles the same images that give them intellectual pleasure. Unlike real masturbation it is the ego which is the most sensitive organism : not the ears.

        • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

          I’m sure there are plenty of religious scientists who would be shouting from the rooftops if ANY evidence of divine handiwork was found in nature, but every supposed example trotted out by the Creationists has been thoroughly discredited. Hey, I’d LOVE to see god proven, since it would increase the chance of an afterlife.

          And guys, take it easy on Gabe. He’s respectful and intelligent enough, just heavily indoctrinated.

        • Gabe says:

          I will not be here to ‘enlighten heathens’. I wanted to communicate my thoughts. What you believe is your own choice.
          The way I process things may seem like ‘recycling’, but encountering different viewpoints is important, and isn’t simply for pleasure.
          I know it seems like I think I know everything, but I realize I don’t. And I know my thoughts seem schizophrenic because they’re based on what you can’t see and seem to be drawn from a life of delusion.
          The reason I believe in God isn’t because I was forced to do so, though I was raised with the belief. It’s because God’s presence is one filled with meaning, peace, and joy, not schizophrenic delusion that would be created by one’s own self (the latter may be the case for a many believers). God’s presence is not something filled with judgment and the need to ‘save heathen souls’. But rather, the joy experienced is worth sharing. However, this isn’t the explanation for crusades or any other negative effect on the world that religious figures or believers claim to do on behalf of God.
          If you take this the wrong way, I get it. I can understand how you might feel. But please don’t take it as an intrusion.

        • Gabe says:

          A main reason I’m here is to try and understand different viewpoints, not to save your ‘heathen souls’. So, I’ll ask if you could express your opinion in a respectful and positive way.

        • Gabe says:

          Also, thanks, TheFewTheProudTheMarinara.

        • Gabe says:

          However, it depends on how you define “heavily indoctrinated”. I’ve described my way of thinking in some other posts.

        • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

          You HAVE to be heavily indoctrinated to believe any religion, since there is no evidence at all supporting their beliefs, and many of them defy common sense. Omnipotent being? Alive for all eternity? Original sin? The validity of prayer? Eternal damnation for bruising god’s ego? Guardian angels? (or any other type, really)…

        • Gabe says:

          I posted an article somewhere about a scientific perspective on God and eternal life. While it certainly doesn’t prove anything scientifically, it sheds a new light on spirituality.
          Here it is again:
          http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201212/can-science-shed-light-proof-heaven

      • Gabe says:

        Yeah, I guess it is bias. But I also think more people should look into creation with the same perspective. And yeah, there’s a lots of evidence for evolution, but I think it’s possible that there was a driving force behind what happened.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Gabe,

          You’re more than welcome here, we invite all comers, of whatever faith. I would like to take time to thank you for not condemning us to your version of hell, or for resorting to crude abuse should you become frustrated with our questions, flaw-pointing, or stubborn adherence to reason.

          I think it’s lovely that you obviously care for our wellbeing and for our immortal souls (that we don’t think exist, it’s a bit like a Buddhist hoping you get a little closer to nirvana: not something you’re likely to take seriously).

          I would like to stress the point made by many others, that you would be well advised to get a better handle on what “theory” actually is (hint: not just some idea that someone came up with), and indeed scientific theory and process, and that some thin anecdotal “evidence” from a couple of experiences in your personal life aren’t going to cut it as evidence to support your arguments in support of your religion.

          You are a breath of fresh air, in that you’re not abusive. Please don’t change. I have no doubt that you’ll get a few sarcastic replies, but in our defence, most people of “faith” who enter OUR domain come with tidings of our impending doom, and messages of hatred. Forgive us for being slightly touchy.

          Good luck. The only thing I’ll leave you with is something to ponder as to whether or not your god as you know it can even exist: Can your god create a rock he cannot lift? Think about the ramifications regarding omnipotence.

        • Gabe says:

          Could you elaborate a little more on your lifting rock metaphor? I’m willing to explain the theology behind it.

        • Gabe says:

          I know what a theory is, too. It’s a rational explanation or for scientific gatherings, right?

        • Gabe says:

          And also, when I talked about open-mindedness not being free range ideas,it wasn’t about evolution, but rather pastafarianism. I understand the motives behind it, but I think pastafarianism undermines certain ideas that aren’t as ridiculous as one could think.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “but I think it’s possible that there was a driving force behind what happened”

          I certainly can’t deny the ‘possibility’ but I don’t give much credence to assertions that rely so completely on one’s inability to disprove it. For example, in non-religious terms, I cannot ‘prove’ or even provide definitively evidence that the “monster” under my son’s bed does not exist. My inability to disqualify my son’s assertions is not proof or evidence for the “monster’s” existence. While I cannot disprove his claim, I can state with a level of confidence that no one has ever found credible evidence for “under the bed monsters” therefore the probability is very high that no such monsters exist. It’s a determination predicated on available evidence, while not ‘absolutely’ conclusive, it is good enough for me.

          In terms of god, if I am to accept the possibility that the universe was set in motion by a entity that was not itself created by another entity; a claim that cannot be proven or disproven. Then I must give equal credence to any claim that could also be ‘possible’. For example, it is possible there was a big bang, it is possible the universe is eternal, it is possible the universe has an ebb & flow like the sea where the ebb condenses the universe into a singularity resulting in a “big bang” cycle. These can’t be proven or disprove either, but thanks to ‘probability’ I can give certain assertions more credence by weighting the assumptions. For example, based on many descriptions of god, this is a being or entity which is not governed by natural laws; god is therefore ‘supernatural’ by definition. As such I can look for evidence of other ‘supernatural’ examples; angels, demons, unicorns, ghosts, haunting, out of body experiences, etc. I have found countless claims but nothing which meets the burden of ‘proof’, the expectation of scientific ‘evidence’, or even a pedestrian grade level of credibility. With no credible arguments for the ‘supernatural’ any assertions providing a naturalist explanation has more weight. Based on this logic, the ‘big bang’, being explained using natural laws, is less of an assumption than creationism which relies too heavily on what cannot be disproven.

        • Gabe says:

          I’m just wondering: How would you prove your feelings?

        • Gabe says:

          Or maybe, to be more specific: How would one prove their emotions.

        • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

          And that’s fine, to suggest there was a divine cause for creation. It parallels the Hindu belief of Rama dreams; that the Big Band and expansion of the universe are a “night” where Rama imagines our world.

          But the forces of some religions (mainly evangelicals) are obsessed discrediting evolution, since they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Yet this is ludicrous. How can anyone defend the contradictions and scientific impossibilities, the events which have been discredited or obviously lifted from earlier religions?

        • MR. GOODBAR says:

          Cyclops, you are among the unredeemed who will spend eternity apart from the Flatulent Glory of Theobromo Cacao Paradise. Quit spouting that blasphemous nonsense about the Bible and being Born Again. You are leading Gabe astray with your missionary zeal and false doctrine.

          As Gabe correctly pionted out, Jesus was willing to spend time with “people of multiple types,” even those of the Farting Chocolate Dude persuasion. Instead of multiple types, Cyclops, you are creating divisive types.

          Repent now before it’s too late. Turn to Dudism, the one true, revealed religion.

        • Gabe says:

          When did I say anything about him leading me astray? I’m already a Christian. However, I don’t agree with the way Cyclops views faith. I believe there is a truth behind Christianity that doesn’t have a chance when it is viewed this way.

    • caremonster1 says:

      Ya know I think that we need to have an opinion and that is ok. As a Christian you should have faith that people will find there way if you believe in GOD. I think traveling and helping others is great but just because some don’t believe in a diety doesn’t mean they can not do the same good works for others. Heck there are lots of spegetti monster believers that are doing great things too. Nothing we do can please our GOD he made us. I believe he made us to believe in each other and encourage not point fingers. Just think He made us all different for this very reason. Yes bad things happen but christians and non christians alike come together in hard times. It’s really nobody elses business if I believe or not. I will pray that you will be more open minded let loose that leash and be the person God wants you to be. If the story is true his actions spoke louder than words. I thought this article was very tasteful and I loved it!

      • caremonster1 says:

        Oh! and my reply is speaking to “A Christian Says”
        If Jesus did die for our sins he did all the hard work and that says it all.

      • ReligiousCyclops says:

        Listen! Everyone of you. There is only one way to view life. There are no different points of view. There is only truth. God is truth. Therefore. we must all see everything through the lens of religion and it must specifically be my religion because all other religions are wrong. They have been duped by Satan the great deceiver. There are no other points of view. Only mine because I possess truth because I belong to the correct religion that worships the only true God. Only my view of life is correct. If you don’t agree then you are a nonbeliever and all none believers are condemned and on their way to eternal damnation in Hell. The perfect error free King James Protestant Bible used by us fundamentalists tell us so. So, let there be an end to all questions and so called other points of view. Mine is the only one that counts!

        • Gabe says:

          I’m a Christian also, but I think open-mindedness is something important. Encountering different viewpoints may be something valuable to your faith, though a guidance is also important.
          It doesn’t have a positive effect on a community to be so condemning, so please respect other peoples views.

        • Keith says:

          I smell the resurrection of Big Guy here.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          I’m calling a wind-up.

          Cyclops? Hardly a cryptic reference to being one-eyed…

        • MR. GOODBAR says:

          How’s your depth perception Cyclops? Please don’t rule out worshipping The Farting Chocolate Dude. Some view Dudism as a cult, but followers are enlightened and inspired by the vision of a Flatulent ChocolateyParadise. The vulgar Pastafarians believe in a paradise involving a beer volcano and strippers…how shallow and unimaginative. Christians believe in a paradise where the saved are allowed to sing and chant their praises of God for all eternity…how boring and pointless.

          I was sent to save you from false religions by my Father, The Farting Chocolate Dude. Repent now. The hour of Judgment draws nigh.

          FCD Bless You,
          MR. GOODBAR, I Have Big Nuts

        • ReligiousCyclops says:

          Remember your Sunday school lesson, young man. remember what the Bible says. It say – “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall not have any other gods before thee.”

          Didn’t your mother send you to Sunday School? Or, did your parents belong to one of the false religions such as the R C church. They are a false idol worshiping religion paying head to a Roman dictator. Avoid any church that has bishops or a so called magisterium or teaching authorities. The Bible is the one and only sole teaching authority in the world. The Bible has more brains and does more thinking than any human head of a religion.

          And; Gabe, are you a born again Christian? We born agains are the only real true Christians. If you are not a born again Protestant fundamentalist then you are not a true Christian. You belong to a false religion. Remember – GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!

          REPENT, YOU HEATHENS!

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “The perfect error free King James Protestant Bible used by us FUNDAMENTALISTS tell us so.”

          Never met a fundy who would refer to themselves using a pejorative term. I call POE.

        • Gabe says:

          Cyclops, did you ever realize that Jesus was willing to spend time with people of multiple types, and not just his own. He was willing to do so without condemning others in the way that you do.

        • ReligiousCyclops says:

          “Jesus was willing to spend time with people of multiple types,…”

          Gabe, don’t you realize that Jesus associated with sinners in order to bring them to repentance so that they could be of one mind like us true Christians and not muddled with sinful worldly secular humanism. Secular humanism (being different and worldly) is one of the greatest sins of all. It is as bad as fornication! Believe you me! Secular humanism is also one of satan’s greatest tools to try to fool us into thinking that it is OK to tolerate other ways (worldly) of thinking. Jesus associated with multiple types in order to make them into one type. Remember the great commission, Gabe. We need to avoid secular humanism at all cost so that we may be rapture up into the clouds to be with Jesus when he comes. Jesus is coming very soon. The sinfulness of the world is a sign that he is coming. When he comes we will be raptured up into the clouds with him. The sinners left behind will be cast into a lake of fire for all eternity. We need to have one eye and it needs to be focus on Jesus the only true spiritual liberator.

          Now, do you understand why Jesus associated with sinner? Jesus wants you (and them to if they come to repentance) to share in a heavenly banquet with him. And; his kool-aide is really awesome! It is not at all like the sinful earthly wines that contain sinful alcohol that sinners drink.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          For a one-eyed POE, you are outstanding, Cyclops. You have convinced Gullible Gabe that you are for real. With your skill, you could found a church populated with converts like Gabe. Well, you would have to tone down the rhetoric a little, because even Gabe won’t accept your rigorous adherence to Christian doctrine.

          Probably there’s a deeper metaphoric meaning in the choice of your pseudonym, but I haven’t been able to crack it yet. So keep on contributing the hyperbole, Pope Polyphemus. We love it.

          Atsap Revol, POE Buster

        • Gabe says:

          I believe in the goodness of Christ too. I believe he is they way, the truth, and the light. But Christ said “Love thy neighbor” and part of that is treating everyone with dignity. Condemning someone isn’t treating someone with dignity.

        • Gabe says:

          Atsap Revol, I realize that he isn’t for real. But he obviously has some misconceptions about Christianity. So I am treating it as if it were real to communicate my thoughts.

        • ReligiousCyclops says:

          Cyclops says – “The Bible has more brains and does more thinking than any human head of a religion.”

          Since when is a collection of writings, a collection of “books” a thinking entity? Where is the brain? in the paper or the ink? If I were religious I would much rather pay heed to a real living thinking entity such as a well educated bishop or a historical critical student of scripture or texts. But a book, considered holy or not is not a living thinking entity. The idea that an inanimate object or collection of so called “inspired writings” is a living thinking entity is insane. Maybe those who collected these old “inspired writings” had brains in their heads but their books and writings do not have “brains” and as inanimate objects are not capable of thinking. Scripture is and has always been suject to interpretation whether one likes it or not. And; to accept the idea that they ought not be subject to scrutiny or higher criticism is an open door for the gullible and weak minded.

          Cyclops, you have really got your head all the way up your ass!

        • Alphy says:

          Hey, Cyclops! What in the fuck is this? You asshole!

          Stop playing people, asshole. All your fucking talk about geezus and repentance. You fucking hypocrite bastard! Stop fucking with Gabe and other people here. I don’t agree with Gabe and his fundy Christian view points. I really do think that Gabe views us as a bunch of heathens. I think he’s a bit much but Gabe has been civil and hasn’t spewed the hateful venom that so many other Christians have. I think Gabe does need a breath of fresh air and that he is too heavily indoctrinated as someone else has posted. But you, you phony asshole, need to stop playing people. you, asshole! Your eye is up your ass, asshole! Fuck off! I don’t hate fundies but I vehemently disagree with them and their religion. Keep in mind, asshole, that not all fundamentalist Christians are mean spirited self righteous jerks. Many are but Gabe is not mean. He might be a fundy but he is not mean. Go fuck yourself, Cyclops! Eat shit and die!

        • Gabe says:

          Okay…
          I agree that Cyclops is being kind of stuck-up and I wish he would be more clear, but perhaps you should tone it down a little bit.
          For one thing, I’d like to clear out that there’s a difference between fundamentalism and Christianity.
          I don’t view you as a bunch of heathens. I do, however, think you guys have a lot of misconceptions of the Christian faith.

        • Gabe says:

          Fundamentalism is when a religious group decides that their way is what was originally intended. However, there are many Christians who accept the fact that there are multiple ways of worshipping God, and not just their own way.

        • Gabe says:

          Fundamentalism strictly adheres to specific principles and is intolerant of other views.
          I’m not a fundamentalist. But at the same time, I’m still a Christian, which is about having a devotion to God, not a devotion to principles. Although, having principles is a part of it.

        • Gabe says:

          I feel fundamentalists lose sight of what they’re supposed to be doing because they see things too literally or strictly.

        • POE's LAW says:

          POE’s LAW:

          Similar to Murphy’s Law, Poe’s Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.

          “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”

          In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.
          The following is an actual Internet post to Biblically defend a flat Earth:

          “All I was saying was that either the earth is flat, and the bible is correct, or the earth is round, and the bible is incorect, i’m going to study the issue more and deside for myself which route I want to take. Either Atheist evolutionist, who agrees with all of mainstream sciences, or flat earth litteral bible believer.

          I’m leaning toward being an atheist, because if I can’t believe the bible to be completly litteraly true, then I can’t believe Jesus when he speaks about heaven, etc..

          That would make the moon landing a fake, and pretty much all of modern science false…”

          Cyclops and Gabe, will the real POE please stand up.

        • Gabe says:

          My arguments aren’t self-contradictary as Cyclops’ arguments are. I don’t agree with 100% adherence to RELIGION because it’s not the same thing as God and religion can be run by total nut-cases. I know that you guys don’t believe in God, and you might think that God and religion are no different, but at least realize the idea that they aren’t. Religion is a way to follow God through community. But, if religious figures seek power for themselves, it can easily lose sight of the original plan.

  5. SillyKiwiMan says:

    Methinks Gabe is just another troll. How boring.

    Never thought I’d say it, but I kinda miss Big Guy. At least he was overt in his refusal to understand what it is Pastafarianism is all about.

    Note: if someone needs the omnipotence paradox explained to them, then they’re just not going to get it…

    • Atsap Revol says:

      Big Guy’s predominant skill was cutting and pasting. To me, acceptance of religious dogma is like cutting and pasting…it’s a mindless process of imprinting an unlikely paradigm. Like cutting and pasting, no thought or analysis is required.

      Atsap Revol, Bishop of Blasphemy

      • Reverend Captain Mal says:

        The bible has become to Christians what terms of service are to everyone. No one reads it anymore. They just skip to the end and click “agree”. If any of these people put half as much energy into critically analyzing the bible as they put into trying to refute Pastafarianism, we would have many more converts.

        • Gabe says:

          Many Christians spend time studying the Bible and raising questions.

        • Reverend Captain Mal says:

          There is some hyperbole to my comment. Obviously there have been some Christians who read the bible. Your comment, however, only has a half truth to it. You see, depending on the particular doctrine to which you subscribe, questioning the bible or Christianity in general ranges from frowned upon to a sin of the highest degree. That’s the problem with absolute faith. Questioning it makes you a blasphemer.

          So yes, I’m sure many Christians have studied the bible and raised questions. Unfortunately, I’m also sure most of them were quickly chastised for asking questions, and they either reverted to blind faith or, like some of us here, chose to succumb to reason and left religion.

        • Gabe says:

          Nope, not at all. At my youth group I’ll ask a question and my youth pastor nothing more than an answer or what comes to mind because they’ve probably had the same questions.

        • Gabe says:

          I meant,’my youth pastor will respond with nothing more than an answer’.

        • Gabe says:

          I’m not saying it applies to ALL Christians, but it does to more than you think. Christianity is mostly about having a relationship with God, which involves asking questions to others who have the same goal. It’s not just taking whatever that’s thrown at you.

      • Alphy says:

        No thought is necessary with religion. All thinking, if one could call it that, has been done for us. All we need to do is believe. I believe. I believe in the tooth fairy and Mother Goose. Fundamentalist are only to happy to do our thinking for us. No thank, fundies!

        • Gabe says:

          On the matter of belief, YOU believe that all Christians can’t do the thinking for themselves. It maybe the case for Christians YOU’VE met, but you use this stubborn representation as a basis of opposition for ALL Christianity/religion. A similar mentality can be found in theists who refuse to see things any any other light, a result of forced indoctrination that requires little thinking, which Pastafarianism is against.
          Believe it or not, my faith doesn’t prevent intellectual expansion. If someone says something, I don’t just take their word for it. I think about it for myself and apply it to unanswered questions I have about my faith. If something involving my faith doesn’t make sense to me, I try not to shove it off to the side so quickly, because that’s the opposite of thinking.
          Don’t get the impression that I’m “sitting on a fence” as SillyKiwiMan pointed out. Free-thinking in religion could be seen as floating in the air, never finding a basis in life. But free-thinking involves foundation, too.
          One way to go about this foundation is through science, which is important to take into account. But I don’t think that science should be the only way to see life, because free-thinking is the opposite of stubborn adherence to one view of a question or issue.

    • Gabe says:

      No, I understand it, I just needed to process the metaphor a little more.

      • Gabe says:

        And I will stop commenting when the time comes.

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        Someone has taken my horse! Aquinas is gone! I’ve ridden him since I was a young man, and….he’s….he’s gone! (…uncontrollable sobbing….)

    • Gabe says:

      I’m not here just to be a troll, I’m here to communicate my thoughts.

      • Reverend Captain Mal says:

        And you have done so without resorting to abusive language or thinly veiled threats, which may be why so many of us are confused by your presence. Please understand that as a coherent, respectful person of faith, you are an incredibly rare exception to the rule, so to speak.

        As far as discussion goes, I’m with SillyKiwiMan. I like to start with the Omnipotence Paradox because it instantly sets apart those who are willing to think critically and logically and those who will stubbornly adhere to their beliefs simply because that’s what they know. So, do you believe god is omnipotent?

        • Gabe says:

          Yes, but not in the way you might think. There’s a way I believe he works that needs some explaining.

        • Gabe says:

          Okay, so to start from the beginning, I believe God created everything and used a pattern of science that we see today. It was through his omnipotence that he was abled to achieve this and with that science comes with meta physicality (which goes beyond science) and maybe science we haven’t discovered yet.
          When he created humans (it doesn’t mean he created them right away), he gave them a special gift that was in his image. This isn’t necessarily based on what he actually LOOKED like, but how he worked and thought. One could say that it was a special gift within consciousness to think in a more complex, yet independent way, though we don’t know all about the gift. It gave free will. They had a choice on weather or not to follow God, or go on their own path.
          When Adam and Eve decided to go on their own path because they were tempted, they became separated from God. That separation is called sin. It isn’t that being free is bad, but I think being one with God is free in itself.
          Even though we live in a world of separation, we can still choose to follow God, though separation still exists in our world and will have many trials and tribulations we will have to go through. Christ died to liberate us from separation, because before he did, a select few could feel the Holy Spirit, which is basically us reconnecting with God.
          God works through people because in order to bring his actions on this earth, one has to choose to be a part of it. And God works through his choice. God is all-powerful, because even trough separation, he gives us a second chance to follow him along with many other chances on this earth.
          If he wants the rock to move, he’ll work through some one to do it. But it’s beyond the person, even if it’s their own choice.
          That’s what I believe, and it’s the reason I think that he’s omnipotent.

        • Keith says:

          Gabe, do accept the Adam and Eve story as it is told in your bible or do you accept that Man evolved from an ancestral shrew?

        • Keith says:

          That was sloppy of me: I should have typed “do you accept”.

        • Gabe says:

          I do accept the possibility.

        • Gabe says:

          Wait, let me be more clear, I accept the possibility that God could’ve used evolution as a tool to create life. The Bible does say that he created man from dust, and it doesn’t necessarily mean right away. I think that the 7 days mentioned in the Bible could’ve been 7 phases of time.

        • Gabe says:

          There’s more ways than one to look at the two viewpoints. Creationism isn’t necessarily that God created everything right away, but that whatever happened was because of him.

        • Reverend Captain Mal says:

          Right. So back to omnipotence. Can god create an immovable object?

        • Gabe says:

          Well, if anyone can move it, God can.

        • Gabe says:

          Do you understand my reason behind it?

        • Gabe says:

          I mean that God can lift the rock, also. But to understand this, retread my explanation for the way I believe he works.

        • Gabe says:

          I meant re-read.

        • Reverend Captain Mal says:

          I’ve read your explanation. While it’s interesting, it does not answer the question. I asked if you believed god was omnipotent. You answered yes. Then I asked if he can create an immovable object. This is where the disconnect always happens with believers. You answered “If anyone can move it, God can”. That’s not an immovable object. If god can move it, it’s a movable object.

          So, can an all powerful god create an object that even he can’t move?

        • Keith says:

          OK: if we assume the possibility that there was an intelligent guiding force behind evolution and that Man evolved through the influence of said force, at what point did Man gain a soul? At what point was Man given free will?

        • Gabe says:

          God can create an object that is immovable to humans, but it isn’t immovable to him. But if he created the immovable object to be there, then why move it?

        • Gabe says:

          And Keith, to answer your question, I think whatever form of life could have a soul to begin with, but a different kind based what sort of life form they were, because I think God’s goodness also went into them too. But at the point where we became fully advanced and God decided it was good, that’s when he gave us a different kind of soul.

        • Reverend Captain Mal says:

          “God can create an object that is immovable to humans, but it isn’t immovable to him. But if he created the immovable object to be there, then why move it?”

          That means the object is movable. The definition of the word doesn’t change just because you want to win an argument. The object is either movable or not. The ultimate point being that if god creates an object even he can’t move, he proves he’s not all-powerful. By not being able to create an object even he can’t move, god again proves he’s not all-powerful. So one way or another, god is not all-powerful.

        • Gabe says:

          This question is a self-canceling syllogism. It’s bias in the fact that it’s designed for only one answer. It’s a loaded question. It has an effect that gives no chance for open-mindedness, which Pastafarianism is supposed to support.

        • Gabe says:

          Pastafarianism claims to support open mindedness, so they’re wouldn’t be a problem with relooking the question.
          It’s not God that has the limits, it’s really this question.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “It’s not God that has the limits, it’s really this question.”

          The question is simply a metaphyisical example of the implusability of true “omnipotence”. The weight of the conclusion feels “loaded” because of the psychological impact it makes, one is left with two choices, dismiss the question entirely or deal with the nagging cognitive dissonance it creates. Nearly all theists blame the question or the person who presents it; as you just did. It means you are not ready to deal with the hard questions.

        • Gabe says:

          Here’s the thing: If God is the most powerful force in the universe and created a pattern of science that he goes beyond, how is it that he cannot move something if he’s beyond it? Yeah, he CAN’T create something that he cannot lift, because no matter what he creates, he goes beyond it.

        • Gabe says:

          That IS omnipotence.

        • Gabe says:

          And I WAS ready to face the question, because I’ve been thinking about it for a while now.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Anyone surprised?

          After hitting one particularly “special” colleague with the omnipotence paradox, he pondered it for a few days, then tried to redefine what omnipotence means. Then he tried to agrue that it was only paradoxical in the physical universe, but not the spiritual one. I asked what the hell the “spiritual” universe is, and he was stumped.

          Gabe, It’s not a syllogism, nor is it a “loaded” question. It’s a paradox. That’s the whole point. The fact that it’s a paradox means it’s impossible to reconcile, and hence in this case, simply impossible. Trying to evade the impossibility of your god’s omnipotence by saying that it goes “beyond science” or somesuch twaddle is akin to my earlier mention of the stupidity of faith. Believing in two contradictory things, and reconciling them against one another through “faith” is simply deliberate stupidity given weight through tradition. The fact that lots of people have faith makes it no less stupid.

          The beauty of the omnipotence paradox is in it’s simplicity. It breaks the whole thing down into a simple yes-or-no question, but in this case the question itself is the point rather than the answer. If one thinks about it, and I mean REALLY thinks about it, then it takes care of itself. I understand that it’s confronting to have one’s thought process challenged, and even worse when you realise you’re wrong.

          I noticed a mention of a youth group. When I was in my teens, life was simple, I knew everything too. Now in my thirty-cough-somethings, a few of the only things I’m sure of are that I like beer, dislike rugby league, and that omnipotence is impossible. Two are opinions, so cannot be either proved or disproved through repeatable scientific testing, the third is simply a logical conclusion, similar to 2+3=5 & 5-3=2, therefore, 5-2 cannot equal 4.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Right. I’ve had enough. Like I said earlier, if you need it explained, you don’t get it. Debating the definition of omnipotence (and I think my point is proven by use of the term “maximum omnipotence” like there are degrees) ad nauseum, trying to put a deity in some higher dimension where 2+3 can equal 4 if said deity wants it to etc. is just denying the unpalatable.

          Game is like the friar in Erik the Viking. Refusing to accept that the water’s rising as it contradicts his religion, as he slowly drowns.

        • Gabe says:

          Also, humility is not something one declares for one’s own self. And wisdom, you don’t think you’re wise, yet you use the saying those who are wise are least sure of they’re wisdom, yet, maybe that’s the reason why you claim to think you are not wise, so others can also think you’re wise.
          If you say you are sure of you’re own wisdom, then how can you say “you’re wrong”, when my answer is that I don’t know. I know it seems that I bend my goal point, but that’s a result of “REALLY” thinking about the question and going through multiple points of processing instead of coming up with an immediate answer.
          I know you refuse to see things trough my lens, but if you did, you would see how stubborn you are being, and that doesn’t just apply through my lens, nor the lens of believers.

        • Gabe says:

          The ,” If you say that you are sure” should be, ” If you say that you are NOT sure” .

      • Gabe says:

        Define what a syllogism is and explain the difference between a paradox. Then I want you to describe why you think that question isn’t a syllogism, but rather a paradox.

        • Gabe says:

          I find it very ironic that you guys claim to support your argument with logic and then, to break my own argument, you in turn break the rules of logic. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SollOmnQFoo

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          The law of noncontradiction states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. In the case of the dog in the video, it cannot be both a ‘dog’ and not a ‘dog’. What the video avoids explaining is that the dog, a self evident thing, does not require presupposition to establish it. Your assertion, “god is omnipotent”, is a presupposition which first must be vetted. No one here is claiming that god is simultaneously “omnipotent” and not “omnipotent”. The questions created by the omnipotence paradox are:

          Is an omnipotent entity logically possible?
          What does ‘omnipotence’ really mean?

          The law of noncontradiction does not apply as the possibility of ‘omnipotence’ has not yet been established.

        • Gabe says:

          However, this statement does not rule out omnipotence because you could make a statement like this for any subject we use daily. The statement in itself wouldn’t cancel out the subject as a whole.
          If I were to tell an artist to create an angular circle, the example used in the video, then they could not. This statement emphasizes something they can’t do, when in actuality, it does not define their limits as an artist.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “This statement emphasizes something they can’t do, when in actuality, it does not define their limits as an artist.”

          Which only applies if the assertion is the artist is omnipotent. When the claim is the ability to do anything then one only has to show what they cannot do.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          Omnipotence means: unlimited power; the ability to do anything. Keywords: unlimited & anything. rocks and angle circles are covered by ‘anything’. If you don’t agree on the definition then perhaps omnipotence is not the correct word.

        • Gabe says:

          Remember that power must be coherent with how THIS world works. There are no angled circles because it is not within the law of non-contradiction which is a part of how this world functions.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “Remember that power must be coherent with how THIS world works.”

          Power, yes. All+powerfull, no. Again, omnipotence carries no constraints or limitations, any rationilzation which puts limits on it means that the definition is being altered to fit the argument or the wrong word was used.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          Anyway… I’m off to celebrate the new year. Have a fantastic new year, we can ponder meanings some other time. :)

        • Gabe says:

          I wish a great new year to all of you as well!

        • Gabe says:

          Okay, so to hop back into omnipotence…

          If you think about omnipotence without regarding this question, it involves both strength and the power of creating. These are unlimited, as it is a part of the definition of omnipotence, which implies that these two qualities are equal. If God created something really heavy, he has just as much strength as creativity. So this means he can lift whatever he created, he could lift.

        • Gabe says:

          Oops, ignore the last ‘he could lift’ part.

        • Gabe says:

          I hope you don’t mind if I brought it up again this soon.

        • Keith says:

          If I read you correctly, you are saying that if strength and creativity were both measurable as a common unit they would be equal, ergo this being could lift the rock. I don’t agree. The lifting power would surely be on the border line between being able to lift it and not being able to lift it.

          Incidentally, for those who are interested, this subject appears to have been debated on at least one website.
          http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Omnipotence-Paradox-is-Self-Refuting/1/

        • Gabe says:

          Well those qualities are both unlimited. I don’t agree that it would be on the borderline between being lifted and not.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          @Keith

          Interesting debate.

          Common omnipotence? Seems ‘InquireTruth’ had to change the meaning of the word to ‘win’ that debate. Which goes against his closing argument that one “needn’t look beyond the paradox’s own premises in order to prove that it is false”. Basically, omnipotence means, mostly+kinda+all+powerful+conditionally.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “which implies that these two qualities are equal.”

          Just to interject. Equality infers an ability to measure, which in turn infers some type of limits, this is incompatible with ‘omnipotence’ as it describes qualities without limits which would be beyond an ability to measure.

          “So this means he can lift whatever he created, he could lift.”

          Which means an omnipotent entity would fail at creating a rock he/she could not lift. The conclusion is therefore that the entity is not omnipotent as there is an task that cannot be achieved.

        • Gabe says:

          Well, the main point is that while God can create as heavy of a rock as he wants, his strength is also just as unlimited. I don’t agree about the whole common omnipotence thing in the debate, either. It’s maximum omnipotence that we’re looking at.
          I don’t really understand why we’re counting God’s not having an inability against omnipotence. Put that phrase I just said to the definition of omnipotence: ‘not having an inability’. Doesn’t that phrase pretty much answer the question?
          He doesn’t have the ability to have an inability. It’s kind of like a sport’s player who says “The only thing I can’t do is lose”. But that term doesn’t necessarily mean that it leads to an inability. Like the video talks about, a dog can’t be a dog and not a dog at the same time. An ability can’t also be an inability at the same time. Therefore the ability for inability does not exist. At least not in this dimension.
          It doesn’t matter weather it has been scientifically established or not. Weather it’s a myth, an idea, or a belief. It still must apply to the law of non-contradiction.

        • Gabe says:

          Also, I know that omnipotence isn’t supposed to be constrained to the rules of our dimension, but this is what we know. I believe that omnipotence goes beyond, but we can’t pretend we understand logic beyond this dimension.
          We have to understand that there can’t be an ability for inability. However, omnipotence goes beyond our logic, but that also means that we can’t disprove it simply based on a statement that breaks the rules of logic and then associates it with omnipotence itself.

        • Gabe says:

          Hold on, SillyKiwiMan, if I didn’t get it (and I hope others in this conversation can back me up on this) then I wouldn’t be be able to hold a conversation for this long. I hope you’ve read my arguments with the realization that I have at least SOME sense behind what I think. Watch the video I put up and at least be more articulate as to why you think I cling to dogma. Also realize that the question has logical flaws. I’m not simply saying this to cling to my ways. I have been ‘REALLY’ thinking about this question and have analyzed the logic behind it.
          What I said about you explaining this question was a result of my need to process the question.

        • Gabe says:

          My main point is that having an ability for inability is not possible. Though, this does not diminish omnipotence, because the ability for inability does not exist.
          I know you’ll say that an omnipotent entity should be abled to do anything, including the ability for inability, but everything does not also include nothing at the same time.
          Now, I want you to “REALLY” think about it.
          My main MAIN point is that you cannot disprove omnipotence just by a self-contradictory statement.
          Perhaps it isn’t me that’s the friar, but you. Refusing to accept the rules of logic as it contradicts the faith you have in this statement.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “this does not diminish omnipotence, because the ability for inability does not exist”

          This is the problem with ‘omnipotence’, it allows for anything and everything in any combination, including what is contradictory or illogical in ontological terms.

        • Gabe says:

          If you say that the definition of omnipotence goes beyond our logic, then how could logic disprove it?

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          “If you say that the definition of omnipotence goes beyond our logic, then how could logic disprove it?”

          Which IMHO is part of the nature of the omnipotence paradox. This brings us full circle back to where I explained the two questions the paradox creates. The first:

          What does ‘omnipotence’ really mean?

          Once you comes to terms with what the word means you start to understand the extreme magnitude of it’s implications. This is why so many try to put constraints on the word, they will say something like: “it is the ability to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible” which establishes ‘sensible’ limits. But at the same time they credit this entity with defining reality and, by extension, that which is possible. How can the author of reality be limited by his creation?

          Assuming one’s mind does not implode under the weight of collective thought there is still one other: Is an omnipotent entity logically possible? The only honest answer is “I don’t know”.

        • Gabe says:

          That’s my point. I’d say that an omnipotent entity wouldn’t be limited by creation, a part of it being logic. You can’t disprove omnipotence, as SillyKiwiMan claims.
          My statement towards SillyKiwiMan,
          “Perhaps it isn’t me that’s the friar, but you. Refusing to accept the rules of logic as it contradicts the faith you have in this statement.”
          I’m trying to point out that the omnipotence question has a flaw, not that an omnipotent entity would need to be constrained by logic as we are.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Tilted, by definition, omnipotence isn’t logically possible, unless you’re willing to re-work what logic is. That’s usually how the Gabe’s of this world work. They shift the goalposts. If we decide that we can bend logic, it opens us to endless circular arguments where both sides simply argue past each other, again, much like Gabe. An argument can in fact boil down to an opinion on how a term is defined, and hence the argument will be endless. Much like the bashing of ones head into a wall when faced with someone who doesn’t understand that they don’t understand.

          Gabe, to put it simply, you’re wrong. I know that in this modern touchy-feely world we’re not supposed to say that, but here we are. The fact that a yes-or-no question can’t be answered with a yes or no answer should really be enough to understand the whole point right there. I’m reminded of a time I was trying to explain a finer point of a fairly weird concept about electricity to an apprentice, when it dawned on me that he just didn’t get it, and probably never would. He lacked the ability to grasp the subtlety of the concept, and to see that an apparent contradiction wasn’t actually a contradiction at all. He had, however, spent too much time smoking grass. When one has been led to believe something with every fibre of their being, it’s all but impossible to stop seeing things through that lens. Most of us here have shed lenses of our own to get here, and please don’t take this as any possible acceptance of your view (which I refute entirely) but the older I get, the fewer absolutes I believe in. It is said that the most wise are least sure of their own wisdom. I don’t think I’m wise. Rather I go where evidence (real evidence. Not bronze-age fairy tales) leads me & indeed have changed my views on things as my opinions have been discredited. Doesn’t mean I’m thrilled to be wrong, I’m just humble enough to know that the universe is bigger than me & me wanting something to be doesn’t make it so.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          @Gabe, @Tilted Horizon: have been following your discussions with equal mixes of irritation and respect, both increasing together. The respect arises from the patience and courtesy you both display; the irritation (forgive me, but it may be shared by others….) arises from my own conviction that words are slippery and ambiguous, even in the context of academic logic and certainly in the context of theological disputation. Irresistible forces, immovable objects, perfect beings, etc., etc., etc., have been flogged to mush over the years, and further logic chopping is a waste of time and a useless disturbance to the electrons in the ionosphere who have enough misery propagating Fox News over the earth. If you’re interested in logic, I’d recommend looking (again, if either/both already have) at Goedel’s Theorem as an example of care and rigour, and an example of science vs. disputation. One of the nice things about science (not capitalized) is that it is such a good fit to the developing capabilities and understanding of mere humans. The origin of the universe – even in big-bang terms – is awe inspiring and mysterious enough for humans at that frontier. There are many others, human consciousness being a fair example, that are a worthy challenge to the many humans smarter and more dedicated than the average religious shaman, whether disguised as a pope, a mullah, or an evangelical pastor. And – sincerely – happy new year!

        • Gabe says:

          SillyKiwiMan
          If you realized the fact that the universe was bigger than you, then how come you try to prove everything with one simple question? My outside beliefs aside, I agree with TiltedHorizon. The answer to this question is ‘we don’t know’. You claim that I try to know everything, yet, after processing this statement and going over what questions it raises, my final answer is, again, ‘we don’t know’. Now, how does it make any sense that I try to know everything?

          Also, I apologize for the irritation caused by going over definitions and trying to understand omnipotence. But this question does raise circulations which are interesting to go over and at the same time, tiring. But all (if not most) of the circulations are over.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          As Miss Piggy, of Muppets fame, stated: “Never eat anything you can’t lift.” An intelligent God would never create a rock He couldn’t lift. That should end this flatulent discussion about paradoxes and such. (Unless “Intelligent God” is an oxymoron)

          AR, Bishop of Blasphemy

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Agreed Atsap. It was fun for a while, now it’s boring. At least I goaded him into foot stamping & veiled insults. (at least I don’t pretend I don’t sometimes enjoy being an arsehole to people I take a dislike to)

          Yours in childishness & pasta.

        • Gabe says:

          SillyKiwiMan, you use the statement ‘The most wise are least sure of their own wisdom’ and you imply that I think I know everything, and therefore, am not wise. If I thought I knew everything, my answer wouldn’t be that I don’t really know. And if you don’t think you’re wise, how is it that you can surely say I’m wrong in saying that I don’t have an answer?
          Yeah, your argument contains no self-contradiction at all.

        • Gabe says:

          My point was not to insult you, but to make a point.

        • Gabe says:

          I didn’t see your comments while I was typing that response. My purpose was to show multiple perspectives as to how I see things. I was not “goaded into foot-stepping and veiled insults”‘ I was making a point by showing flaws in your arguments.

          Yeah, let’s let this omnipotence discussion be over.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          Eww. Look at the mess I made of this horse, I guess I’ll put away my stick and get the cleaning detergent instead.

          Gabe, we have reached an impasse, as is the nature of a paradox we could easily continue this discussion ad nauseum without gaining ground. Therefore lets agree to disagree and move on to the next unsolvable conundrum.

          I’ll be over here, feeding the remains of this horse into the glue machine.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          (crunching, mashing sounds)

          ewww.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          Don’t waste that horse Tilted!

          There’s some perfectly good eatin’ right there, although, you probably have found the best use for a tired ol’ nag like that one.

        • Gabe says:

          Yes, let’s agree to disagree.

  6. Alia says:

    Why is this Tom person so concerned with MY spirit? Can’t he just care for his own in the manner he prescribed – but NOT degrading other people’s beliefs?

  7. miguelon says:

    Have to agree with a previous poster, quantum mechanics tells us no such thing. The claim that quantum mechanics shows us that all viewpoints are equal to one another is nothing more than a very sloppy metaphor used most often for new agey and post modernist woo. It serves as a warning to anyone with even a cursory popular science level understanding of quantum mechanics that some serious nonsense lies ahead. To immerse yourself in the sloppy metaphor and in more unfounded claims watch What the Bleep Do We Know?, or for the same with an eastern religious slant read anything by Deepak Chopra. What Science Offers the Humanities is an excellent book about post modernism. For understanding quantum mechanics check out videos on youtube by Lawrence Krauss. In the meantime, may you be nourished by his noodly goodness.

  8. Tim in SF says:

    “… religion — the sincere attempt to understand the unknowable ”

    No, that’s actually science, not religion. Religion is an attempt to explain away the unknowable by attributing it to a deity. There’s a difference.

    “Quantum mechanics tells us that all possibilities exist simultaneously until foreclosed by inconsistent observations. So, with regard to what we truly cannot know or observe, it’s possible that all beliefs are equally “true” and very much real. It’s an incredibly powerful thought: that we can design our own eternity simply by imagining it.”

    This is total rubbish. It sounds like his entire understanding of quantum mechanics comes from watching What The Bleep.

1 17 18 19 20 21 25

Leave a Reply