PDA

View Full Version : Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster



wilberhum
12-05-2007, 11:33 PM
(AP) -- When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in San Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll be talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises serious questions about the essence of religion.

The appearance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the agenda of the American Academy of Religion's annual meeting gives a kind of scholarly imprimatur to a phenomenon that first emerged in 2005, during the debate in Kansas over whether intelligent design should be taught in public school sciences classes.

Supporters of intelligent design hold that the order and complexity of the universe is so great that science alone cannot explain it. The concept's critics see it as faith masquerading as science.

An Oregon State physics graduate named Bobby Henderson stepped into the debate by sending a letter to the Kansas School Board. With tongue in cheek, he purported to speak for 10 million followers of a being called the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- and demanded equal time for their views.

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it," Henderson wrote. As for scientific evidence to the contrary, "what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

The letter made the rounds on the Internet, prompting laughter from some and vilification from others. But it struck a chord and stuck around. In the great tradition of satire, its humor was in fact a clever and effective argument.

Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," Henderson sarcastically concluded.

Kansas eventually repealed guidelines questioning the theory of evolution.

Meanwhile, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM-ism to its "adherents") has thrived -- particularly on college campuses and in Europe. Henderson's Web site has become a kind of cyber-watercooler for opponents of intelligent design.

Henderson did not respond to a request for comment. His Web site tracks meetings of FSM clubs (members dress up as pirates) and sells trinkets and bumper stickers. "Pastafarians" -- as followers call themselves -- can also download computer screen-savers and wallpaper (one says: "WWFSMD?") and can sample photographs that show "visions" of the divinity himself. In one, the image of the carbohydrate creator is seen in a gnarl of dug-up tree roots.

It was the emergence of this community that attracted the attention of three young scholars at the University of Florida who study religion in popular culture. They got to talking, and eventually managed to get a panel on FSM-ism on the agenda at one of the field's most prestigious gatherings.

The title: "Evolutionary Controversy and a Side of Pasta: The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Subversive Function of Religious Parody."

"For a lot of people they're just sort of fun responses to religion, or fun responses to organized religion. But I think it raises real questions about how people approach religion in their lives," said Samuel Snyder, one of the three Florida graduate students who will give talks at the meeting next Monday along with Alyssa Beall of Syracuse University.

The presenters' titles seem almost a parody themselves of academic jargon. Snyder will speak about "Holy Pasta and Authentic Sauce: The Flying Spaghetti Monster's Messy Implications for Theorizing Religion," while Gavin Van Horn's presentation is titled "Noodling around with Religion: Carnival Play, Monstrous Humor, and the Noodly Master."

Using a framework developed by literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin, Van Horn promises in his abstract to explore how, "in a carnivalesque fashion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster elevates the low (the bodily, the material, the inorganic) to bring down the high (the sacred, the religiously dogmatic, the culturally authoritative)."

The authors recognize the topic is a little light by the standards of the American Academy of Religion.

"You have to keep a sense of humor when you're studying religion, especially in graduate school," Van Horn said in a recent telephone interview. "Otherwise you'll sink into depression pretty quickly."

But they also insist it's more than a joke.

Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?

In short, is an anti-religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism actually a religion?

Joining them on the panel will be David Chidester, a prominent and controversial academic at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who is interested in precisely such questions. He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities. Examples include cheering for sports teams, joining Tupperware groups and the growing phenomenon of Internet-based religions. His 2005 book "Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture," prompted wide debate about how far into popular culture religious studies scholars should venture.

Lucas Johnston, the third Florida student, argues the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism exhibits at least some of the traits of a traditional religion -- including, perhaps, that deep human need to feel like there's something bigger than oneself out there.

He recognized the point when his neighbor, a militant atheist who sports a pro-Darwin bumper sticker on her car, tried recently to start her car on a dying battery.

As she turned the key, she murmured under her breath: "Come on Spaghetti Monster!"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/perso...ttimonster.ap/
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Keltoi
12-06-2007, 01:21 PM
Not sure what I was supposed to get out of this exactly...:)
Reply

------
12-06-2007, 01:24 PM
:salamext:

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it," Henderson wrote.
No no no! It was the Jumping Bean Monster :D

No comment... :-\
Reply

Isambard
12-06-2007, 01:56 PM
People should read

"The Gospel of the FSM"

Its hilarious, and informative!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
------
12-06-2007, 01:56 PM
:salamext:

Hilarious I understand, but informative?! :-\
Reply

syilla
12-06-2007, 02:00 PM
so does this mean that the barney song on the spaghetti moon is true :uuh:
Reply

Isambard
12-06-2007, 02:00 PM
Originally Posted by Muj4h1d4
:salamext:

Hilarious I understand, but informative?! :-\
It uses alot of the same fallacies of ID proponents in funny new ways. It essentially shows you how arguements with facts can be twisted via example.
Reply

Keltoi
12-06-2007, 02:08 PM
Yes, I understand the concept behind the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but only athiests or agnostics would get much out of it...because it is basically making jest of the concept of God, something a believer wouldn't find much humor in.
Reply

Woodrow
12-06-2007, 02:20 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, I understand the concept behind the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but only athiests or agnostics would get much out of it...because it is basically making jest of the concept of God, something a believer wouldn't find much humor in.
I agree with that. I am currently struggling with deciding if this serves a legitimate purpose in comparative religion.

Yet at the same time I can see it as a form of satirical humor, although the concept of its humor value may not be seen by some.
Reply

Isambard
12-06-2007, 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, I understand the concept behind the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but only athiests or agnostics would get much out of it...because it is basically making jest of the concept of God, something a believer wouldn't find much humor in.
It mocks ID and creationism.
Reply

wilberhum
12-06-2007, 05:56 PM
They'll be talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises serious questions about the essence of religion.
the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.
I think it raises real questions about how people approach religion in their lives
"You have to keep a sense of humor when you're studying religion, especially in graduate school," Van Horn said in a recent telephone interview. "Otherwise you'll sink into depression pretty quickly."
one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?
He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities.
Lucas Johnston, the third Florida student, argues the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism exhibits at least some of the traits of a traditional religion -- including, perhaps, that deep human need to feel like there's something bigger than oneself out there.
I think the above quotes validate this thread.

If you looking at this objectively, instead of looking at it for insults,
It brings up some interesting thoughts.
Reply

Trumble
12-06-2007, 07:20 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
because it is basically making jest of the concept of God, something a believer wouldn't find much humor in.
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Yet at the same time I can see it as a form of satirical humor, although the concept of its humor value may not be seen by some.
Originally Posted by Isambard
It mocks ID and creationism.
Actually, gents, it does none of those things, or at least none are the principal reason behind it.

The purpose of the FSM is to expose hypocrisy, particularly in relation to the claim that creationism should be taught as science alongside scientific theories. It points out that if the logic used to justify teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution in science class is accepted then that same logic dictates that the FSM (or pastafarianism, or whatever the wags may call it) and indeed lots of other things could be taught in science class as an 'alternative' as well.

I agree with that. I am currently struggling with deciding if this serves a legitimate purpose in comparative religion.
It has more legitimate and meaningful purpose in the context of comparative religion than much that is posted here. Leave it alone.
Reply

wilberhum
12-06-2007, 09:05 PM
FSM – My attitude.
I think the great thing about the FSM is the great humorous way that it showed that ID was nothing but Creationism dressed up as science.

Now I think ID as a theist’s theory is quite good and the theist part of me likes it, but it ain’t science.
In Science classes they should teach science and in religious classes should teach religion. Mixings the two is as logical as teaching the quadratic equation in a French class.

Also I think that the FSM is a valid argument against those that don’t have the ability to distinguish between faith and fact or think there opinion about something is proof.

I myself have used the FSM on a number of occasions and I think it provides validity to my argument.

If nothing else, I think the FSM is “Good Fun” and I think god understands that.


The two are different.
Reply

Keltoi
12-06-2007, 09:05 PM
A legitimate and meaningful purpose? Perhaps I could see this topic in a science or world affairs thread, but not comparative religion...unless you believe a Jew, Christian, or Muslim is going to make the mental leap to equating their own God to a spaghetti monster. Where is the comparative religion aspect to this topic?, other than to equate God with a ludicrous analogy. If it is about evolution vs. creationism, I believe we already have such a thread.
Reply

wilberhum
12-06-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
A legitimate and meaningful purpose?
Ya, why not. If nothing else it is a good way to define a position.
Perhaps I could see this topic in a science or world affairs thread, but not comparative religion...
Creationism and ID belong in World Affares? But not religion? Crationism and ID are "Religious theories".
unless you believe a Jew, Christian, or Muslim is going to make the mental leap to equating their own God to a spaghetti monster.
So Jews, Christions and Muyslims are the only religions?
Where is the comparative religion aspect to this topic?, other than to equate God with a ludicrous analogy.
Or equate one ludicrous analogy to another ludicrous analogy.
If it is about evolution vs. creationism, I believe we already have such a thread.
Right, many times and there will be many more. Did you ever notice that they occure in the Comparitive Religion forum?
Besides that, I think god has a sence of humor, don't you?
Reply

omar_2133
12-06-2007, 09:25 PM
In short, is an anti-religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism actually a religion?
The satirical "cult" was stated by Boby Henderson as not an attack on religion, but on intelligent design, so I think the word "anti-creationist" rather than "anti-religion" would be more fitting.
Reply

wilberhum
12-06-2007, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by omar_2133
The satirical "cult" was stated by Boby Henderson as not an attack on religion, but on intelligent design, so I think the word "anti-creationist" rather than "anti-religion" would be more fitting.
You are spot on but I would like to add a little more.
It was an attack on intelligent design as a "Scientific Theory".
Reply

Joe98
12-06-2007, 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
The flying spaghetti monster (pbuh) doesn't fly. He drifts through space.

If he could fly, he could fly through the earth's atmosphere and form a religious following on the earth.

-
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-07-2007, 05:50 AM
I think I prefer the IPU and the celestial tea pot (which predates both the FSM and IPU by decades).
Reply

ranma1/2
12-07-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by Joe98
The flying spaghetti monster (pbuh) doesn't fly. He drifts through space.

If he could fly, he could fly through the earth's atmosphere and form a religious following on the earth.

-
Well of course it can fly, as a matter of fact the GFSM has its origins in egypt and asia. In egypt its known as Ra a shortened form of Ramen. This also happens to be the same name for some of the clergy.
The Ra-men. This is actually a gender neutral term.

Also Ra is pretty laid back and doesnt really neeed to have a following. (pretty secure in its self.) It also has its own lists of Id rather you really didnt... But no real commandments.
Reply

Muezzin
12-20-2007, 09:47 AM
Ha ha, athiests believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

That was a joke. If you did not laugh, I apologise. I also ask you to purchase a sense of humour. For me too, if necessary. But give me a receipt as well, yeah?
Reply

wilberhum
12-20-2007, 08:33 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Ha ha, athiests believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

That was a joke. If you did not laugh, I apologise. I also ask you to purchase a sense of humour. For me too, if necessary. But give me a receipt as well, yeah?
Na, I don't think atheists believe. :hmm: But the FSM is funny. :giggling:

It also puts some serious thoughts out there. :phew
Reply

Talha777
12-20-2007, 10:34 PM
Flying Speghetti monster was invented by some smarty pants to try and make people think a personal concept of God is ridiculous

Allah is the Creator and Sustainers of the Heavens and the Earth, He revealed Himself to mankind through a series of 124 thousand prophets throughout human history, the last one being Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam). He showed many signs and miracles through His Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam).

One is undeniably false (fsm) and the other is undeniably Real (Allah).

Tawheed (Oneness of God) has three aspects:

Tawheed Ruboobiyah - This is the Lordship of God, it is something that is manifest and undeniable. Only the worst kind of disbelievers (atheists) reject Tawheed Ruboobiyah. They see how the universe, the heavens and the Earth, and all creatures were created with a magnificent design that entails the existence of a Designer with certain exclusive qualities (Omnipotent, Omnicient, Eternal, Above and Beyond His creation, One). Incidentally this scientific concept of the Creator rules out many manmade fairy tales, such as the trinity and the olympian pantheon.

Tawheed Uloohiyah - the belief that Allah alone is God and all acts of worship must be directed to Him alone. This is the belief in Oneness of God which separates the believers from the disbelievers even though most disbeliever claims to believe in One God, they are lacking this important aspect of Tawheed.

Asma was Siffat - The Names and Attributes of God. Belief in simply God is not sufficient. As we know many people have radically different concepts of God and the cause of this is they do not recognize His true Names and Attributes which He revealed in the Quran so that we can know more about Him.
Reply

Resigned
12-20-2007, 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Na, I don't think atheists believe. :hmm: But the FSM is funny. :giggling:

It also puts some serious thoughts out there. :phew
This is all well and good but it is time to bring up something I've heretofore kept under wraps. That is the existence of the blujkrenatural. Yes, the blujkrenatural is the realm by which the supernatural is analyzed. Without the blujkrenatural, the supernatural would not exist. Do not ask for any characteristics of the blujkrenatural, as it cannot be demonstrated. It cannot be accessed, nor can it be proven. But exists it does. With the blurkrenatural, the existence of the myraid gods that rule the natural realm are made extant. Henceforth, all responses re: the dynamics of the supernatural naturally fall under the higher echelon of the blujkrenatural.
Reply

wilberhum
12-21-2007, 01:05 AM
Originally Posted by Talha777
Flying Speghetti monster was invented by some smarty pants to try and make people think a personal concept of God is ridiculous
Obviously you have know knowledge of why the FSM was documented. :skeleton:

It had nothing to do with "a personal concept of God". :?
Reply

Keltoi
12-21-2007, 01:12 PM
If the fsm is meant to demonstrate that a higher power cannot be proven by today's scientific method...I really doubt that comes as a shocker to anyone.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-21-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Na, I don't think atheists believe. :hmm: But the FSM is funny. :giggling:

It also puts some serious thoughts out there. :phew

And among them that people, no matter how much they may think of themselves as purely rational creatures have a side of them that is not:
Lucas Johnston, the third Florida student, argues the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism exhibits at least some of the traits of a traditional religion -- including, perhaps, that deep human need to feel like there's something bigger than oneself out there.

He recognized the point when his neighbor, a militant atheist who sports a pro-Darwin bumper sticker on her car, tried recently to start her car on a dying battery.

As she turned the key, she murmured under her breath: "Come on Spaghetti Monster!"
Whether it is an irrational appeal to a Spaghetti Monster, or a faith appeal to a divine being, there is another side to each and every one of us. Some of us have chosen to explore that side and some of us have chosen to ignore that side. Now tell me, given that this other non-rational side (I won't call it irrational) exists in each one of us, which is the more honest inquiry into the world in which we live? The one that tries to examine it, however poorly that examination is done, or the one that tries to dismiss it as not being examinable?

I appreciate FSM, but I think it strikes a chord not just because of the humor behind it, but because at a subconscious level we also recognize there is a degree of truth in it as well. There is something else out there, a mystery beyond ourselves (I would say a divine mystery, I don't expect eveyone to agree that it is divine, some may think it just more scientific mysteries) and mankind has been trying to put a name to it for eons. Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented as a placeholder for all those unknown gods, it is as good of a placeholder as any. But while FSM may be a human creation, that doesn't mean that what it is holding a place for is any less real.
Reply

wilberhum
12-21-2007, 07:33 PM
Grace Seeker
You really understand "The Message". :shade:

I find it interesting that so few "Get it". :-\
Reply

Muezzin
12-21-2007, 07:39 PM
I get it. I agree with Grace Seeker's assessment. It's just funny how many times I've seen it used by people as a way of insulting those who believe in a deity or deities, rather than as a placeholder, or as a spoof of creationism.

I've often seen it used with scorn, actually, as opposed to a light-hearted ribbing, a chuckled, 'come on, mate, you can't really believe that', which I assume is what the original intention of the term was.
Reply

crayon
12-21-2007, 07:40 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but how exactly is the concept of intelligent design taught in science?

From an evolutionary perspective?
Reply

wilberhum
12-21-2007, 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by crayon
Pardon my ignorance, but how exactly is the concept of intelligent design taught in science?

From an evolutionary perspective?
It isn't.

A Kansas school board wanted to. That is why the FSM was documented.

ID is just creationism with a "False Front".

There is nothing scientific about ID.
Reply

crayon
12-21-2007, 07:49 PM
Oooooh, all right.
I know intelligent design is the same as creationism, so I was wondering how it could be taught from a scientific perspective.
Now I see that they wanted to teach intelligent design as a theory, the same that is done with evolution.
That doesn't sound very clear here, but it is in my head. :P

Makes sense now, thanks for explaining wilberhum.
Reply

Muezzin
12-21-2007, 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
There is nothing scientific about ID.
Tell that to airport security :p

Oh, I'll stop.

So anyway, how come the Flying Spaghetti Monster term has moved beyond a lighthearted jab at creationism, and (in some quarters) become a scornful critique of the concept of God?
Reply

wilberhum
12-21-2007, 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
I get it. I agree with Grace Seeker's assessment. It's just funny how many times I've seen it used by people as a way of insulting those who believe in a deity or deities, rather than as a placeholder, or as a spoof of creationism.

I've often seen it used with scorn, actually, as opposed to a light-hearted ribbing, a chuckled, 'come on, mate, you can't really believe that', which I assume is what the original intention of the term was.
Though not the primary purpose, I find using the FSM for insulting is effective.

I find it an appropriate agreement against those who claim "Proof" when it is obvious that there is only "Faith".
Reply

wilberhum
12-21-2007, 08:01 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Tell that to airport security :p

Oh, I'll stop.

So anyway, how come the Flying Spaghetti Monster term has moved beyond a lighthearted jab at creationism, and (in some quarters) become a scornful critique of the concept of God?
Airport Security - That's funny. :giggling: :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:
But,
I don't think Ben Franklin meant for his discovery to be used to execute people either. :?
Reply

Qingu
12-22-2007, 03:11 AM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
So anyway, how come the Flying Spaghetti Monster term has moved beyond a lighthearted jab at creationism, and (in some quarters) become a scornful critique of the concept of God?
It is actually a critique of a particular "proof" advanced for the existence of God.

You've probably heard this argument, which is often brought up by Christians: "You can't prove that God DOESN'T exist since you don't know everything. So atheism can't be right, because you can't KNOW he doesn't exist."

The Flying Spaghetti Monster idea basically points out that you can say the same thing about any imaginary or ridiculous creature. Because you also can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. The point being, just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean there's any reason to believe that it does.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-22-2007, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
It is actually a critique of a particular "proof" advanced for the existence of God.

You've probably heard this argument, which is often brought up by Christians: "You can't prove that God DOESN'T exist since you don't know everything. So atheism can't be right, because you can't KNOW he doesn't exist."

The Flying Spaghetti Monster idea basically points out that you can say the same thing about any imaginary or ridiculous creature. Because you also can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. The point being, just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean there's any reason to believe that it does.
With the corrallary, that this argument also makes being just as true, just because one can't prove that something exists, doesn't mean that it doesn't either.




What I think that FSM really points out, isn't anything about the existence or lack of existence of God, ID, or a host of other concepts, but rather that most people are very poor logicians.
Reply

Qingu
12-23-2007, 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
With the corrallary, that this argument also makes being just as true, just because one can't prove that something exists, doesn't mean that it doesn't either.
The point is that this is a meaningless statement. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could exist.

What I think that FSM really points out, isn't anything about the existence or lack of existence of God, ID, or a host of other concepts, but rather that most people are very poor logicians.
I'll toast to that. Incidentally, have you noticed these very poor logicians tend to be religious? :)
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-24-2007, 02:53 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
The point is that this is a meaningless statement. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could exist.
Exactly. It could. It could exist, reveal itself to a few, provide hints of its existence to all, and still have the vast majority of supposedly intellectually bright and logical thinkers still denying its existence and thinking how wise they are for doing so and foolish are the rest who don't realize that it is a myth, a total fabrication. Now, its existence would have no meaning for those who had no belief in nor any connection with FSM. And also, for those who had a connection but turned from it, the statement would also have no meaning. But for those who believed such a statement either positive or negative with regard to the FSM would have meaning, and curiously, the meaning would not arise out of the reality of the existence of the FSM, but out of their belief in it.




As to the other part of your statement:
I'll toast to that. Incidentally, have you noticed these very poor logicians tend to be religious? :)
I think that all poor logicians tend to be religious. It does not therefore follow that all who are religious are necessarily poor logicians, though certainly some are.

Of course, I also think that, ironically, some of those who declare themselves to be atheists or agnostic are actually among that group of both poor logicians and religious adherants. The reason I say this is that because their logic is not actually as well formed as they might think it is, they make statements regarding their views of God that are themselves simply another form of saying, "this is what I believe" and little more than that. They thus aren't religions in the classical sense of a set of systemitized values and doctrines, but they are nonetheless every bit as religious in their behavior, lacking the substance of religion but still practicing its form.
Reply

Muezzin
12-24-2007, 08:40 PM
All this stuff about poor logicians being religious... it's seems like another superiority complex.

Stereotypical theist: Ha ha! You are an unwashed heathen! You will burn! I'm better than you!

Stereotypical atheist: Ha ha! You're thick! So I'm better than you!

Will we never learn?
Reply

Isambard
12-24-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
I'll toast to that. Incidentally, have you noticed these very poor logicians tend to be religious? :)
Dunno bout that. Ive seen plenty of atheists point toward a goal-oriented type of human evolution despite it contradicting facts.

Same goes to any atheist in front of a camera. All of a sudden they spout off about objective morality despite never showing any evidence of such a thing existing and get mad when ppl say its stupid.
Reply

Skillganon
12-26-2007, 03:51 PM
Interesting, stuff like the FSM are just a point of distraction and not really much of a criticism.

The problem with statement like this:

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
Is that one is making in a way acknlowdging an "Existence of creator" (Existence of X), which theist already are convinced, and the nature of it(X) has little significant in the argument.
Reply

glo
12-28-2007, 03:50 PM
As a sideline, I have been mulling the FSM myself ... mostly whether to knit one or not ...



http://www.phobe.com/fsmhat/index.html

Peace :)
Reply

Qingu
12-29-2007, 03:11 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Is that one is making in a way acknlowdging an "Existence of creator" (Existence of X), which theist already are convinced, and the nature of it(X) has little significant in the argument.
One could argue that the proposed natures of the creator popular among religions make about as much sense and have as much evidence to support them as a flying spaghetti monster.

You know, like that the creator is a cosmic, Jewish zombie who is his own father and who had to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the magical poison that got passed down to our entire species because a talking snake convinced the first of our species to eat a magical fruit.

Or that the creator is an invisible, Arabic-speaking spirit who threatens, in a conveniently-revealed book written in Arabic, to send people who don't believe in him to unverifiable afterlife torture and promises people who do believe in him with unverifiable afterlife rewards.

Or that this creator, after failing to preserve his revelation several times already, gave the final version to an ambitious young man via an angel who revealed golden plates to him, which only he had the ability to decipher.

A creator who is made of spaghetti and can fly seems no more ridiculous and has just as much evidence as any of these propositions. Which is why so many atheists seem to like him, and so many theists miss the point entirely.
Reply

جوري
12-29-2007, 03:29 AM
Isn't it time we offered a banana bag with some magnesium sulfate to the members suffering from marchiafava-Bignami?
I can't imagine why irate protesters who make as much sense as a paramecia are given writing privileges?


:w:
Reply

czgibson
12-29-2007, 03:56 AM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Skillganon
The problem with statement like this:

We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
Is that one is making in a way acknlowdging an "Existence of creator" (Existence of X), which theist already are convinced, and the nature of it(X) has little significant in the argument.
That's one of the key things about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in addition to his main function as a defence of genuine science lessons: there's just as much evidence for a creator with ludicrous characteristics as there is for one with traditional characteristics, such as omnipotence, etc.

Most of the theists on this thread don't seem to have grasped the point of FSM at all.

Peace
Reply

Eric H
12-29-2007, 06:13 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Qingu;
A creator who is made of spaghetti and can fly seems no more ridiculous and has just as much evidence as any of these propositions. Which is why so many atheists seem to like him, and so many theists miss the point entirely.
Ahhh now I understand, atheist actually like the spaghetti monster so it must be true.

Atheists think spaghetti can fly now I understand the thinking behind atheism.

So evolution is happening, extrapolate evolution back to no life. Extrapolate back to spaghetti having no beginning and the theory of evolution hangs on the truth of the spaghetti monster.

It is now time for atheist to throw science, rational thinking and logic out the window.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
Reply

Qingu
12-29-2007, 06:37 AM
Originally Posted by Eric H
Ahhh now I understand, atheist actually like the spaghetti monster so it must be true.
Actually, you didn't understand at all, because that's not remotely like anything I said.

Do I need to respond to the rest of your mocking post or do you want to rewrite it first?
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-29-2007, 06:40 AM
Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Qingu;


Ahhh now I understand, atheist actually like the spaghetti monster so it must be true.

Atheists think spaghetti can fly now I understand the thinking behind atheism.

So evolution is happening, extrapolate evolution back to no life. Extrapolate back to spaghetti having no beginning and the theory of evolution hangs on the truth of the spaghetti monster.

It is now time for atheist to throw science, rational thinking and logic out the window.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
What? Now we are mocking parody?


FSM is actually a very well-designed parody of much of what passes for "proof" by many well meaning people. I agree that God exists, but if we can't stand a little examination of the way we articulate our beliefs, then those who are positing such "proofs" on others need to learn to better stand the heat or get out of the kitchen.
Reply

جوري
12-29-2007, 06:52 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
What? Now we are mocking parody?


FSM is actually a very well-designed parody of much of what passes for "proof" by many well meaning people. I agree that God exists, but if we can't stand a little examination of the way we articulate our beliefs, then those who are positing such "proofs" on others need to learn to better stand the heat or get out of the kitchen.
That deserves a rep..

tomorrow insha'Allah

:shade:

peace!
Reply

Eric H
12-29-2007, 07:22 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Qingu;
You know, like that the creator is a cosmic, Jewish zombie who is his own father and who had to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the magical poison that got passed down to our entire species because a talking snake convinced the first of our species to eat a magical fruit.

Or that the creator is an invisible, Arabic-speaking spirit who threatens, in a conveniently-revealed book written in Arabic, to send people who don't believe in him to unverifiable afterlife torture and promises people who do believe in him with unverifiable afterlife rewards.
Is this just a teensy bit mocking or have I missed the point?

Do I need to respond to the rest of your mocking post or do you want to rewrite it first?
This is underhand stuff, are atheists seeking a monopoly on the right to mock.

In the spirit of seeking fair play

Eric
Reply

Eric H
12-29-2007, 09:11 AM
Greetings and peace be with you all,
Are any atheists willing to come out and say they believe the FSM created the universe, please say yes or no.

Please do not sit on the fence and be agnostic about your beliefs in the FSM.

My friend purest ambrosia has a sincere belief that Islam is the truth and I can respect that even though I do not share many of her beliefs.

Are there any atheists willing to come out and say that they have a sincere belief that the FSM is the truth.

In the spirit of searching for truth

Eric
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-29-2007, 09:23 AM
He phrased it what I'd call a negative light, but he didn't make anything up there. That actually IS the claim in the holy text. And really I don't think it matters much how you phrase it. The holy texts literal claims are ridiculus so any summary of them will look like mocking.
Reply

Uthman
12-29-2007, 11:11 AM
Greetings,

Originally Posted by wilberhum
"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it," Henderson wrote.
Do these 'written accounts' refer to divinely inspired religious texts?

Regards
Reply

Trumble
12-29-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally Posted by Eric H
Are any atheists willing to come out and say they believe the FSM created the universe, please say yes or no.

Please do not sit on the fence and be agnostic about your beliefs in the FSM.

My friend purest ambrosia has a sincere belief that Islam is the truth and I can respect that even though I do not share many of her beliefs.

Are there any atheists willing to come out and say that they have a sincere belief that the FSM is the truth.

The FSM is suggested not as an alternative metaphysical entity but as an alternative human construction. And, of course, if any 'atheists' had a sincere belief that "the FSM is the truth" they would not be atheists!

There is certainly a weight of belief that God exists that is not true in the case of the FSM. So what?. God has had a couple of thousand years head-start. Your belief, or PAs belief, or indeed billions of other peoples' belief in themselves are 'logically' and 'scientifically' as irrelevant in demonstrating that that belief is true as they would be in the case of the FSM. As has already been stated, the purpose of the FSM is to demonstrate that point, and all you are doing is reinforcing it.

Respect for other people's beliefs is, of course, a very good thing, but is also a totally seperate issue. The FSM is not intended to 'mock'; it illustrates a philosophical point of view. The concern of creationists (if not theists in general) should not be objecting to that view being expressed, but with demonstrating it to be logically unsound while remaining within the set of assumptions necessary for God to (logically) exist. If that is done the FSM go away of its own accord.


Originally Posted by Osman
Do these 'written accounts' refer to divinely inspired religious texts?
No, or least not that can be proven. No more than any other written account can be proven to be 'divinely inspired'... THAT is the point being made.
Reply

wilberhum
12-29-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by Osman
Greetings,
Do these 'written accounts' refer to divinely inspired religious texts?

Regards
I think thy are as "divinely inspired" as any "religious texts.

But then it is all a matter of faith.
Reply

Uthman
12-29-2007, 12:06 PM
Yes, I see.

What I meant was, would the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster believe that these written accounts are divinely inspired?
Reply

Trumble
12-29-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
What I meant was, would the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster believe that these written accounts are divinely inspired?
No, or at least 'not applicable'. Nobody believes in the flying spaghetti monster.. the whole idea is just to make a point.
Reply

Chuck
12-29-2007, 02:35 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
Yes, I see.

What I meant was, would the people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster believe that these written accounts are divinely inspired?
FSM was made-up, perhaps by atheist (don't quote me on this one), to make an analogy that belief in god is false like believe in FSM is false. In other words, believe God is just make-believe stories and God doesn't exist like FSM doesn't exist - it is suppose to be parody of believe in God.

Ironically, this is a fallacy of false dichotomy & false correlative (it is similar to: correlation does not imply causation) even if we take the argument of FSM as it is. And it doesn't make a point either, people who believe in one God, usually see beliefs in other god(s) can be false, so they are already aware that people can believe in false god(s).
Reply

czgibson
12-29-2007, 02:52 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Chuck
FSM was made-up, perhaps by atheist (don't quote me on this one), to make an analogy that belief in god is false like believe in FSM is false. In other words, believe God is just make-believe stories and God doesn't exist like FSM doesn't exist - it is suppose to be parody of believe in God.

Ironically, this is a fallacy of false dichotomy & false correlative (it is similar to: correlation does not imply causation) even if we take the argument of FSM as it is. And it doesn't make a point either, people who believe in one God, usually see beliefs in other god(s) can be false, so they are already aware that people can believe in false god(s).
Yet another person who just hasn't got it. FSM is more about ridiculing the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes.

People: here is the letter that started it all. Have a read of it, remember that it's not entirely serious, and see if you begin to understand.

Peace
Reply

Chuck
12-29-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Yet another person who just hasn't got it. FSM is more about ridiculing the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes.

People: here is the letter that started it all. Have a read of it, remember that it's not entirely serious, and see if you begin to understand.

Peace
Alright, I stand corrected, it was originally written against teaching ID, however, now it normally comes up in the discussions of believe in God.
Reply

czgibson
12-29-2007, 03:18 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Chuck
Alright, I stand corrected, it was originally written against teaching ID, however, now it normally comes up in the discussions of believe in God.
I see. Perhaps that's true, but the people who use it that way (mainly atheists, I would imagine?) should realise that that is just a side issue with the FSM. A better approach on the burden of proof question would be to use Russell's Celestial Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

These things appear to be silly, and they are, but they each make quite subtle and important philosophical points.

Peace
Reply

Woodrow
12-29-2007, 04:12 PM
The only problem I see with analogies such as FSM, The Celestial Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is that the purpose for the analogy is rapidly lost and all that remains is seen as sarcasm about what many people hold dear.
Reply

chosen
12-29-2007, 08:45 PM
why would this be of any concern to anyone...atheist for ever have been using reasoning like this to prove there point...and guess what???? If thats what they choose to believe..so be it!!!!..but people with a love and faith in god will never be swayed by such arguments..
Reply

Qingu
12-29-2007, 09:18 PM
Originally Posted by chosen
why would this be of any concern to anyone...atheist for ever have been using reasoning like this to prove there point...and guess what???? If thats what they choose to believe..so be it!!!!..but people with a love and faith in god will never be swayed by such arguments..
It doesn't seem like people with faith will be swayed with arguments, period.

Most people have faith before they have any logical reason to believe.
Reply

Muezzin
12-29-2007, 09:21 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
It doesn't seem like people with faith will be swayed with arguments, period.

Most people have faith before they have any logical reason to believe.
Faith by its very nature must transcend logic.

Though why certain people regard faith (as a concept) with scorn is quite beyond me. Do they not dream? Do they not hope? Do they not aspire?
Reply

Qingu
12-29-2007, 09:24 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Faith by its very nature must transcend logic.

Though why certain people regard faith (as a concept) with scorn is quite beyond me. Do they not dream? Do they not hope? Do they not aspire?
I regard faith with scorn because people with faith think that their faith transcends logic.

If I told you that I have faith that I am Napoleon Bonaparte and that I conquered Europe—and that my faith necessarily transcends any logical arguments to the contrary—what exactly would you think about my faith?

I'm guessing you'd think my faith is a cover for my unwillingness to face the fact that I may be wrong, or delusional.

Edit: by the way, you can have hope, dreams, and aspirations without faith.
Reply

chosen
12-29-2007, 09:25 PM
I disagree with you..take the bible..you can say it is fabricated...but with all of its phrophecies that have come true..how could anyone know these things would have come to pass..it is written that before the end mankind would develope a means of instant communication...which is what we are doing right now,,,it fortells the end and reformation of the state of israel..it talks about mankind developing weapons so destructive that we will have the means to destroy the entire planet...these things were written thousands of years ago..who then, but god could know these things would come to pass..the very fact that these things among others were know in the time of the bible proves to me the exsistance of god...so my faith is not blind..my faith is based in the FACT..that know one in that age could have predicted such things..
Reply

Muezzin
12-29-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
I regard faith with scorn because people with faith think that their faith transcends logic.
Faith as a concept does transcend logic. That's just how it works.

If I told you that I have faith that I am Napoleon Bonaparte and that I conquered Europe—and that my faith necessarily transcends any logical arguments to the contrary—what exactly would you think about my faith?

I'm guessing you'd think my faith is a cover for my unwillingness to face the fact that I may be wrong, or delusional.
Perhaps owing to my own idiosyncracies, I'd think you're a pretty charming and amusing individual, but I wouldn't try to assert any superiority over you, whether or not your faith is logical. Unless of course, you as an individual were trying to harm me. If not... hey, whatever floats your boat. You'd be great at parties.

But seriously, I think putting too much faith (ha!) in logic is a mistake, because, if used excessively, it leads to superiority complexes, which I hate as a concept. Theistic types tend to get high and mighty too, and I also hate their behaviour resulting from such complexes. I just find it puzzling how certain athiests (and not you, if I'm misunderstanding you) attempt to cloak their own superiority complex under the guise of 'Logic'. You know the type of thinking - 'I'm more logical than these primitives, therefore, in my heart of hearts, I believe I'm better than them'. Such a pitiful mindset. So I trust you do not possess it.

Edit: by the way, you can have hope, dreams, and aspirations without faith.
Aren't they all just forms of faith, when it comes down to it? Isn't hope as a concept merely a delusion? Yet such delusions drive our actions - and indeed, if we lack such delusions, we're regarded as stagnant or abnormal.

Logic has its place. Emotion and Imagination should not be expelled to make room for it, though. I fear that, by waging a war on religion's place in society, this is exactly what certain people are attempting to do.
Reply

Belief_is_Power
12-29-2007, 09:43 PM
Aww more athiest b.s from wilberhum. this guy never stops. Yawn!!!!
Reply

chosen
12-29-2007, 09:46 PM
why would you view laughter of children as revenge...who would view this this way...if we all work for peace we should rejoice in the laughter of eachothers children..
Reply

wilberhum
12-29-2007, 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by Belief_is_Power
Aww more athiest b.s from wilberhum. this guy never stops. Yawn!!!!
Just trying to instill some intelligence in people like you. :D

Take off the Faith Blinders off, look at it all. :thumbs_up
Reply

chosen
12-29-2007, 10:04 PM
it must be terrible living not having faith in god..not believing that all this madness on earth will eventually work its way to eternal reward for those who believe..what do you believe will happen to you when you die..how do you find inner peace when someone close to you passes away????? believe what you choose..but when someone I love dies..i am saddened that we have parted but I rejoice in knowing there next waking moment they will be in the company of the lord...
Reply

Eric H
12-29-2007, 10:04 PM
Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;
People: here is the letter that started it all. Have a read of it, remember that it's not entirely serious, and see if you begin to understand.
Thank you for the link and I found this gem……
We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
This links exactly to my previous post proving that the theory of evolution is total fiction that depends on the FSM.
Ahhh now I understand, atheist actually like the spaghetti monster so it must be true.

Atheists think spaghetti can fly now I understand the thinking behind atheism.

So evolution is happening, extrapolate evolution back to no life. Extrapolate back to spaghetti having no beginning and the theory of evolution hangs on the truth of the spaghetti monster.

It is now time for atheist to throw science, rational thinking and logic out the window.
In the spirit of searching for truth

Eric
Reply

Qingu
12-29-2007, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by chosen
I disagree with you..take the bible..you can say it is fabricated...but with all of its phrophecies that have come true..how could anyone know these things would have come to pass..
Yeah, how could people in the 6th century B.C. know that the city of Tyre would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezer forever and never be rebuilt? Truly the Bible's prophecies are never wrong.

so my faith is not blind..my faith is based in the FACT..that know one in that age could have predicted such things..
Might want to look up Tyre on Google Maps.
Reply

chosen
12-29-2007, 10:44 PM
your actually very cute...and yes I will look that up...but sorry I still stand behind what I said and truley I always will....question...as spontaneous generation has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven impossible...tell me how did the first speck of matter come to be????
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-29-2007, 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
It doesn't seem like people with faith will be swayed with arguments, period.

Most people have faith before they have any logical reason to believe.
I'll bet you truly believe that too, Qingu.
Reply

Qingu
12-29-2007, 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Faith as a concept does transcend logic. That's just how it works.
I'm saying that's a bad thing.

Perhaps owing to my own idiosyncracies, I'd think you're a pretty charming and amusing individual, but I wouldn't try to assert any superiority over you, whether or not your faith is logical.
To be frank, I don't believe you. I think you'd think I was a severely disturbed individual.

More troubling, let's say that my faith that I am Napolean means that I also believe everyone should now submit to my own Napoleanic Code of laws, since I conquered them two centuries ago. What would you say to me then? "You'd be great at parties"?

Unless of course, you as an individual were trying to harm me. If not... hey, whatever floats your boat. You'd be great at parties.
But that's the problem. Many people with faith are actively trying to harm people, based only on their faith. Even more people make important political decisions based only on their faith—how many Christian evangelicals voted for Bush for that reason?

But seriously, I think putting too much faith (ha!) in logic is a mistake, because, if used excessively, it leads to superiority complexes, which I hate as a concept. Theistic types tend to get high and mighty too, and I also hate their behaviour resulting from such complexes.
Superiority concepts like what? "I'm smarter than you"? "I think you're beliefs are wrong?"

I don't think this signals a superiority complex, I think it's just how people debate and argue.

And I think this kind of statement is entirely different than something like "I believe I am chosen by God, but you deserve to be tortured forever in hell because you don't believe what I believe."

I just find it puzzling how certain athiests (and not you, if I'm misunderstanding you) attempt to cloak their own superiority complex under the guise of 'Logic'. You know the type of thinking - 'I'm more logical than these primitives, therefore, in my heart of hearts, I believe I'm better than them'. Such a pitiful mindset. So I trust you do not possess it.
I don't think I'm better than anyone, in any intrinsic sense. I think I am right and you are wrong, though, about a great deal of things. And I'm sure you feel the same way about me. (I'm sure we probably agree on a lot of things too!)

Aren't they all just forms of faith, when it comes down to it? Isn't hope as a concept merely a delusion?
No! You can hope for something without believing that it will necessarily happen. I hope that my sick cat will get better if I give him medicine. I don't have "faith" that he will get better if I give him medicine, though, because obviously he might not get better at all.

Yet such delusions drive our actions - and indeed, if we lack such delusions, we're regarded as stagnant or abnormal.
I will agree that most, if not all people—including atheists—harbor various delusions. I am probably deluding myself about a great number of things.

I disagree that delusions are necessary to live one's life. Especially religious delusions. I also believe many delusions are detrimental to oneself and society (especially religious delusions).

Logic has its place. Emotion and Imagination should not be expelled to make room for it, though. I fear that, by waging a war on religion's place in society, this is exactly what certain people are attempting to do.
I don't think faith is at all necessary for emotion or imagination. Can you explain exactly why you think it is?

I'd actually say many forms of religious faith limit your imagination and your ability to experience genuine emotions. Many religions, including Islam, force you to suppress certain emotions instead of explore them. Islam also prohibits many forms of artwork as "haram." When you have faith in a narrow set of scriptures, there is the idea that your imagination and your emotions can go here, to the limits proscribed by your God—but no further.
Reply

Qingu
12-29-2007, 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I'll bet you truly believe that too, Qingu.
But I could be wrong! :)
Reply

Qingu
12-29-2007, 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by chosen
your actually very cute...
You haven't even seen me in person!

and yes I will look that up...but sorry I still stand behind what I said and truley I always will
Even if you're wrong?

Ezekial 26 prophecies that God will make city of Tyre "a bare rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets. You shall never again be rebuilt, for I Yahweh have spoken, says the Lord GOD."

Not only that, the prophecy is explicit about who will be carrying out God's destruction of Tyre: Nebuchadnezzer.

Here is a photograph of Tyre.



....question...as spontaneous generation has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven impossible...tell me how did the first speck of matter come to be????
First of all, spontaneous generation is the ancient belief that rats and bugs would magically come into being if you left rotten food out.

Secondly, your question doesn't make sense, because matter can not be created or destroyed. Matter has always existed. It's like you're asking me "how did God come to be"?
Reply

Eric H
12-30-2007, 07:21 AM
Greetings and peace be with you all,

Maybe the FSM is just a money spinner for our Guru Bobby spaghetti man Henderson, check out FSM store of goodies for sale. He does claim ten million followers and if they all brought the shirt then he is now worth a lot of spaghetti.

http://www.venganza.org/fsm-store/

peace

Eric
Reply

جوري
12-30-2007, 07:25 AM
Got to love America.. what ever it is, you can sell it :lol: FSM Ipod, Laptop, and IPhone covers :haha: this totally beats some of the gonzo items they sell on ebay..
thanks for the link

peace!
Reply

ranma1/2
12-30-2007, 07:52 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
....Secondly, your question doesn't make sense, because matter can not be created or destroyed. Matter has always existed. It's like you're asking me "how did God come to be"?
gonna call ya on that. matter can be destroyed. (unless your refering to energy)

as i recall a lot of different kinds of elements were created during the bigbang and others are created (or formed would be more accurate) with fusion.
Reply

snakelegs
12-30-2007, 07:59 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Got to love America.. what ever it is, you can sell it :lol: FSM Ipod, Laptop, and IPhone covers :haha: this totally beats some of the gonzo items they sell on ebay..
thanks for the link

peace!
soooo true. even t-shirts with the suicide note of a drug addicted rock star! :D
Reply

Muezzin
12-30-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
I'm saying that's a bad thing.
Okay.

To be frank, I don't believe you. I think you'd think I was a severely disturbed individual.
I'm probably just weird. If you had the whole get-up and accent and everything... on a surface level, that is just hilarious.

More troubling, let's say that my faith that I am Napolean means that I also believe everyone should now submit to my own Napoleanic Code of laws, since I conquered them two centuries ago. What would you say to me then? "You'd be great at parties"?
Then you'd be hurting people and I wouldn't approve of your activities.

However, I wouldn't disapprove of the very idea of people impersonating Napoleon. I'd only disapprove of those particular people who harm others in the pursuit of their belief.

But that's the problem. Many people with faith are actively trying to harm people, based only on their faith.
And many more people with faith are not harming others.

To me, arguing points such as 'all religions should be banned' is the same as saying 'all knives should be banned'. Sweeping statements like the latter would make slicing bread a little difficult... My point being, just because something has been abused by people, it doesn't mean that thing itself should be banned or otherwise rendered non-existent. Just punish the people abusing it.

Even more people make important political decisions based only on their faith—how many Christian evangelicals voted for Bush for that reason?
That's more a question of secularisation isn't it? And secularisation is a separation of religion and politics, as opposed to an elimination of religion.

Superiority concepts like what? "I'm smarter than you"? "I think you're beliefs are wrong?"

I don't think this signals a superiority complex, I think it's just how people debate and argue.
'I'm smarter than you' is an assertion of intellectual superiority, not a debating technique. If it is a debating technique, it's very circular indeed. On the other hand, 'I think your beliefs are wrong, and this is why...' is a debating technique.

And I think this kind of statement is entirely different than something like "I believe I am chosen by God, but you deserve to be tortured forever in hell because you don't believe what I believe."
I agree that the above statement is (to put it lightly) rude and offensive. I try not to make such statements (and if I have, I apologise for any offence caused). I also tend to dislike it when other religious people say such things - they tend not to say it as a warning, but rather as an assertion of superiority, which I find detestable.

On the other hand, statements along the lines of 'oh, those religious types are stupid anyway' sting too. What I'm saying is, can we discuss these matters without the insults? :)

I don't think I'm better than anyone, in any intrinsic sense. I think I am right and you are wrong, though, about a great deal of things. And I'm sure you feel the same way about me. (I'm sure we probably agree on a lot of things too!)
Yeah. Like the old Star Wars trilogy was better than the prequels. :)

No! You can hope for something without believing that it will necessarily happen. I hope that my sick cat will get better if I give him medicine. I don't have "faith" that he will get better if I give him medicine, though, because obviously he might not get better at all.
Faith - not in the religious sense of the word necessarily - is, to me, basically a stronger form of hope. Having faith in something does not mean one discounts the possibility of failure - rather, they believe more strongly in the possibility of success, even more strongly than if they 'hope' something will happen.

I will agree that most, if not all people—including atheists—harbor various delusions. I am probably deluding myself about a great number of things.

I disagree that delusions are necessary to live one's life. Especially religious delusions. I also believe many delusions are detrimental to oneself and society (especially religious delusions).
Okay. I still think that, when it comes down to it, hope is really a delusion. That's not to dismiss it - it's a very important delusion, for it empowers us, but still... it's based on something that's not exactly... tangible.

I don't think faith is at all necessary for emotion or imagination. Can you explain exactly why you think it is?
Cavemen probably told stories about the moon to make sense of it. Stuff like a dragon continuously ingesting and excreting it, thus explaining away its various stages. Obviously, science explains that no such process occurs. Yet stories like that still possess an excellent creative impulse, as well as stirring emotions (be they of awe or fear etc). I'm not downplaying the role of science, or saying we should all reduce ourselves to caveman mentality (even though I think as a species, we still belong on the Flintstones...), I'm just saying that there are intanible things to be appreciated in religious belief.

Religion isn't the only pathway to emotion or imagination, no, but it is one of the most accessible - and even following a religion requires the exercise of both emotion (in the notion of brotherhood) and imagination (in the notion of a deity or deities or nirvana etc). Even if we subscribe to the notion that religion is a crutch for people of low intelligence or self-esteem... who is anyone to deny others the use of that crutch? Perhaps those religious people need it? Perhaps without it, they cannot 'walk' so to speak.

I'd actually say many forms of religious faith limit your imagination and your ability to experience genuine emotions. Many religions, including Islam, force you to suppress certain emotions instead of explore them.
It seems to me to be very similar to the concept of taboo in society. The difference is religions such as Islam make such concepts religious edicts rather than social. What is taboo will vary from culture to culture.

Islam also prohibits many forms of artwork as "haram."
Those depicting nudity, those depicting images of God or the prophets, those depicting images of living, animate creatures - all these types are not allowed.

Yet, speaking in terms of painting, there's still the huge world of abstract art to explore. There are also other media, such as sculpture, literature or poetry. There's a wealth of great Muslim poets, for instance.

When you have faith in a narrow set of scriptures, there is the idea that your imagination and your emotions can go here, to the limits proscribed by your God—but no further.
A little allegory, metaphor or satire goes a long way. True art finds a way.
Reply

Chuck
12-30-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


I see. Perhaps that's true, but the people who use it that way (mainly atheists, I would imagine?) should realise that that is just a side issue with the FSM. A better approach on the burden of proof question would be to use Russell's Celestial Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

These things appear to be silly, and they are, but they each make quite subtle and important philosophical points.

Peace
What difference that would make? FSM is not really different, if different at all.
Reply

chosen
12-30-2007, 02:24 PM
Qingu

sorry....but i forget which scientist tried to prove spontaneous generation..I can look it up..but then again so can you....said it was impossible...therefore, something can not come from nothing..therefore the first something had to of been created...created by who?? is the question of the day....as far as my still believing even if I am wrong??? The bible is both a very simple book and a very complicated book...tons of symbolism that even takes scholars to figure out...so even if I see something I dont understand or something that doesnt make sense..it is just a matter of time and study before sense is made out of it..
P.S
calling you cute is not referring to the way you look...but your attitude and the way you express yourself...
Reply

Muslim Knight
12-30-2007, 02:44 PM
What's the difference between having to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster and idolatrous Hinduism (in which gods have weird features like six arms and elephantile snout) or pre-Islamic paganism (pantheon of gods created from the imaginations of the inhabitants of Hejaz) or even ancient Greek beliefs like Kraken and Gorgons?

They all seem pretty much the same to me. Idols and images created from the creative human mind.

There's even one Quranic verse reprimanding the folly of pre-Islamic Jahilli Arabs carving their gods from woods by their own hands, then worshiping them. (Knowledgeable LI members pls help me with this).
Reply

Chuck
12-30-2007, 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
What's the difference between having to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster and idolatrous Hinduism (in which gods have weird features like six arms and elephantile snout) or pre-Islamic paganism (pantheon of gods created from the imaginations of the inhabitants of Hejaz) or even ancient Greek beliefs like Kraken and Gorgons?
Exactly!
Reply

Trumble
12-30-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
They all seem pretty much the same to me. Idols and images created from the creative human mind.
They are all the same. Atheists just add one more to the list.
Reply

Qingu
12-30-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
gonna call ya on that. matter can be destroyed. (unless your refering to energy)

as i recall a lot of different kinds of elements were created during the bigbang and others are created (or formed would be more accurate) with fusion.
Matter can be converted to energy; it cannot be destroyed. Einstein proved matter and energy are the same—E=mc-squared.

Elements can form from less complicated elements fusing together, plus the release of energy. This doesn't destroy or create matter.

To put it another way: the universe has always had the same amount of matter/energy.

(The exception to this is in quantum mechanics, but that's not on the scale we're talking about and doesn't help your argument.)
Reply

Woodrow
12-30-2007, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu
Matter can be converted to energy; it cannot be destroyed. Einstein proved matter and energy are the same—E=mc-squared.

Elements can form from less complicated elements fusing together, plus the release of energy. This doesn't destroy or create matter.

To put it another way: the universe has always had the same amount of matter/energy.

(The exception to this is in quantum mechanics, but that's not on the scale we're talking about and doesn't help your argument.)
true----if 2 assumptions can be proven true.

1. The universe is finite in total mass and energy

2. The universe is limited to the physical.
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 02:21 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
true----if 2 assumptions can be proven true.

1. The universe is finite in total mass and energy
If it weren't, the sky would not be dark. Infinite matter/energy = infinite stars.

2. The universe is limited to the physical.
Define "non-physical." I've always been curious what religious people mean when they talk about spirits.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-05-2008, 02:48 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
If it weren't, the sky would not be dark. Infinite matter/energy = infinite stars.
Obler's paradox!! -- I love it.

Which means that there are endpoints to time as well. There was a time when time itself was not. I.e., there was a beginning. A point in time when the first bit of something, of light was created in the midst of not just empty space, for space is itself something, but in the midst of nothingness. And in the midst of this formless nothingness, suddenly there was light. And in time, the matter that had suddenly been created coalesced and began to form together to make spheriods in the midst of the darkness of space. Some of these large ones gave off their own energy in the way of light. Others did not, but became gas balls and terrestial balls which would orbit larger bodies. And on one of these terrestial balls, there were seas and land rose up out of the seas. And then living creatures were formed in those seas. And after a time some of those living creature migrated to live not only in the seas but on the land, and there were all manner of creatures in the water, the land and even in the air, and finally, at that end of that process a creature very similar to you and me came to be.

The only problem with this story is that it must be fiction because I got it out of the Bible. Yet, if you don't call the author of all this God, you have pretty much the same story as you would get in a 7th grade science class. All the Bible is trying to say is to answer the question, "How did the process of something from nothing get started?"

Science says, "It was a Big Bang."

That may be true, but it doesn't answer the quesiton. "It was a Big Bang" does not actually answer the question of How? It answers the question of What? The answer to the question of How? is either, we don't know, or by the creative action of God.

Well, mankind has other questions:
Who am I?
Where did I come from?
Why am I here?


When we don't know how we came to be it is hard to answer the questions. But if we find the answer, "by the creative action of God" credible to the answer of how we came to be, then we find that we are also able to answer some of those other questions.

Where did I come from? From the mind and will of God.
Why am I here? Because God has a purpose for my life.
Who am I? A child of God.

Or, I suppose you could claim to be a coodle off the old noodle. The choice is yours.
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 03:16 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Obler's paradox!! -- I love it.
Ha, I'm glad someone remembered the name. :)

Which means that there are endpoints to time as well. There was a time when time itself was not. I.e., there was a beginning.
This makes no sense.

The word "beginning" implies that there is a time in which something does not exist, followed by a time in which it does exist.

At which point in time did time not exist? It's a nonsense question. Time has always existed, by definition.

A point in time when the first bit of something, of light was created
You are assuming it was created, and that there was ever a time in which this bit of something did not exist.

The only problem with this story is that it must be fiction because I got it out of the Bible.
Actually, the Bible (like every other Mesopotamian creation myth) begins with water, not points of light in empty space. God shapes the water into discernable parts, and separates them with a solid dome (the raqia) which he calls the Sky. The sky is there to hold up the above-sky ocean.

Then, after God had already created the earth and sky from the primordial ocean, he creates the lights. He puts them in the solid dome of the sky. They revolve around the earth. There is an ocean of water above them. During the Flood, God opens the "windows of the raqia" and floods the earth with this above-sky ocean. The earth is conceived like a bubble, and in the flood God pops the bubble. (This is why the ark has a roof sealed with pitch!)

Yet, if you don't call the author of all this God, you have pretty much the same story as you would get in a 7th grade science class.
I think you've drastically misrepresented the text of Genesis. It's nothing at all like what is taught in science class. It is, rather, almost exactly like the creation myths of the ancient Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, and Hindus (why am I not surprised).

Also, your retelling of Genesis is not actually what is taught in science classes.

All the Bible is trying to say is to answer the question, "How did the process of something from nothing get started?"
I absolutely disagree. Creation ex-nihilo is found nowhere in the Genesis creation story. The waters are already there when God starts creating. "Creation," as in other ancient religions, was conceived of as a creative act of order, like a sculptor molding a statue out of pre-existing clay. It was not conceived of as a sculptor magically popping the clay statue into existence out of nothing.

You don't see creation ex-nihilo until the gospel of John.

Science says, "It was a Big Bang."
It is a common misconception that the big bang was somehow a creative act, or a "popping into existence." The big bang is simply a description of what happened at the earliest moments of time that we are capable of deducing.

Big bang theory does not state that the singularity popped into existence. It simply describes what happens to the singularity as early as we can see—explosive expansion.

That may be true, but it doesn't answer the quesiton. "It was a Big Bang" does not actually answer the question of How? It answers the question of What? The answer to the question of How? is either, we don't know, or by the creative action of God.
Or:

It was always there. Since time and space are part of the same fabric, the universe has always existed, and so has its matter.

This is exactly what Stephen Hawking says in the book A Brief History of Time. The universe simply is, and requires no creator. (Note that this shouldn't be too hard to grasp, since you presumably believe the same thing about your deity, who has always existed and requires no creator.)

When we don't know how we came to be it is hard to answer the questions. But if we find the answer, "by the creative action of God" credible to the answer of how we came to be, then we find that we are also able to answer some of those other questions.

Where did I come from? From the mind and will of God.
Why am I here? Because God has a purpose for my life.
Who am I? A child of God.
These aren't answers. They just replace "I don't know" with "God did it." Which begs the question: how did God do it?

The answer is inevitably either "he sculpted my ancestor of clay to be his slave in a garden"—mythological nonsense—or "I don't know" and we're back to where we started. What is God's purpose for your life? "I don't know." Again, same place, you've just inserted a supernatural middleman.
Which is why religion is not particularly good at answering existential questions.

The theory of evolution provides fascinating and robust answers to those questions, though.

Or, I suppose you could claim to be a coodle off the old noodle. The choice is yours.
I choose to believe explanations that are evidenced, and lacking those, I choose to simply admit I don't know.
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2008, 04:01 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
Ha, I'm glad someone remembered the name. :)


This makes no sense.

The word "beginning" implies that there is a time in which something does not exist, followed by a time in which it does exist.

At which point in time did time not exist? It's a nonsense question. Time has always existed, by definition.


You are assuming it was created, and that there was ever a time in which this bit of something did not exist.
Actually there is no separate thing as time. What we perceive as time, is the relative motion of one object to other objects. Without the movement of the objects, there is no time to perceive. In other words, a minute portion of what we call a second and what we call infinity are identical if there is no movement to be measured.

I can not find any definition of time which is not dependent on the relationship of one object to another.

Time is a measurement not a thing, basically a mathematical function. there is no time without motion and there is no motion without an object to move.
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 04:12 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Actually there is no separate thing as time. What we perceive as time, is the relative motion of one object to other objects. Without the movement of the objects, there is no time to perceive. In other words, a minute portion of what we call a second and what we call infinity are identical if there is no movement to be measured.

I can not find any definition of time which is not dependent on the relationship of one object to another.

Time is a measurement not a thing, basically a mathematical function. there is no time without motion and there is no motion without an object to move.
Well, there's the concept of spacetime, which I think is useful philosophically as well as scientifically.

We know, for instance, that time warps along with space in the presence of mass. This confirms your point about time being inherently related to space (perception of temporal motion is dependent on perception of spatial motion).

I also think speed of light is very interesting, in regards to time. Since what we see is made of light—and thus, takes a finite amount of time to get to us from its source—this means the further we look out into the universe, the further back in time we're seeing.

There's also some stuff in quantum mechanics about imaginary time that I honestly don't understand at all but sound pretty enlightening. :)
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2008, 05:11 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
Well, there's the concept of spacetime, which I think is useful philosophically as well as scientifically.

We know, for instance, that time warps along with space in the presence of mass. This confirms your point about time being inherently related to space (perception of temporal motion is dependent on perception of spatial motion).

I also think speed of light is very interesting, in regards to time. Since what we see is made of light—and thus, takes a finite amount of time to get to us from its source—this means the further we look out into the universe, the further back in time we're seeing.

There's also some stuff in quantum mechanics about imaginary time that I honestly don't understand at all but sound pretty enlightening. :)
Dr. Einstein brought up some interesting concepts of time that preceded and helped formulate his 2 theories of relativity. In which the relative mathematical position of objects is our perception of time.

It time is a thing it should be either a continuous continuum or a discontinuous quanta continuum. The concept of it being a continuous continuum is questionable as it can not be proven that time occurs at the same rate in different locations. In fact it can not even be proven that 2 clocks side by side have the same time or that time passes at the same rate for both. This problem can be removed by perceiving time as a discontiuous quanta continuum, however it presents another problem that between the pulsations time would have to be non-existant.

Now, in the world of quantum physics. that is the field of physics that just may provide measurable proof of the existance of God(swt). although this next article is from a Christian site, the goal of the site is to prove the existance of God(swt) which is an area we do agree with, although we do disagree about the Nature of God(swt)

The Many Worlds Interpretation

It would seem that if chance is real (Copenhagen), God must exist as the Cosmic Observer. If determinism is real, God exists as the Hidden Variable that stops the infinite regress of causes. Doesn’t chance plus determinism cover the full array of possibilities? Have we proved God exists? Not exactly. If reality disappoints, you can deconstruct it. And that is precisely what some have done in construction of the many-worlds & superdeterminism models of reality.

As is explained well in Zukav’s The Dancing Wu-Li Masters (the Chinese designation for physicists), one can question a key assumption of rationality called contrafactual definiteness. When one questions ‘definiteness’ one constructs many worlds. Definiteness is a simple idea. It is as follows: if I choose option ‘A’, then option ‘B’ does not happen. But what if there is not a definite outcome to choice? What if ‘A’ and ‘B’ both still happen, but in different universes (the person in universe ‘B’ would have picked ‘B’). In effect, choice has no consequences. Again we are back to determinism. Perhaps you can see why this might be attractive to the atheist. This idea has the potential of removing the observer from a position of importance. It does not, however, solve the problem of why this multiverse exists in the first place. In fact, those such as Hawking that try to eliminate the need for a beginning to the universe and account for fine-tuning (the Anthropic principles) by proposing a multiverse model still try to appeal to the intrinsic randomness of an uncaused beginning (quantum fluctuation) to get the whole thing started. Yet intrinsic randomness applies only to Copenhagen, and Copenhagen and Many-Worlds are mutually exclusive. Hence Hawking is in the midst of a logical contradiction.
Source: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...echanics.shtml
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-05-2008, 05:17 AM
I went pretty fast and loose with both the Biblical text and with the 7th grade science class -- I am not a proponet of ID and felt no compulsion to try to do a detailed comparative analysis. But I do find that at a very general level there are some parallels which are very interesting for a people who would have had no special knowledge of the origins of the earth other than that received either from other cultures' myths or special revelation. Though you obviously disagree, I still think the Bible sounds a lot closer to the Stephens (Hawking and Gould) than it does Gilgamesh.

I agree that the concept of an eternal universe is not any more difficult to perceive than the concept of eternal diety. Said the other way, it makes the question "Where did God come from?" rather meaningless as well.

And while my general acceptance of the origins of the cosmos are enough for me not to take the opening chapters of Genesis literally, I would be interested in hear more of your "robust" answers that are provided by evolution. I don't see that in a universe where the value of a bacterium, an earthworm, and a human being would all be over equal insignificance.


As far as Obler's paradox goes in conjunction with the speed of light. (Assuming the univerese not to be expanding faster than the speed of light.) I imagine that some of the stars are so distant that the light from them has simply not reached us yet. And when it does, just as I know that when looking at the North Star that I am looking at light that set sail with Columbus, so we will be able to look up at that new starlight and looking back in time be able to see the exact moment when God spoke and said (at least for that particular star), "Let there be light."


Woodrow, I think I got lost somewhere in Denmark. Perhaps if we were discussing this on strings instead of threads I wouldn't get so knotted in confusion. But the whole thing seems to be folding back in on itself and that has left me in a state of duality where I am both with you and not at the same moment (though I guess I can no longer call it a moment in time, but in space).
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 06:25 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Dr. Einstein brought up some interesting concepts of time that preceded and helped formulate his 2 theories of relativity. In which the relative mathematical position of objects is our perception of time.

It time is a thing it should be either a continuous continuum or a discontinuous quanta continuum. The concept of it being a continuous continuum is questionable as it can not be proven that time occurs at the same rate in different locations. In fact it can not even be proven that 2 clocks side by side have the same time or that time passes at the same rate for both. This problem can be removed by perceiving time as a discontiuous quanta continuum, however it presents another problem that between the pulsations time would have to be non-existant.
Interesting, though I don't think your objection to quantum time is actually that problematic. It only seems like it is because we humans are used to seeing things as continuous wholes. For example, when we touch a chair or a keyboard, there is empty space between our fingers and the chair. The "touch" is electromagnetic repulsion; it is not matter physically pushing against other matter. Similarly, solid objects are not solid at all; most of our bodies are empty space between electrons and nuclei of atoms.

Honestly though, I'm not convinced we'll ever be able to figure out the true nature of time, since our thought processes in our brain are dependent on a preconception of time.

Now, in the world of quantum physics. that is the field of physics that just may provide measurable proof of the existance of God(swt). although this next article is from a Christian site, the goal of the site is to prove the existance of God(swt) which is an area we do agree with, although we do disagree about the Nature of God(swt)
Ugh. This is just Aristotle's unmoved mover argument. I'm sure you know the logical flaws to that. Also, Hawking's model is not a multiverse model.
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 06:45 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I went pretty fast and loose with both the Biblical text and with the 7th grade science class -- I am not a proponet of ID and felt no compulsion to try to do a detailed comparative analysis. But I do find that at a very general level there are some parallels which are very interesting for a people who would have had no special knowledge of the origins of the earth other than that received either from other cultures' myths or special revelation. Though you obviously disagree, I still think the Bible sounds a lot closer to the Stephens (Hawking and Gould) than it does Gilgamesh.
Actually ... I think old creation myths that are NOT creation ex-nihilo—like the Enuma Elish and Genesis—have more in common with modern science than the way Christians have (wrongly) interpreted the Genesis myth as a creation ex-nihilo story.

*(Gilgamesh is not the Babylonian creation myth; the Enuma Elish is)

And while my general acceptance of the origins of the cosmos are enough for me not to take the opening chapters of Genesis literally, I would be interested in hear more of your "robust" answers that are provided by evolution. I don't see that in a universe where the value of a bacterium, an earthworm, and a human being would all be over equal insignificance.
Well, I don't think the theory of evolution has any answers for the origin of the cosmos. :) Evolution is limited in scope to biology and tells us nothing about astrophysics.

As for "value," I would question your assumption that value is innate, and not assigned. Why is a diamond more valuable than a lump of coal? What determines that value? We do. (Though I don't think we're the only creatures who assign value.)

Aside from that, I'm not really sure where to start. Evolution tells us a lot about our brains, our morals, and our societies. We can look at chimpanzee societies and see the precursors to our own social activities: hunting, dominance hierarchies, tool use, communication, altruism, even adolescent rebellion. We can evaluate just why each of these things arose—what advantages they conferred on our ancestor species, and at what costs. We might even be able to see which behaviors are vestiges that can be discarded or modified.

As far as Obler's paradox goes in conjunction with the speed of light. (Assuming the univerese not to be expanding faster than the speed of light.) I imagine that some of the stars are so distant that the light from them has simply not reached us yet. And when it does, just as I know that when looking at the North Star that I am looking at light that set sail with Columbus, so we will be able to look up at that new starlight and looking back in time be able to see the exact moment when God spoke and said (at least for that particular star), "Let there be light."
But infinite space would mean infinite time. Still infinite light in the night sky.
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by Qingu


But infinite space would mean infinite time. Still infinite light in the night sky.
Unless the universe were expanding. Which would mean the distance between the stars was constantly increasing, resulting in an ever increasing void. this would mean that the amount of light from the stars would be decreasing although the number of the stars could be infinite, over time fewer would be visible, resulting in less light reaching any specific point.
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2008, 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker


Woodrow, I think I got lost somewhere in Denmark. Perhaps if we were discussing this on strings instead of threads I wouldn't get so knotted in confusion. But the whole thing seems to be folding back in on itself and that has left me in a state of duality where I am both with you and not at the same moment (though I guess I can no longer call it a moment in time, but in space).
Sorry Gene, I guess my attempts at trying to explain what little I understand of quantum physics leaves much lacking. But, it does explain why I never was a Physics teacher.

My point being the deeper you get into physics, especially quantum mechanics, the more it becomes necessary to use non-physical concepts to explain matter.

the apparent direction this is heading is that you can not have matter without a Deity. something like the non-physicists were told a long time ago.
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 04:32 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Unless the universe were expanding. Which would mean the distance between the stars was constantly increasing, resulting in an ever increasing void. this would mean that the amount of light from the stars would be decreasing although the number of the stars could be infinite, over time fewer would be visible, resulting in less light reaching any specific point.
This still wouldn't solve the paradox if time is infinite. Infinite time means no starting point from which to expand in the first place.

If the universe is finite, but boundless, on the other hand—much like how the surface of the earth has a finite area but has no "edges"—this would resolve the paradox.
Reply

Muezzin
01-05-2008, 04:36 PM
What does all this have to do with Flying Spaghetti Monsters?

I demand my pasta!
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
What does all this have to do with Flying Spaghetti Monsters?

I demand my pasta!
No pasta till you get it right! :D

It isn't Monsters. :thumbs_do There is one and only one FSM. :shade:

Besides he created time. :D
Reply

- Qatada -
01-05-2008, 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
No pasta till you get it right! :D

It isn't Monsters. :thumbs_do There is one and only one FSM. :shade:

Besides he created time. :D

No he never, because he's similar to the creation. God is not like His creation, that's why He's God. :) Spaghetti monster is made out of pasta, a creation - therefore he cannot be God. :)
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2008, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
No he never, because he's similar to the creation. God is not like His creation, that's why He's God. :) Spaghetti monster is made out of pasta, a creation - therefore he cannot be God. :)
to add to that the FSM is delicious if served with plenty of Parmesan Cheese and a few slices of garlic bread. FSM is definetly a creation, designed by a master chef and is subject to the appetite of mankind.
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 06:22 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
No he never, because he's similar to the creation. God is not like His creation, that's why He's God. :) Spaghetti monster is made out of pasta, a creation - therefore he cannot be God. :)
I beg your pardon. :mad:

He made pasta in his own image and likeness. :D
Reply

- Qatada -
01-05-2008, 06:30 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I beg your pardon. :mad:

He made pasta in his own image and likeness. :D

If he made pasta out of his own likeness, then you are saying that the pasta which we eat is a god - since it is exactly similar to god? Therefore humans are able to devour this god of yours? I don't think that can be a God at all then - since he is being overpowered by his creation - God is Perfect and can never be overpowered. :)
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 06:59 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
If he made pasta out of his own likeness, then you are saying that the pasta which we eat is a god - since it is exactly similar to god? Therefore humans are able to devour this god of yours? I don't think that can be a God at all then - since he is being overpowered by his creation - God is Perfect and can never be overpowered. :)
I have a valid response to each and every one of your statements. :D

The problem is, that in order to make those responses I would have to make specific negative statements about specific religions. :thumbs_do

I don't do that. :mad:

That doesn't change the fact that I believe the scriptures of the FSM are as valid as any of the other scriptures. :shade:
Reply

جوري
01-05-2008, 07:33 PM
FSM and its doctrine sound like an exquisite idea for atheists actually-- I am all for it. It gives them plenty of room to excogitate, observe, alter and modify their juvenile and not fully developed ideas of the world and the universe around them, and chanel it toward a more suitable purpose, eventually and hopefully they can emerge reinvented and ready for mature conversation..

I don't think I have ever engaged an atheist whose mind could take him beyond the usual vacuous comments of tea pots, pink monkeys or elephants or whatever other inane insights.. as if every conversation has to degenerate down to a low common denominator for the lot of them to experience some control!

I think this is a suitable deity for them..
As the adage goes, you are as intelligent as far as your mind can take you, and that is how far their mind takes them.. so I say 'why not' FSM it is.. there is no shortage of byways.. it is after all the human condition!


cheers
Reply

Qingu
01-05-2008, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
No he never, because he's similar to the creation. God is not like His creation, that's why He's God. :) Spaghetti monster is made out of pasta, a creation - therefore he cannot be God. :)
Actually, creation is made out of pasta.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

Truly, science continues to confirm the doctrines of Pastafarianism!
Reply

chacha_jalebi
01-05-2008, 07:56 PM
pingu now now dont be smart you know what the brother meant:D
Reply

chacha_jalebi
01-05-2008, 09:34 PM
the thread has served its purpose, so im closing it, if anyone wants it re opened pm between the hours of now and never :D
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2013, 10:41 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-12-2009, 06:16 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-18-2007, 09:42 PM
  4. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-19-2006, 12:48 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!