Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster > Christianity

[I Luv the Chariot OH]

For those of you who are not acquainted:

http://www.venganza.org/

 

A nice summary:

"Whether or not the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists is beside the point. It can’t be proved either way, just as Christians can’t prove the existence of their god. And there’s no reason to try. We’re all free to believe what we want."

 

My question:

how is Christianity any more valid/sensible/noble than Pastafarianism?

[quankanne]

oh, this is horrible: I don't look at a picture of Jesus and suddenly go hungry! Or, Jesus wouldn't look as hot covered in grated parmy as the FSM would

 

love the avatar, BTW

[Moose]

just as Christians can’t prove the existence of their god.

Nonsense.

 

Christians don't need to prove God's existance. That fact is as plain as the noses on our faces, (Christians). Fact is, it is non-believers who CAN'T believe God exists simply because they rely on their own, (limited) understanding.

how is Christianity any more valid/sensible/noble than Pastafarianism?

History, innate characteristics in all humans, prophecies that have come to reality, and yet to come true......

 

I wouldn't let junk like this confuse you when you wake up looking at the stars and finally realize someone stole your tent....

[JamesM]

For those of you who are not acquainted:

http://www.venganza.org/

 

A nice summary:

"Whether or not the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists is beside the point. It can’t be proved either way, just as Christians can’t prove the existence of their god. And there’s no reason to try. We’re all free to believe what we want."

 

My question:

how is Christianity any more valid/sensible/noble than Pastafarianism?

 

Based on your nice summary, then I would be inclined to say it isn't. However, one then needs to examine the statement that states that there is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

 

And when we see that there is much evidence for God as opposed to the evidence for the FSM (which we know how and where "it" began), then we can say intelligently that a belief in God is sensible.

 

BTW, you actually presented TWO questions. The first is...Is there evidence for a God? The second is...Is there evidence that Christianity is the correct way to that God?

 

So, now let's see where this thread will take us?

[Trialbyfire]

Well, communion would take on a whole new flavour!

[D-Lish]

Fact is, it is non-believers who CAN'T believe God exists simply because they rely on their own, (limited) understanding.

 

What about those of us that have studied religion extensively, been brought up in Christian environments, read the Bible from cover to cover but choose based on that research NOT to believe. I'd hardly call my understanding of Christianity "limited"... I'd say I have made an informed choice- and I would hope others would repsect my ability to choose my OWN beliefs and much as they expect me to respect their choice.

 

I just take offense to the remark that most people that don't believe in god are "ignorant" in their understanding of the concept. I understand the concept- I just choose to live life as a happy Atheist...

 

That's the biggest problem I have with the old religious/non-religious debate... That it ultimately boils down to a "us vs. you" dilemma. People always get so self-righteous on both sides of the debate and these threads always end up with people chiming in calling others stupid or ignorant.

 

I always end up giving up on these debates because of the "us vs. them" mentality.

 

I'll never forget the wretchid annoying woman that sat beside me on a plane ride. For two hours, she sat reading the bible to me, quoting her scripture, telling me I was going to hell because I hadn't accepted HER Jesus into my life. This was a woman who was extremely limited in her own understanding of the Bible. I brought up passage after passage to discuss with her- and she knew nothing of what I was talking about- I even had to flip through her own freakin' manual to show her the passages I was speaking of. She'd never read them...

 

I don't have a limited understanding of the bible or the christian faith... I simply don't believe in any god, but neither will I judge people that do.

[Moose]

D-Lish,

 

I'm no better than the next guy......perhaps I should've put a different way...

 

"Fact is, it is non-believers who CAN'T believe God exists simply because they rely on their own, (limited) understanding in Him."

 

I believe without that personal relationship with God, it is impossible to believe in Him.

 

So you've heard the message and rejected it......that's your choice and I'm not going to stand in your way....

[blind_otter]

D-Lish,

 

I'm no better than the next guy......perhaps I should've put a different way...

 

"Fact is, it is non-believers who CAN'T believe God exists simply because they rely on their own, (limited) understanding in Him."

 

I believe without that personal relationship with God, it is impossible to believe in Him.

 

So you've heard the message and rejected it......that's your choice and I'm not going to stand in your way....

 

Unlike D-lish, I do believe in God. But I am opposed to most organized religions because I feel they are one man's interpretation of God (as all Christian sects are based on the philosophies of whoever started that sect).

 

I have had an extensive religious education. I went to Catholic school for 10 years. I read the bible cover to cover a few times in my life, started when I was about 10. I attended mass twice a week for many years, I observed rituals and sacraments. I attended religious education classes.

 

I also went to services from different faiths as well as different sects of christianity.

 

So, I have heard the message and rejected it as well, but I most certainly have a personal relationship with God.

[ThumbingMyWay]

We’re all free to believe what we want."

 

yes we are

 

 

and I have

 

faith

 

1.confidence or trust in a person or thing

 

2.belief that is not based on proof

 

 

 

in Jesus Christ

[LucreziaBorgia]

I am a spiritual person but not a religious one. To me, religion is more of a reflection of man than it is G_d. I believe in the G_d that is beyond the boundaries of any religion, and beyond the limits of a punishment/reward system. The G_d that people from the beginning of humanity all over the world interpreted in different ways and form belief systems from. The 'source', I suppose.

 

As for Jesus, I believe that there were and are inspired spiritual leaders from a variety of historical periods and places in the world - some call them prophets, others call them holy men, and so on. I don't know that one is any better or right than the other. There is something useful that can be culled from any one or all of them.

[D-Lish]

D-Lish,

 

I'm no better than the next guy......perhaps I should've put a different way...

 

"Fact is, it is non-believers who CAN'T believe God exists simply because they rely on their own, (limited) understanding in Him."

 

I believe without that personal relationship with God, it is impossible to believe in Him.

 

So you've heard the message and rejected it......that's your choice and I'm not going to stand in your way....

 

I know what you mean Moose, and I misunderstood what you were saying. You are always pretty respectful with your posts and I don't normally take issue with what you say.

 

People debate this issue often on this board- and to me, it's a no win battle when you are argueing a personal belief in something.

[Jake Barnes]

I agree with Delicious except for the adjective happy in happy atheist.

 

I dont think there is even one truly happy atheist in existence. Not if they are true atheists

[JamesM]

I agree with Delicious except for the adjective happy in happy atheist.

 

I dont think there is even one truly happy atheist in existence. Not if they are true atheists

 

I think you will be inclined to define what happiness is in your opinion. I am guessing that many atheists will disagree with your statement.

[Enema]

Sure, I'm one of those atheists that will say I'm perfectly happy.

 

Unrelated, since I don't agree with the premise but have you ever heard this famous quote?

 

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

[electric_sheep]

D-Lish, I find you... simply delicious.

[disgracian]

OK I will explain this once and it should put an end to all this.

Wow. Thousands of years of religious debate and all it took was you to come along and say what every skeptic already knew: that you have no evidence, and there is no logic or reason behind your beliefs.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Enema]

The human emotion of love is something which cannot be validated and proven by science, logic, or reason, either, but it still exists...because God has created this.

 

Well that's not true.

Love can be observed because there are physical changes when a person is in love. Both overtly, and differences in body chemistry with hormone release etc.

 

It is not an intangible emotion at all.

 

Also, love's existence can be explained through science too. It's an evolutionary trait that developed to ensure parents stayed together long enough to produce offspring.

 

Sort of off topic, since your post wasn't really about love... but, saying god's existence is beyond our understanding or ability to prove is a cop-out answer... a place you go to hide when there's no where left.

 

You could replace "God" with any mythical being, like Santa or the tooth fairy and say that their existence is beyond our understanding and be just as right. Do you believe in Santa?

[Enema]

All of that can be negated because someone had to create the spark of life in the first place.

 

Whoa, back up a second... Why did someone have to create the spark of life? This is a baseless claim. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

The spark of life is something that scientists still can't explain

 

You're half right... while there are good theories about abiogenesis and the origin of life, we still don't know for sure.

 

You don't know either, but when you get stumped you say "goddidit". Again, just a baseless assertion. Something you believe but certainly not backed up by any facts.

 

Why can't we just be allowed to believe what we want to?

 

I'd be more than happy for you to have your beliefs and live your life peacefully. The sad fact is, many religiots attempt to force their beliefs, societal and moral standards onto everyone else. That, is why we argue.

 

Believe what you want, but keep it to yourself.

[Moose]

You don't know either, but when you get stumped you say "goddidit". Again, just a baseless assertion. Something you believe but certainly not backed up by any facts.

Fact is that we've been saying, "goddidit" for thousands of years and has yet to be, "un-proven".

 

Until you do, you simply can not dismiss the possiblity, otherwise you wouldn't be a scientist period.....make sense?

Something you believe but certainly not backed up by any facts.

We have, and have had God's word for thousands of years. Testimony from literally hundreds of those who have seen Him, and millions of those who haven't but still have accepted Him.....yes, the scientists are indeed out-numbered....

[Enema]

Fact is that we've been saying, "goddidit" for thousands of years and has yet to be, "un-proven".

 

Not this dead horse again... You're making the extraordinary claim that "goddidit", so the burden of proof rests with you.

 

If the burden of proof was on me, I could just as easily say... "santadidit", try to "un-prove" me! Ridiculous.

 

Until you do, you simply can not dismiss the possiblity, otherwise you wouldn't be a scientist period.....make sense?

 

Of course technically almost every atheist identifies as being part "agnostic" because there's an infinitisimally small chance that god does exist. The same holds true for Santa, but just like god, the likelihood is so small that there's no point acknowledging it.

 

We have, and have had God's word for thousands of years.

 

You believe it's gods word. All we do know for sure is that it's an old book written by men. So, this is not evidence of anything.

 

Testimony from literally hundreds of those who have seen Him, and millions of those who haven't but still have accepted Him.....

 

People living today will happily testify that they've seen faeries in their back garden. Unverifiable testimony is evidence of nothing.

 

yes, the scientists are indeed out-numbered....

Argumentum ad populum. Just because the majority believe something, doesn't make them right. The argument is useless.

[Moose]

Not this dead horse again... You're making the extraordinary claim that "goddidit", so the burden of proof rests with you.

You may say it's a, "dead horse" but in reality I have all the proof I need.

 

You simply can't experience the "proof", or should I say grasp the "proof" because of your decision to dismiss it.....simple as that.....

Of course technically almost every atheist identifies as being part "agnostic" because there's an infinitisimally small chance that god does exist. The same holds true for Santa, but just like god, the likelihood is so small that there's no point acknowledging it.

You're almost there.....except for the, "but"....at least you see my point.

You believe it's gods word. All we do know for sure is that it's an old book written by men. So, this is not evidence of anything.

So let's dismiss the theory of evolution? How about other theories that have been written by men? Why not?

People living today will happily testify that they've seen faeries in their back garden. Unverifiable testimony is evidence of nothing.

I'll agree to this.

Just because the majority believe something, doesn't make them right.

True, they can all be wrong, but certainly not all right....I'll agree again....two for two...whatdoya know???!!!

[quankanne]

oh, Santy's real – he's a legend based on the kind deeds of Nicholas of Myra, a third-century Christian bishop. It's the love of others that makes him real, which transcends time-space-distance.

 

and yourself have argued that love is a biological thing: Love can be observed because there are physical changes when a person is in love. Both overtly, and differences in body chemistry with hormone release etc.

 

using that as a jumping off point, I'll argue that God is therefore incredibly real, because he IS love itself, as source, as recipient, as action, evidenced in the Holy Trinity.

 

because if one can accept the idea of love existing, even though the average joe doesn't have the scientific equipment to prove it, even though his most emperical evidence of love is subjective, why is it so outrageous that someone applies this kind of belief to God? Please don't argue "the kooks who love Him so much they choose to kill" bit, because they are the exception rather than the rule.

[elaina]

What about those of us that have studied religion extensively, been brought up in Christian environments, read the Bible from cover to cover but choose based on that research NOT to believe. I'd hardly call my understanding of Christianity "limited"... I'd say I have made an informed choice- and I would hope others would repsect my ability to choose my OWN beliefs and much as they expect me to respect their choice.

 

I just take offense to the remark that most people that don't believe in god are "ignorant" in their understanding of the concept. I understand the concept- I just choose to live life as a happy Atheist...

 

That's the biggest problem I have with the old religious/non-religious debate... That it ultimately boils down to a "us vs. you" dilemma. People always get so self-righteous on both sides of the debate and these threads always end up with people chiming in calling others stupid or ignorant.

 

I always end up giving up on these debates because of the "us vs. them" mentality.

 

I'll never forget the wretchid annoying woman that sat beside me on a plane ride. For two hours, she sat reading the bible to me, quoting her scripture, telling me I was going to hell because I hadn't accepted HER Jesus into my life. This was a woman who was extremely limited in her own understanding of the Bible. I brought up passage after passage to discuss with her- and she knew nothing of what I was talking about- I even had to flip through her own freakin' manual to show her the passages I was speaking of. She'd never read them...

 

I don't have a limited understanding of the bible or the christian faith... I simply don't believe in any god, but neither will I judge people that do.

 

Hi,

 

Some people do have a sincere and true relationship with God and this relationship is better and greater than any other relationship. You are right though, it is wrong for people to try to force you to believe what they do. Believing in God is a very personal thing and having a relationship with Him is too. It's totally different than any other kind of relationship.

 

If you choose to not believe in Him that is between you and Him, and even though yeah it makes people who know Him sad, it is your decision and you are respected and loved and hopefully someday you will know Him but it is not our business to judge you.

[disgracian]

Fact is that we've been saying, "goddidit" for thousands of years and has yet to be, "un-proven".

Fortunately the burden of proof doesn't work that way. Otherwise we would still be trying to disprove all sorts of unfalsifiable rubbish.

Until you do, you simply can not dismiss the possiblity, otherwise you wouldn't be a scientist period.....make sense?

I don't think you're in a position to lecture anyone on what science should or should not be. The reality is that one does not even have to consider a possibility until somebody comes forth with a compelling reason to consider it. Then the evidence is tested. Since, in the case of god, there is no testable evidence to begin with, it doesn't merit consideration.

 

There is nothing stopping a scientist from believing in god or reincarnation or anything else; that's their perogative as much as anybody else. But it isn't science, that's all.

We have, and have had God's word for thousands of years. Testimony from literally hundreds of those who have seen Him, and millions of those who haven't but still have accepted Him.....

You and every other religion out there. I suppose if that's what you're prepared to accept for legitimacy then they may as well all be true. The truth is, that in order to maintain their belief, believers must not apply the same level of scrutiny and skepticism to their own beliefs as they do to everybody elses'.

yes, the scientists are indeed out-numbered....

I hope that last comment was tongue-in-cheek.

 

Cheers,

D.

[marlena]

And when we see that there is much evidence for God as opposed to the evidence for the FSM (which we know how and where "it" began), then we can say intelligently that a belief in God is sensible.

 

 

It is manufactured by man evidence if you can even call it evidence at all. It is a book written and re-written by man.

 

If anyone stands a chance of proving the existence of God it is the scientists...physicists more so than anyone.

 

People who are lucky enough to have unshakeable faith in a divine being base their belief on emotional responses and intuition more than on hard facts and scientific evidence. Unquestionning God is part of their belief. They need ask no questions nor seek any answers. Doing so would be a contradiction in terms.