The Flying Spaghetti Monster

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.

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.

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

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah....... I take it back then.

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.