Connect with other Pastafarians
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
RSS Feeds
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
@Religious monster Dec 19th, 2007 at 10:48 am
“it would mean that I would have to stop trying to convince people in my believe as you are trying to convince people in yours. Thus I dont feel defeated, as I already told you before. I have a personal relationship with God, as stupid as this might sound to you.”
.
I don’t get these people who stress that they have a personal relationship with god, but then strenuously try to get others to accept and follow their beliefs. Just sounds completely ironic to me. I would have thought that having a personal relationship with god would not entail regurgitating the same fallacious fundamentalist *arguments* that every other fundamentalist creationist uses as well?
.
Just have a look at any creationist propaganda website and you’ll see almost identical *arguments* ( most of which have been debunked over and over and over by respected professionals in each of the relevant fields of scientific inquiry) and yet the creationists all claim their own belief is based on a *personal relationship* with god, not from following religion??
.
Comes across more like following a particular dogma of religion to me.
.
I’ve been involved in discussions with many anti-evolution creationists on quite a number of web sites/ blogs and it’s very very common to come across a creationist, trying to put up one of the all too common creationist anti-evolution *arguments* (a lot of us seem to know most of them better then they do themselves :), being gently reminded by another creationist as to what they are meant to believe and argue. But still, all the while, the confused creationist is stressing that they don’t follow religion, but instead have a *personal relationship* with god?
.
These “personal relationship with god not religion” statements appear to have become increasingly common, especially over the past 3 or 4 months.
.
Perhaps Religious monster could explain this trend?
Oh, and another common increasingly theme of such proclamations, usually when pushed to explain the difference, is that other church brand believers follow religion….for example a common theme is that Catholics are not *Christians* (who have a personal relationship with god), but rather, are all followers of *religion*. Yet I’ve rarely come across these so called *religions* trying to sell creationism to me. I can kinda see the fund a mentalist logic (*coff*) in such proclamations….
@Jennyanydots Dec 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
“It is a process and you assigning conscious thought to it is akin to suggesting that the tarmac on a road not only know which town is at either end, but also the best place to go for a drink when it gets there.”
.
Good analogy Jennyanydots :)
@ Religious monster
Sorry I failed to address this point so I will do so now
“4.Why whould the sience in our DNA that we believe in give us a desire for some Devine power(a God)? This is not necessary for survival, as you being a atheist would know. My logic tells me that the creater of humans, even if it is evolution wanted us to believe that there is a higher power.”
No we are instructed to obey a leader by are DNA. See primates are a social animal so we need a leader for a group. The problem is that human society is so big that we end up fitting into multiple groups of individuals. The leader of you religious group tell you something, and cos you chose to be in that grope you agree regardless of facts.
Thinking that a higher power “Programmed” you to believe stems from the fact you “want” to believe.
You keep trying to bring new points to the discussion once I have argued against your previous faulty point of view. You seem to be trying to divert from the fact you can’t counter argue me so just try to hop from on subject to another. If you want me to show you a shred of respect then back up your previous points rather than try to grab new ones when the old ones fail.
The fact that your last lot of arguments, and the ones before that and the ones before that, fail to hold water shows your religion to be false anyway.
@Religious Monster,
Two points concerning the DNA point you attempted to make (the rest of your email isn’t worth replying to, I’m sorry to say). There are several very logical explanations concerning why humans might be genetically “programmed” to believe in a higher power.
.
First, our self-awareness. As a conscious, sentient being equipped with linguistic capabilities, humans are able to consider their own mortality, their own tiny little niche in a relatively infinite universe. This is something that other animals haven’t had to contend with. Obviously, it is difficult for humans to face the fact that their 80 or 90 years on earth is simply a blip in time and that after they die, they decompose and return to the carbon cycle that continues to produce life. (I for one, find this ending quite poetic and am fully content to know that quite literally, the elements of my body will feed continuing generations). Evolutionarily, happy and content individuals, it can be hypothesized (and has been hypothesized by many in the social evolutionary fields) have a higher survival rate and are more reproductively fit than those who are depressed and antisocial. Belief in god fills a necessary adaptive gap in a sentient organism: it gives purpose to life. Thus those with the genetic disposition to be believers began to dominate the gene pool and now 90% of people believe in god.
.
Second, other hypotheses have been put forward concerning the evolutionary place of “belief.” For instance, many animals respond to sound or other sensory input without actually seeing what it is they are responding to. This is adaptive in that animals that run at the sound of rustling bushes will escape predators more often than those that don’t, even if in a majority of the cases the noise was caused by wind blowing through the underbrush. Thus, humans included, many animals that are not at the top of the food chain have a genetic predisposition to responding to the unseen. In humans, we have attached meaning to the unseen and we usually give this meaning a name: god.
.
I could go on and on with the adaptive possibilities of believing in god, but I think you get the point. The likely scenario is that a number of adaptive strategies were selected for in which god was planted in our genetic structure…now, at certain times when we feel things we can’t explain, our brain orders the secretion of feel-good hormones and we say, “Thank you, Lord.”
.
RAmen,
.
P.E.T.
Maybe the internet just attracts more atheists or something, but the vast majority of people I know online (and, actually, in my school) are atheist or agnostic. I would debate the 90% believe in God figure.
Today I came across another argument in favour of the FSM (parmesan be upon him):
.
“The concept of a perfect God is already in itself the demonstration of the non-existence of a God creator. The word perfect, in its meaning of absolute completeness, excludes a God who had the desire and the need to give himself, through creation, something that he lacked”.
.
(see http://www.luigicascioli.eu/cascioli_inglese/argomenti-nel-sito/argomenti-nel-sito/the-atheism-of-luigi-cascioli.html)
.
Therefore the universe could only have been created by an imperfect God, i.e. the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
.
Based on this argument we should claim more time for unintelligent design than that would be available for ID/creationism.
.
Ramen
@ Religioius monstrer. Think of it the way ducks learn to follow the first thing they see when they crack out of the egg. Normal imprinting (the name biologists give to this process) will have the ducklings following their mama. But if the first thing they see when they pop out is a cat, then they will follow the cat whereever it goes.
In the same way, humans are hard wired to learn beliefs without any critical faculties coming into play in the first 3-5 years of their existence. If a belief in God is programmed into them at that time they will have a devil of a time divesting themselves of that belief for their entire lifespan. In point of fact, they might invent an elaborate ratioalization which suggests that “man is a being for God” who has this desire implanted by the putative creator himself. But if you use Ockham’s razor, you will see little kids learn to believe in lots of stuff (Santa, tooth fairy, Cinderella, imaginary friends, etc). Because society encourages them to grow out of the other beliefs, they do, but God…
Religious monster-”1.Accourding to facts +/-90% of the world believes in a God.
2.The ammount of intelligent people in this 90% exceeds the ammount in the 10% not believing in a God. This meaning that a large ammount of people having great knowledge of science still believes in a God.”
the facts posed is probably true, there is however a significant difference between intellegence and knowledge. intellegence is just a matter of effectivness, often specified as the efficency of the brain and is a measure on how fast you’ll come to a conclution, where knowledge is rather what you base your conclution on. Most people in the world probably have loads of knowledge in their special line of proffesion, this does not qualify them to vote on how the world was created
@Pluto
“The fact that your last lot of arguments, and the ones before that and the ones before that, fail to hold water shows your religion to be false anyway.” That is no fact. I might just not be the best person to convince you that God does exist because of my lack of knowledge. This does not mean that there wont be other people that will be able to counter your arguments.
A lot of websites has this line of “10 Reasons why God exist” .
Please give me your 10 best arguments why you feel that God does not exist.
Then I will try to counter each.
Please dont get me wrong, this is not a test, that states that if I cant
counter a certain amount of your ten arguments God does not exist.
This is merely a test for me to know why most atheist wil never believe in a God.
To fundies life makes only sense when connected to a divine creator and a hypothetical afterlife.
.
Funny, I pretty much like the idea of the whole galaxy being an accident. We could as well never have been here, so what? Let’s make the best of it.
.
Religious pretention coming from people who profess humbleness when unable to drop the idea of the human being having been put on top of the creation in order to dominate it.
Religious monster,
@Religious monster
I hope Pluto will not follow your suggestion, since the burden of proof for the “truth” of a given myth is on the one who makes this myth up.
For example, if I would say
1. There is an invisible pink unicorn who created all the forests
2. There is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who created mountains and midgets
3. There is cow Audhumla who licked Norse god Bor and his wife into being out of ice
3. There is god Jahwe who sired a demigod with a human virgin female
4. There is god-servant Brahma who created the world
5. There is god Vishnu who ordered Brahma to create the world
6. There is god Allah who ordered Muhammad to spread his words by the sword
7. There is god Bumba who vomited sun and moon into being
8. There is The Force in me and every other Jedi
9. There is angel Moroni dealing with golden plates
10. There is a volcano somewhere full of spirits of aliens
it would be entirely up to me to provide proof for these. On the other hand, if I would say that none of these things exist, fine, no proof necessary for that. It is simply against Occam’s razor.
Concerning #2, however, there is a lot of scientific evidence, as everybody surely is aware of!
(I had to modify my post from the other day. Fore some reason it didn’t get past Moderation)
@Religious Monster
I am going to restate what I have said before.
You have made lots of claims during the course of this little debate.
All of them I have successfully argued against and undermined.
Having had your opinion invalidated you try to jump to some other point with out defending your previous points.
You have been proven wrong, not just by me but by many others, every time.
And now you are trying to put the burden of proof on me? This is a pathetic tactic on your part.
You are making the absurdist claims, so the burden of proof is, as it always has been, on you!
.
You are asking for 10 reasons not to believe. All my counter arguments are reasons to believe what you believe is untrue.
If you want to play this game play it with your self.
Go back and pick 10 of my arguments and try to disprove me, if you can.
.
When are you going to stop jumping from point to point rather than stand your ground and try to prove me wrong and yourself right?
.
You have failed at every turn. I have demonstrated what you believe in as a lie and yet you continued to argue. This was fine with me as it gave me more to do. I enjoy what I do here and consider myself very good at it. You constantly fail!
.
And now after all that you have claimed to be true you say “I might just not be the best person to convince you that God does exist because of my lack of knowledge. This does not mean that there won’t be other people that will be able to counter your arguments.” So were you opinions ever valid? You seem to be saying, feel free to correct me, that you have very little idea what you are talking about.
.
Now unless your next post is to defend the points you have already tried to make I will consider it a defeat of you and your ideas. If you understand logic you will know this to be a defeated of all you believe in!
.
Feel free to get the help of those you think will be capable of arguing with me. Go ask you minister if you like.
I will look forward to your reply. If you re-defend your points, proving they are valid, you will have my respect. If you continue to flap about like a bed sheet is a storm you will, as I stated above, be proven wrong yet again. Ether way I will be happy.
@Pluto
I never get angry arguing about this religion topic. And I do learn alot everytime I have a debate on this topic. If you do wish continue this debate invite me on chat jpleroux9706@gmail . This way we might sort out a few differences more quickly. If you do not want to, its fine and you can tell every one that you have defeated religious monster if that will please you, for I still don`t feel defeated.
@Pluto
Merry Christmas.
@Darwin
“There is god Jahwe who sired a demigod with a human virgin female” - That was Jahwe? Are you sure?
@Religious monster
Beating you brings very little satisfaction. You failing to argy your points are disappointing.
If your faith is so important to you expect you to know enough about why you believe to argue them.
And if you know your right you will not be afraid to discuss them here.
If you do wish continue this debate invite me on chat jpleroux9706@gmail .
@Pluto
Feel free to publish anything in private chat debate on this forum, I dont mind.
@Religious Monster
There’s plenty of evidence to support the non existance of god (not the least of which is god’s reluctance to reveal himself in any tangible way - given god is all powerful, immortal and presumably quite fearless). What’s your standard of proof? Balance of probability or beyond a reasonable doubt? And don’t try and explain why god won’t reveal itself - that calls for speculation which is generally inadmissable (even on Judge Judy)