Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Was wondering what people think about this.

Just to play catch up:

This pseudo religion is a critique of religion in the form of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created the universe and spends his time flying above us in the cosmos, presiding over humanity. The key is that it cannot be disproven by sceptics because it is created with the same fundamentals that are the foundations of Christianity. (Or words to this effect - it's late)

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

* = less likely to offend than any heavily satirical 'other.'

I was just getting used to the Earth balancing on a turtle..

With a disc supported by four elephants? Me too.

All hail the great FSM!

All hail the FSM

I've read about this before, I think it's just being really smug. They're atheists I get it.

Originally posted by Kram3r
I've read about this before, I think it's just being really smug. They're atheists I get it.

No, they have a valid point. They just like to present it with humor.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, they have a valid point. They just like to present it with humor.

Did I say they didn't? I agree that intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools and the inital idea of the FSM religion was a valid point to make, fair enough. However, to continue with it, like making the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and saying he plans to "use the proceeds from the sale of the book to build a pirate ship, with which he may travel the world in order to convert heathens to the Pastafarian religion" is being smug and really puts holes in Henderson saying "I don't have a problem with religion." since he went out of his way to write such a thing.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Did I say they didn't? I agree that intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools and the inital idea of the FSM religion was a valid point to make, fair enough. However, to continue with it, like making the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and saying he plans to "use the proceeds from the sale of the book to build a pirate ship, with which he may travel the world in order to convert heathens to the Pastafarian religion" is being smug and really puts holes in Henderson saying "I don't have a problem with religion." since he went out of his way to write such a thing.

I didn't know about the ship.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, they have a valid point. They just like to present it with humor.

Which is?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which is?

That global warming is being caused by the decline in pirates.

You know, it is better if you read the web site and find the answer to that question for your self. Some things don't fit into a sound bite.

I did, and still, what exactly is their "valid" point?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I did, and still, what exactly is their "valid" point?

Ok, this is it in a nut shell. You can take any random events in history or in a book or almost anything, and string them together to support a completely wrong conclusion. This is what religions like Christianity have done. They take the word of a book and ignore the facts in the world around us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, this is it in a nut shell. You can take any random events in history or in a book or almost anything, and string them together to support a completely wrong conclusion. This is what religions like Christianity have done. They take the word of a book and ignore the facts in the world around us.

Pero mira guey; we know that FSM is false and was made up on the spot. A mock joke is all it is. Comparing is to Chirstianity is just uncalled for.

Originally posted by Kram3r
I've read about this before, I think it's just being really smug. They're atheists I get it.

What is this supposed to mean?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Pero mira guey; we know that FSM is false and was made up on the spot. A mock joke is all it is. Comparing is to Chirstianity is just uncalled for.

I think you are too blinded by your own beliefs to see what I'm talking about. That is why it is not something that can be said in a sound bite. What they are doing is putting a mirror in frond of Christianity and other religions and saying "this is what you look like to us". FSM is not a religion, it is a point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What they are doing is putting a mirror in frond of Christianity and other religions and saying "this is what you look like to us".

And how am I supposed to respect that?

Some people don't respect atheists.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And how am I supposed to respect that?

Respect? Respect is not the point. When someone looks at the Grand Cannon and says it was caused by the the great flood, I think about the FSM and laugh at the people. It's all the same...

I don't like the fact people have lost respect, and don't respect Atheism.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I don't like the fact people have lost respect, and don't respect Atheism.

Lost?

What do you mean, my friend?

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
What do you mean, my friend?

Christians have never had respect for atheists. It's only in the last couple hundred years that they have stopped killing them.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Some people don't respect atheists.

I have nothing against Atheists. I have them in mi familia.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Respect? Respect is not the point. When someone looks at the Grand Cannon and says it was caused by the the great flood, I think about the FSM and laugh at the people. It's all the same...

I think you're exaggerating. I don't know a single religous person who denies that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Colorado River.

Comparing a food with eyeballs to God is absurd and an insult.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I have nothing against Atheists. I have them in mi familia.



I think you're exaggerating. I don't know a single religous person who denies that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Colorado River.

Comparing a food with eyeballs to God is absurd and an insult.

There is a group of Christians called Young Earth creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

And if we are going to be sensitive, saying that we did not evolve is absurd and an insult.

I am an Atheist.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I am an Atheist.

Hi, I am a Buddhist.

Nice to meet you.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Stuff

So you can't even appreciate the critique of organised religion here?

Edited for an extra "?" that appeared from where.

Of course atheists have very, very valid points. Religious individuals who do not know how to view multiple world views without feeling intimidated often discriminate against aitheists. But nobody speaks for every other believer of his theology.

What type of atheist are you?

Originally posted by exanda kane
So you can't even appreciate the critique of organised religion here?

Edited for an extra "?" that appeared from where.

I'm against organized religion. I think religion should be personal.

But most critique of religion treats them like they're all the same.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm against organized religion. I think religion should be personal.

But most critique of religion treats them like they're all the same.

That is a fare criticism.

How??

Where's the correlation between Islam and the Navajo religion? None at all.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Of course atheists have very, very valid points. Religious individuals who do not know how to view multiple world views without feeling intimidated often discriminate against aitheists. But nobody speaks for every other believer of his theology.

What type of atheist are you?

This is a very wise; informative individual, if only more were like you.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How??

Where's the correlation between Islam and the Navajo religion? None at all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


Your said it was a "fare" criticism, which I assume is you misspelling fair.

So tell me how is it fair?

Lol..you've gotta love the FSM.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Your said it was a "fare" criticism, which I assume is you misspelling fair.

So tell me how is it fair?

"But most critique of religion treats them like they're all the same." is a fair criticism.

Love your SIG AA.

Thanks, it was made by Alliance. Great sig maker.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Thanks, it was made by Alliance. Great sig maker.

Alliance did mine also.

I can see.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Alliance did mine also.

Did he really? He usually requests his name to be put in the sig, I can't see it in yours.

I request my name, in request SIGS, god he is good.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Did he really? He usually requests his name to be put in the sig, I can't see it in yours.

It's there. Look at the lower right corner. It is a symbol

Hmmmm.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's there. Look at the lower right corner. It is a symbol

Whoa, he masked it pretty well. It took intense concentration to see it.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I request my name, in request SIGS, god he is good.

Yeah, check out his thread Alliance's Sigs. Type that into search. He has a nice collection of sigs, many of them which are much better than mine.

Originally posted by Kram3r
I've read about this before, I think it's just being really smug. They're atheists I get it.

And maybe agnostics who don't neccesarily feel that they subscribe to other peoples interpretations of things, some of them sickened by the things done in the name of human created religions/mass control systems.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Yeah, check out his thread Alliance's Sigs. Type that into search. He has a nice collection of sigs, many of them which are much better than mine.

I shall do, does he still come on KMC?

My freind's daughter has just named her teddy "Flying spaghetti monster" so naturally, I'll be round there with a large armed crowd baying for her to be shot, later.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
My freind's daughter has just named her teddy "Flying spaghetti monster" so naturally, I'll be round there with a large armed crowd baying for her to be shot, later.


She did what?

She didn't really........ But screw it, Im buying a teddy tommorrow and naming it that, though...

The thought of 30,000 atheists, agnostics and various non-related thugs tuning up, wanting to kill me on the promise that they will get 70 virgin care bears in heaven, will be too hard to resist.

Hey I am an Atheist.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Hey I am an Atheist.

We know...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The thought of 30,000 atheists, agnostics and various non-related thugs tuning up, wanting to kill me on the promise that they will get 70 virgin care bears in heaven, will be too hard to resist.

Hmmmmm....

Hey I ain't dissing atheists.

Ok

I would not mind if you did, I find this post funny.

Oh ok.....

Cheers...

No problem.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
What is this supposed to mean?

What that means is, that like a lot of Atheist around this has just turned into another "I'm smarter than you because I don't believe that some guy with a beard is in the clouds controlling our lives.". A lot of them are smug (at least in my experience) merely because they believe in what we can see, hear, touch, etc, and they can't be wrong that exists because it's reality. Atheism can be just as judgemental and intolerant as Christianity (or any other religion). My point is, essentially, let bygones be bygones.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I don't like the fact people have lost respect, and don't respect Atheism. Where did this come from?

Religious people don't not respect Athiests any more then Athiests disrespect religious people The reason they were salguhtered bu the thousands is because religious people were and have generally always been in power. If it was the other way around the result would probably be the same, ala Stalin.

Originally posted by Kram3r
What that means is, that like a lot of Atheist around this has just turned into another "I'm smarter than you because I don't believe that some guy with a beard is in the clouds controlling our lives.". A lot of them are smug (at least in my experience) merely because they believe in what we can see, hear, touch, etc, and they can't be wrong that exists because it's reality. Atheism can be just as judgemental and intolerant as Christianity (or any other religion). My point is, essentially, let bygones be bygones.

Its not the ISM but its practioners.
Atheism merely is merely a concept that doesnt believe in god.
It makes no personal judgements. (Unlike Christianity, which im not singling out, but merely replying to your given example. )

I hear you, Blax. Non-believers of the ruler's religious denomination have always have the political shit end of the stick.

Gotta root for the underdog.

It's probably inevitable the the FSM thread would turn into this.

The site is by atheists, sure. But literally everything on the planet is mocked and/or made fun of by someone. It's just that people are far touchier about religion than most other subjects. If atheism wanted to be more biting and offensive, they'd find a way. But the FSM? That's just good fun.

I saw a web comic that attacked Richard Dawkins and his methods, and didn't get upset (despite agreeing with him on most things). And I even laughed. So why get upset about this? I'd imagine it comes either from a need to be combative if you disagree with their opinions, or it's just that you aren't secure enough in your beliefs. To a truly religiously secure person, anything going on around him in the world is like water off a duck's back....and things only become confrontational and challenging if you let them.

...

In the meantime, I have to go pray, for He has touched me with His noodly appendage.

31

Originally posted by Quark_666
Of course atheists have very, very valid points. Religious individuals who do not know how to view multiple world views without feeling intimidated often discriminate against aitheists. But nobody speaks for every other believer of his theology.

What type of atheist are you?

Cosign the first part. It's a shorter version of what I said above.

And there's types?!

Nobody cares about your exceptionally large penis, Digi. Stop gloating you filthy pathetic aethiest big penis!

Yeah. I went there super13

Never found it funny.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Nobody cares about your exceptionally large penis, Digi. Stop gloating you filthy pathetic aethiest big penis!

Yeah. I went there super13


...the hell?

lawlz? maybe.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Its not the ISM but its practioners.
Atheism merely is merely a concept that doesnt believe in god.
It makes no personal judgements. (Unlike Christianity, which im not singling out, but merely replying to your given example. )

You make a fair and correct comment. However those kind of people do give Atheism a bad face in their apporach. Just like those preists who molest children.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Pero mira guey; we know that FSM is false and was made up on the spot. A mock joke is all it is. Comparing is to Chirstianity is just uncalled for.

blasphemy! i will pray to the FSM for your forgiveness and salvation.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Pero mira guey; we know that FSM is false and was made up on the spot. A mock joke is all it is. Comparing is to Chirstianity is just uncalled for.

What? The FSM is as real as God himself..... get it?

Not really no.

Originally posted by Kram3r
What that means is, that like a lot of Atheist around this has just turned into another "I'm smarter than you because I don't believe that some guy with a beard is in the clouds controlling our lives.". A lot of them are smug (at least in my experience) merely because they believe in what we can see, hear, touch, etc, and they can't be wrong that exists because it's reality. Atheism can be just as judgemental and intolerant as Christianity (or any other religion). My point is, essentially, let bygones be bygones. Well, I believe there are things one can't and shouldn't tolerate. Murder, mind pollution, trauma. Those are things I don't and won't tolerate.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Not really no.

Come on, ain't that complex.

Yeah I do.

Spegetti Monster.......Mmmm Yummy!

eat

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, I believe there are things one can't and shouldn't tolerate. Murder, mind pollution, trauma. Those are things I don't and won't tolerate.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? You're blatantly slamming your fist down on Christianity and this topic, nor what I ever said in this thread, has NOTHING to do with what you said. If you want to talk about the cons of Christianity do it in one of the more suited threads.

Originally posted by Boris
What? The FSM is as real as God himself..... get it?

In your opinion.

It's pretty funny and that. I don't think it really matters about it being smug, a lot of humour's smug and that's what this is, it's humour with a message.

It's trying to show Christians how intelligent people see God, as total and utter bollox.

Originally posted by Boris
It's trying to show Christians how intelligent people see God, as total and utter bollox.

No it isn't, it's trying to show that intelligent design has no place in education, besides in religious education. Do try and actually read the page.

Originally posted by Boris
It's trying to show Christians how intelligent people see God, as total and utter bollox.

Lol, what a stupid statement.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No it isn't, it's trying to show that intelligent design has no place in education, besides in religious education. Do try and actually read the page.

I'm glad someone gets it.

i dont pray to the flying spaghetti monster


i pray to Chuck Norris.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Lol, what a stupid statement.


Yeah, because obviously it's impossible for a Christian to be intelligent.

Originally posted by Kram3r
What that means is, that like a lot of Atheist around this has just turned into another "I'm smarter than you because I don't believe that some guy with a beard is in the clouds controlling our lives.". A lot of them are smug (at least in my experience) merely because they believe in what we can see, hear, touch, etc, and they can't be wrong that exists because it's reality. Atheism can be just as judgemental and intolerant as Christianity (or any other religion). My point is, essentially, let bygones be bygones.



A book that every Atheist should read is What's So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D'Souza.

Why what is it about?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota


A book that every Atheist should read is What's So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D'Souza.

I have not read his book, but I saw an interview with him. His arguments, in the interview, were stupid. They were based on incorrect assumptions.

Why what is it about?

ZOMG whoever thought of Flying Spaghetti Monster must have been so creative and must have had ALL the wisdom of Solomon, like, times 1000000000000.

Retarded. Flying Spaghetti Monster parallel is retarded. Like its creator.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
ZOMG whoever thought of Flying Spaghetti Monster must have been so creative and must have had ALL the wisdom of Solomon, like, times 1000000000000.

Retarded. Flying Spaghetti Monster parallel is retarded. Like its creator. What? Why? And how?

???

Originally posted by Quiero Mota


A book that every Atheist should read is What's So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D'Souza.



A book that every Christian should read is Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


A book that every Christian should read is Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell.

I've read that, I've read Why I Am Not A Muslim by Ibn Waraq, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and I've read God is Not Great by Christopher Hutchins.

And I was being serious, read What's So Great About Christianity. It's only about 15 bucks at Barnes&Noble.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Why what is it about?

He agrues in favor of design without quoting any scripture which means nothing to a secular. Excellent book.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I've read that, I've read Why I Am Not A Muslim by Ibn Waraq, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and I've read God is Not Great by Christopher Hutchins.

And I was being serious, read What's So Great About Christianity. It's only about 15 bucks at Barnes&Noble.



He agrues in favor of design without quoting any scripture which means nothing to a secular. Excellent book. Bertrand Russel is one of the greatest thinkers of the last century though.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He agrues in favor of design without quoting any scripture which means nothing to a secular. Excellent book.

Review of What's So Great About Christianity" William Faris

Originally posted by Quiero Mota


A book that every Atheist should read is What's So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D'Souza.

So you quote a nasty little generalization about atheists (which is almost entirely false), give it thumbs up like it's entirely correct, then give us a book to read?

Sweet argument.



And try not being so hateful toward others. It works wonders.

...

Also, I found this quote from the above review to be a nice microcosm of his case for Christianity:
What is amazing, then, is that his arguments for Christianity in Chapter 25 consist almost exclusively of straightforward assertions of Christian doctrine. Almost nothing he says would be persuasive to someone with a different religious view.

The arguments Dinesh uses are nothing new to the argment for theism, and they are delivered by him with obviously less aplomb than more accomplished apologists.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So you quote a nasty little generalization about atheists (which is almost entirely false), give it thumbs up like it's entirely correct, then give us a book to read?

Sweet argument.



And try not being so hateful toward others. It works wonders. ...he is entirely right though. There are a lot of atheists that think they are intelligent just because they don't believe in God, which is just not a determining factor.

I know I posted a lot of xOmniverse's videos lately, but what can I do, the guy just speaks the truth:

CSV7vAsfn5A

Originally posted by Bardock42
...he is entirely right though. There are a lot of atheists that think they are intelligent just because they don't believe in God, which is just not a determining factor.

Fair enough, but there's hateful and condescending Christians too, or people of any faith. To relate one with the other is a false generalization.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough, but there's hateful and condescending Christians too, or people of any faith. To relate one with the other is a false generalization.

Not really. He didn't say there aren't Christians of that sort. In fact he implied it is less so with Atheists, but it has to be said that 90% of Atheists are still dumb ****s. Not believing in God doesn't make you a better person suddenly. Christians get a huge amount of shit, and most justified, but you have to see that Atheists aren't better for the most part. They are just as stupid and have just as stupid ideals just not in regard of one tiny thing...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. He didn't say there aren't Christians of that sort. In fact he implied it is less so with Atheists, but it has to be said that 90% of Atheists are still dumb ****s. Not believing in God doesn't make you a better person suddenly. Christians get a huge amount of shit, and most justified, but you have to see that Atheists aren't better for the most part. They are just as stupid and have just as stupid ideals just not in regard of one tiny thing...


I agree.

Some athiests tend to imagine they are smarter because they don't fall into what they beleive to be a "fairy tale". Although Belief and Knowledge are two different things, that does not mean a lack of beleif=knowledge.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I agree.


Probably means I am wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. He didn't say there aren't Christians of that sort. In fact he implied it is less so with Atheists, but it has to be said that 90% of Atheists are still dumb ****s. Not believing in God doesn't make you a better person suddenly. Christians get a huge amount of shit, and most justified, but you have to see that Atheists aren't better for the most part. They are just as stupid and have just as stupid ideals just not in regard of one tiny thing...

In other words....Atheist are as humans as any other Religious believer and can be right and wrong at times.

We can all live with that idea.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
In other words....Atheist are as humans as any other Religious believer and can be right and wrong at times.

We can all live with that idea. Yeah, they are right about God of course. But that doesn't make them super smart suddenly.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Review of What's So Great About Christianity" William Faris



Or you can read it for yourself. I try to avoid critics.

I mean since you're an Atheist, don't you like to..."think for yourself"??

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So you quote a nasty little generalization about atheists (which is almost entirely false), give it thumbs up like it's entirely correct, then give us a book to read?

Sweet argument.



And try not being so hateful toward others. It works wonders.

...

Also, I found this quote from the above review to be a nice microcosm of his case for Christianity:
What is amazing, then, is that his arguments for Christianity in Chapter 25 consist almost exclusively of straightforward assertions of Christian doctrine. Almost nothing he says would be persuasive to someone with a different religious view.


The arguments Dinesh uses are nothing new to the argment for theism, and they are delivered by him with obviously less aplomb than more accomplished apologists.

It isn't entirely false though, que no? Most Atheists think they are intellectually superior than religious people because they don't believe in some "fairytale".

I don't want Atheists to read What's So Great About Christianity? because I'm trying to convert them, I want them to read it to hear the side of the argument from an intelligent, non-homophobic Christian who argues for creation, why Christianity is the only valid religion, and that Christianity is indeed compatible (not obsolete) in today's world all without quoting the Bible or using it as the crutch for his argument.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I shall do, does he still come on KMC?

Yup.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. He didn't say there aren't Christians of that sort. In fact he implied it is less so with Atheists, but it has to be said that 90% of Atheists are still dumb ****s. Not believing in God doesn't make you a better person suddenly. Christians get a huge amount of shit, and most justified, but you have to see that Atheists aren't better for the most part. They are just as stupid and have just as stupid ideals just not in regard of one tiny thing...

But the generalization is still obvious when you're asserting that "90% of Atheists are still dumb ****s." I'd imagine that's a gross overestimation. Most atheists I know are generally pretty rational and humble. But I also realize that my particular experience is far from empirical, but so is anyone's experience with a religious sect.

Something along the liens of what WD said I can agree with:

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
In other words....Atheist are as humans as any other Religious believer and can be right and wrong at times.

We can all live with that idea.



Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Or you can read it for yourself. I try to avoid critics.

I mean since you're an Atheist, don't you like to..."think for yourself"??

...the hell? This rather pithy comeback does nothing to refute the arguments within the article. And all people think for themselves...but if you read something that you agree with, it's certainly not invalid to quote it or post it as evidence or as part of an argument.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It isn't entirely false though, que no? Most Atheists think they are intellectually superior than religious people because they don't believe in some "fairytale".

I don't want Atheists to read What's So Great About Christianity? because I'm trying to convert them, I want them to read it to hear the side of the argument from an intelligent, non-homophobic Christian who argues for creation, why Christianity is the only valid religion, and that Christianity is indeed compatible (not obsolete) in today's world all without quoting the Bible or using it as the crutch for his argument.

See, I'd love to know what you're basing your assumption on, because my guess is that it's nothing more than an intuitive idea that "most atheists are smug" that seems to be in agreement with whatever you survey. There's no rational backing for this assumption, and it's kind of just like "Well, it seems that way, doesn't it??" No, quite frankly, it doesn't.

And you're also assuming that atheists aren't familiar with arguments for theism, as if they've studied atheism and not its refutations. Some aren't, but an equal percentage of Christians are unaware of the best refutations to your beliefs, so all you're doing is once again producing a generalization that could be just as true of anyone, and has nothing to do with atheism.

All the while you've been accusing atheists of some intellectual narcicism, you've been on a pedestal telling us what we should know (and what we don't know, and how we act and think, and....you get the idea).

It's really insulting.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But the generalization is still obvious when you're asserting that "90% of Atheists are still dumb ****s." I'd imagine that's a gross overestimation. Most atheists I know are generally pretty rational and humble. But I also realize that my particular experience is far from empirical, but so is anyone's experience with a religious sect.


Of course, but it gets generalized both ways. And I think, seeing as 95% of all people are dumb ****s, my estimates are moderate.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

...the hell? This rather pithy comeback does nothing to refute the arguments within the article. And all people think for themselves...but if you read something that you agree with, it's certainly not invalid to quote it or post it as evidence or as part of an argument.


How can he "agree" with the review if he's never actually read the book himself. You can't critique a movie or book you've never seen or read. Read the book, and then your opinion is valid.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
See, I'd love to know what you're basing your assumption on, because my guess is that it's nothing more than an intuitive idea that "most atheists are smug" that seems to be in agreement with whatever you survey. There's no rational backing for this assumption, and it's kind of just like "Well, it seems that way, doesn't it??" No, quite frankly, it doesn't.

And you're also assuming that atheists aren't familiar with arguments for theism, as if they've studied atheism and not its refutations. Some aren't, but an equal percentage of Christians are unaware of the best refutations to your beliefs, so all you're doing is once again producing a generalization that could be just as true of anyone, and has nothing to do with atheism.

All the while you've been accusing atheists of some intellectual narcicism, you've been on a pedestal telling us what we should know (and what we don't know, and how we act and think, and....you get the idea).

It's really insulting.

I've known and spoken with many Athiests in my years, boy. The guy in the video Bardock posted describes most (over 50%) of them very accurately. "I don't believe in what my 5 senses can't detect, so that means I'm automatically smarter than everyone who believes in God" is the outlook and attitude of most Atheists.

The arguments Atheists are familiar with are the same old, boring, circular, Bible quoting arguments from people like JIA who don't get anywhere or have a logical approach. This book has an entirely different approach and you've probably never heard his arguments before.

When you get a chance, just take a trip to your nearest Barnes & Noble or Hastings and get it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How can he "agree" with the review if he's never actually read the book himself. You can't critique a movie or book you've never seen or read. Read the book, and then your opinion is valid.

Actually, I went back and checked his original post. Other than a smilie, he niether endorsed it nor refuted it, and Adam's other argument do indeed "think for himself". So he was posting a review for the sake of posting it. It was relevant to the discussion....and then you bashed him for it. Cool beans.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I've known and spoken with many Athiests in my years, boy. The guy in the video Bardock posted describes most (over 50%) of them very accurately. "I don't believe in what my 5 senses can't detect, so that means I'm automatically smarter than everyone who believes in God" is the outlook and attitude of most Atheists.

Case studies as empirical meta-analysis? Check.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The arguments Atheists are familiar with are the same old, boring, circular, Bible quoting arguments from people like JIA who don't get anywhere or have a logical approach. This book has an entirely different approach and you've probably never heard his arguments before.

Once again telling me what I do and don't know, as well as unfathomably large groups of people you've never talked to or analyzed properly? Check.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
When you get a chance, just take a trip to your nearest Barnes & Noble or Hastings and get it.

Demanding, declarative statements in a public forum? Check.


...

Dude, listen to yourself. The gist of my entire presence here has been "be a little less intolerant of different groups, and quit generalizing" and this is your response to me. If this conversation were a case study that someone was basing their own generalizations from, they'd determine the exact opposite of what you're asserting.

We shouldn't allow the arrogance and pompous attitude of certain atheist and religious people cloud and make their side look bad.

Let's all agree that anyone who thinks that they're right all the time might actually be wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Probably means I am wrong.


lolz

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth


I hear you, Blax. Non-believers of the ruler's religious denomination have always have the political shit end of the stick.

Gotta root for the underdog.

fa'sho. But my point was that if the tables were turned, and Atheists were and have always been in power, I have no doubt that it would be religious people getting slaughtered for years.

As such I find it ridiculous to say something like "It's not fair that Atheists get disrespected by religious people". That's actually a very ignorant point of view.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
fa'sho. But my point was that if the tables were turned, and Atheists were and have always been in power, I have no doubt that it would be religious people getting slaughtered for years.

As such I find it ridiculous to say something like "It's not fair that Atheists get disrespected by religious people". That's actually a very ignorant point of view.

Are you saying that religions have the right to "step on" atheists because if the tables were turned, the atheists would be doing the same to the religious people?

...yet more bigoted assumptions, if shakya's analysis is correct. I hope it isn't.

And I find it hard to believe that you have "no doubt" that atheists would be, I dunno, oppressive totalitarian rulers that slaughtered theists. In general, I find it hard to believe that atheists would be more violent at all, because death is a final end to them, so killing (which would also endanger themselves in the form of counter-attack) would not be to their benefit at all. Many theists have a concept of afterlife that justifies all sorts of hatred and violence for the sake of faith...and makes them less reverent of the life we have because they're so focused on the next life.

I do agree with you Digimark, but at the same time just because an Athiest doesn't beleive in life after death, doesn't automatically mean they value life any more than a religious person does or doesn't.


Look at China. Athiest Oasis..right ?


Despite thier, not only lack of religion, but complete intolerance of it, they still treat life and human rights like a joke.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you saying that religions have the right to "step on" atheists because if the tables were turned, the atheists would be doing the same to the religious people?

No, not at all.

My point was simply that no matter who is on top, they're always going to sh*t on the little guy. It's a human impulse, to dislike and fear things that are different. History has proven this to be true time and time again. And Digi I have to disagree with you. Religious extremists don't find it okay to kill because there's an afterlife at all. They think it''s because god tells them to. This is, of course, wrong. However if Atheists were on top there would just be a different reason to slaughter innocents. Look at Stalin's regime and SoD's example with China. Hate and prejudice will always be around.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I do agree with you Digimark, but at the same time just because an Athiest doesn't beleive in life after death, doesn't automatically mean they value life any more than a religious person does or doesn't.


Look at China. Athiest Oasis..right ?


Despite thier, not only lack of religion, but complete intolerance of it, they still treat life and human rights like a joke.

I didn't mean to say they value life more. But I would think they value not dying more because they aren't going anywhere. I could guarantee, for example, that we'd never see a suicide bomber again if the world were atheistic.

And citing atheist regimes or governments is dangerous, because it assumes that the defining characteristic of the culture or government is atheism....there's a lot more to it than that. Atheism isn't inherently intolerant, just as no religion is unless it is applied to that end.

It's patently false to say "Stalin was atheist. All atheists governments would be similar." Surely you see the ridiculousness of that argument, no? That's not atheism. That's intolerance. To equate it with the religious practice is an incorrect correlation. I could cite religious intolerance from religious people as well, and I would be no more correct than you.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I didn't mean to say they value life more. But I would think they value not dying more because they aren't going anywhere. I could guarantee, for example, that we'd never see a suicide bomber again if the world were atheistic.


I'm not sure if the Oklahoma Bombing was a suicide attack, but I doubt that global Atheism would stop a maniac from sacraficing him or herself to destroy another person or people.

People are suicidal regardless of thier religion or lack there of. In fact, we have very high suicide rates among teens and young adults here in the U.S. I'm sure many of them are Athiest.


A person who is that dissatisifed with life is not going to think "where will I end up" before killing himself. Especially if they hold that much resentment as to kill people.

Recent School shootings ? Hello !



I think your over confident in your guarantee.






Originally posted by DigiMark007
And citing atheist regimes or governments is dangerous, because it assumes that the defining characteristic of the culture or government is atheism....there's a lot more to it than that. Atheism isn't inherently intolerant, just as no religion is unless it is applied to that end.


OFcourse there is more to it than just Atheism, that goes without saying.

However, my point was Atheism does not guarantee a higher value to life. People value or disvalue life for different reasons, and I think you prove my point for me by reminding me that there are so many other reasons-culture, economics, politics, etc.-besides theism and atheism- that people would disvalue or value life to any degree.







Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's patently false to say "Stalin was atheist. All atheists governments would be similar." Surely you see the ridiculousness of that argument, no? That's not atheism. That's intolerance. To equate it with the religious practice is an incorrect correlation. I could cite religious intolerance from religious people as well, and I would be no more correct than you.



I did not claim that Atheists would be tyrants any more than religious rulers would be. I think there is far more to a tyrant than whether he or she is an Atheist or Theist.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
No, not at all.

My point was simply that no matter who is on top, they're always going to sh*t on the little guy. It's a human impulse, to dislike and fear things that are different. History has proven this to be true time and time again. And Digi I have to disagree with you. Religious extremists don't find it okay to kill because there's an afterlife at all. They think it''s because god tells them to. This is, of course, wrong. However if Atheists were on top there would just be a different reason to slaughter innocents. Look at Stalin's regime and SoD's example with China. Hate and prejudice will always be around.

Human is the common denominator. It dose not matter what people believe, for power corrupts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bertrand Russel is one of the greatest thinkers of the last century though.

, i thought every 1 hated bertrand russel on these forums!! lol. join the club, hes me favourite philosopher/thinker

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Human is the common denominator. It dose not matter what people believe, for power corrupts.

And that.. was my entire point. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my posts.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I'm not sure if the Oklahoma Bombing was a suicide attack, but I doubt that global Atheism would stop a maniac from sacraficing him or herself to destroy another person or people.

People are suicidal regardless of thier religion or lack there of. In fact, we have very high suicide rates among teens and young adults here in the U.S. I'm sure many of them are Athiest.


A person who is that dissatisifed with life is not going to think "where will I end up" before killing himself. Especially if they hold that much resentment as to kill people.

Recent School shootings ? Hello !

That again has nothing to do with atheism, and involves wildly differing influences unrelated to religious belief.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I think your over confident in your guarantee.

Not at all. I said suicide bombers, not suicides. The former is an all-too-common practice stemming from religious belief. The latter is more a psychological issue than anything. Once in every few billion people, sure, you'd be right. But I feel like my guarantee holds up pretty well.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
OFcourse there is more to it than just Atheism, that goes without saying.

However, my point was Atheism does not guarantee a higher value to life. People value or disvalue life for different reasons, and I think you prove my point for me by reminding me that there are so many other reasons-culture, economics, politics, etc.-besides theism and atheism- that people would disvalue or value life to any degree.

I never asserted that it would guarantee a higher value of life, just that the landscape would change, and my own opinion is that yes, it wold improve. Of course it wouldn't be a utopian state of living...life is far too complex for that ever to happen. But my own sentiment is that life would improve. The good that religion does wouldn't go away, because the good is in the people not the institution. And the irrationality that comes with religious faith would be gone as well, which is cause to everything from minor logical fallacies in otherwise well-intentioned people, all the way to the aforementioned bombings and atrocities.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Actually, I went back and checked his original post. Other than a smilie, he niether endorsed it nor refuted it, and Adam's other argument do indeed "think for himself". So he was posting a review for the sake of posting it. It was relevant to the discussion....and then you bashed him for it. Cool beans.



Case studies as empirical meta-analysis? Check.



Once again telling me what I do and don't know, as well as unfathomably large groups of people you've never talked to or analyzed properly? Check.



Demanding, declarative statements in a public forum? Check.


...

Dude, listen to yourself. The gist of my entire presence here has been "be a little less intolerant of different groups, and quit generalizing" and this is your response to me. If this conversation were a case study that someone was basing their own generalizations from, they'd determine the exact opposite of what you're asserting.

I'm not talking about you personally. I'm describing your average Atheist. I've known enough to know what I'm talking about. And I'm not intolerant of Atheists, I have nothing against them; I have several in my family but that doesn't mean I love them any less just because they're wandering through life without believing it has a purpose.

---

Digi, honestly, what pro-theist argumens have you heard aside from the endless Bible quoting?

Also, do you believe that you are some how smarter or otherwise have a more balanced mind than I do just because I believe in God and you don't? (serious question, you can be honest. It won't hurt my feelings)

Urizen, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building was not a suicide attack.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not talking about you personally. I'm describing your average Atheist. I've known enough to know what I'm talking about. And I'm not intolerant of Atheists, I have nothing against them; I have several in my family but that doesn't mean I love them any less just because they're wandering through life without believing it has a purpose.

"Describing your average atheist" is the generalizing I'm talking about, whether you want to admit it or not. Would you prefer if I talked about "your average Christian" and labeled them with all kinds of negative monikers, content that as long as I didn't specify a person I wouldn't be insulting anyone?

It's unjustified bigotry. Saying "I like the atheists I know" doesn't change that. If you befriend black people, but speak ill of their cultural tendencies as if their color has anything to do with it, it makes you racist. This is the same thing, but it's not one that is challenged as much as racism because atheism is a heavy minority to theism, which is so ingrained in the cultural consciousness that most people assume some sort of theistic belief in people.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Digi, honestly, what pro-theist argumens have you heard aside from the endless Bible quoting?

Most of them. The argument from design (ID); the cosmological argument (universe needing a cause); the ontological argument (arguing for a state of perfection); the anthropic principle (finely tuned universe able to create life = creator); paranormal phenomenon suggesting something beyond materiality (which includes everything from out of body and near death experiences, to psychic and telekinetic phenomenon, to consciousness as a means to spirituality, etc.).

I'm probably missing a few, but those are the first that popped to mind....and none of them have anything to do with the Bible.

I'm pretty sure you don't intend this as an insult, which makes it all the more tragic, because it's both naive and intellectually condescending to simply assume I (or any atheist) isn't aware of the arguments both for and against their world view.

Further, many atheists had to leave a theistic viewpoint to get to where they are, so they're fully aware of what it feels like to be theistic as well as arguments for theism.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Also, do you believe that you are some how smarter or otherwise have a more balanced mind than I do just because I believe in God and you don't? (serious question, you can be honest. It won't hurt my feelings)

No.

Some of the smartest people I know are theists. Granted, I know many more theists than atheists, so the numbers will naturally swing that way. But as with any belief or characteristic, intelligence is not related to religious belief. They are separate entities. If an atheist is smart (or dumb) it's not because they're an atheist....it's because they're smart or dumb.

Chances are you won't believe that, since you've stated your opinion that atheists are like this multiple times. But I have no idea what I've said that would lead you think something like that.

...

So do I think I'm smarter than you? Yeah, probably. But's it's not because of our beliefs, but because that's the impression I get from talking to you, if this is the sort of dangerously biased thinking that you stubbornly insist on maintaining.

Well, I've already missed the bulk of the conversation, but I'd just like to put in my two cents:

There's nothing wrong with critiquing a religion. There are plenty of faux religions out there now. Hell, is Pastafarianism any less valid than Scientology?

There's this saying that I like to whip out every once in a while: anyone who is offended by anything is probably an idiot.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, I've already missed the bulk of the conversation, but I'd just like to put in my two cents:

There's nothing wrong with critiquing a religion. There are plenty of faux religions out there now. Hell, is Pastafarianism any less valid than Scientology?

There's this saying that I like to whip out every once in a while: anyone who is offended by anything is probably an idiot. You are a stupid, arrogant idiot who likes to think he is educated and smart, but really just talks in empty phrases, supporting his bullshit ideas he probably got from a friend, teacher or parent in the first place.

lol at bardock's harshness....probably too much so, but meh. But Mota's problem isn't critiquing a religion, which is fine. He's critiquing large groups of people (and without valid evidence), which is a different beast entirely.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are a stupid, arrogant idiot who likes to think he is educated and smart, but really just talks in empty phrases, supporting his bullshit ideas he probably got from a friend, teacher or parent in the first place. Ummmm....wow. What the hell crawled up your ass and died?

I have my own opinions, fcko

Originally posted by Strangelove
Ummmm....wow. What the hell crawled up your ass and died?

I have my own opinions, fcko Yeah....... I take it back then.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah....... I take it back then. you silly person you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, they have a valid point. They just like to present it with humor.

Not really, who is actually stating that a Spaghetti Monster exists? Noone!

Who is saying God exists? About 5 billion people.

There is no evidence to claim that a FSM exists, therefore we must assume it doesn't exist...

Theists would suggest there is evidence for God's existence i.e. revelation, religious experience etc...

Who claims to have seen the teapot going around Mars? No-one. Sure we can't dis-prove it but we can reject the idea because noone has ever presented any evidence to suggest that there is one...its an argument of probability.

Existence of God cant be proved or disproved, but people don't believe in God because he can't be disproved, rather because he has proved himself to them via religious experience or revelation.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Not really, who is actually stating that a Spaghetti Monster exists? Noone!

Who is saying God exists? About 5 billion people.

There is no evidence to claim that a FSM exists, therefore we must assume it doesn't exist...

Theists would suggest there is evidence for God's existence i.e. revelation, religious experience etc...

Who claims to have seen the teapot going around Mars? No-one. Sure we can't dis-prove it but we can reject the idea because noone has ever presented any evidence to suggest that there is one...its an argument of probability.

Existence of God cant be proved or disproved, but people don't believe in God because he can't be disproved, rather because he has proved himself to them via religious experience or revelation.

That wasn't my point. Of course there is not real FSM. But there are a lot of people, and some of them are Christians, who put 2 and 7 together and get 5. They take unrelated events and mold them together to get the answer that they want. FSM is an example, mocking those people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That wasn't my point. Of course there is not real FSM. But there are a lot of people, and some of them are Christians, who put 2 and 7 together and get 5. They take unrelated events and mold them together to get the answer that they want. FSM is an example, mocking those people.

No, its an argument regurgitated time and time again by people such as Richard Dawkins to counter the argument "You cant disprove God."

Common conversation:
"God can't be proved"
"He can't be disproved"
"Neither can the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

However the argument is a false allegory.
No the FSM or the Tooth Fairy or the Invisible Jelly Man living in my TV can't be disproved but no one is actually contesting their non-existence or providing any evidence to support the view that they are in fact real...this isn't the case with God, people do put forward evidence for his existence.

I mean, you can't prove or disprove reincarnation but I'm sure you believe there is some evidence to suggest it is true.

(I never said you did say the FSM existed, I'm pointing out the fallacy of the "You can't disprove *invented being* argument)

I was touched by his noodly appendage... of course he exists.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I was touched by his noodly appendage... of course he exists.

have you ever considered joining the church of chuck norris? many of his beliefs agree with the flying spaghetti monster. they live in harmony and chuck never usually has to roundhouse kick some sense into the FSP.

im telling you people one day chuck will reveal himself as the religious messiah. until then, i will follow the church of chuck norris

number of people is not reason to think that an ideology is true. the parallel between the spaghetti monster remains because the conditions for evidence or proof have not been satisfied. infact the claims of the spaghetti monster are consistant while those of most theists are not. hence making the spaghetti monster even more likely in its entirety.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No, its an argument regurgitated time and time again by people such as Richard Dawkins to counter the argument "You cant disprove God."

Common conversation:
"God can't be proved"
"He can't be disproved"
"Neither can the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

However the argument is a false allegory.
No the FSM or the Tooth Fairy or the Invisible Jelly Man living in my TV can't be disproved but no one is actually contesting their non-existence or providing any evidence to support the view that they are in fact real...this isn't the case with God, people do put forward evidence for his existence.

I mean, you can't prove or disprove reincarnation but I'm sure you believe there is some evidence to suggest it is true.

(I never said you did say the FSM existed, I'm pointing out the fallacy of the "You can't disprove *invented being* argument)

Betrand Russell popularized this argument. He posited a teapot in orbit around Mars, and defied anyone to prove to him that it did not exist there. So it isn't just for personified gods, but literally anything that is unreasonable can't strictly be "proven." The term "teapot agnostics" refers to those who are atheist but bother to make the small Russell-ian concessions that, yes, it can't technically be proven.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Betrand Russell popularized this argument. He posited a teapot in orbit around Mars, and defied anyone to prove to him that it did not exist there. So it isn't just for personified gods, but literally anything that is unreasonable can't strictly be "proven." The term "teapot agnostics" refers to those who are atheist but bother to make the small Russell-ian concessions that, yes, it can't technically be proven.

I am aware of the argument.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not talking about you personally. I'm describing your average Atheist. I've known enough to know what I'm talking about. And I'm not intolerant of Atheists, I have nothing against them; I have several in my family but that doesn't mean I love them any less just because they're wandering through life without believing it has a purpose.

---

Digi, honestly, what pro-theist argumens have you heard aside from the endless Bible quoting?

Also, do you believe that you are some how smarter or otherwise have a more balanced mind than I do just because I believe in God and you don't? (serious question, you can be honest. It won't hurt my feelings)

It may not always be the best thing to assume that the existence of a god or gods lends purpose to one's life.

atheism is the LACK of faith in god. that is it. no1 does ANYTHING based on ATHEISTIC reasons or inclinations{other than leave a theistic relegion}. whatever atheist do, is because of their own personal motivation factors which exist SIDE BY SIDE with them being an atheist. atheism doesnt tell any1 to do anything. hence its those individual desires that are to blame for the good or bad that an atheist might do. NOT the atheist part of their personality. atheism has no rule book or scripture.

however, ofcourse there will be a corellation between atheism and sum things like materialism, just like there might be a corellation between being christian and living in southern america{if we consider just america here}. it isnt that CHRISTIANITY tells u to do so, it just happens due to complex interactive factors in the world.

I think those who created FSM are losers with no lives.

Useless waste products who could be using thier time and creativity more efficiently. We all know religion is bullshit, we figure it out by the time we're five.


Apparently they're just figuring it out and they feel the need to write very bad satire to appear edgy. Oooooh, like a thousand other people havn't made fun of religion before you, and probably better.


Now getback to flipping burgers mr. renegade athiest.