The Sinister Design Forums

I think that those flaunting Christian creation as a truth superior to that of evolution might like to justify their "theory" in the light of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. For those of you insulted by the idea, you may choose not to participate. Evolutionary thinkers must fully explain their theory and expand it and revise it to fit the evidence, and subsequently properly understand all evidence supporting the theory, which would require completion of one's education, whereas Christians and creationists simply interpret the evidence as supporting their conclusion. These are two separate varieties of proposition, the latter being much easier to defend than the former; the difference is between justification and explanation of how the avaliable evidence supports the theory.

Thus, I propose an alternative; Christian creationists ought show their version of creation as any more true or factual than that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm also including a poll -- whether or not this should be a forum game. I hope for the debate to maintain formality, but if it breaks the somewhat formal atmosphere which I desire for it, then it had probably best be moved. Also, if flaming ensues, the thread will lock.

This ought to be fun.

Somebody doesn't understand the idea of putting faith in your religion.


And, why did you copy my signature into morse code?

Read this (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=464.msg38504;topicseen#msg38504).

And somebody thinks that you could just as easily have faith in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Is one not just as correct having faith in FSM-ism as one who believes in Christian God?

I understand the idea of faith and fail to see how it leaves you convinced that some extra-terrestrial being named God created the universe. Couldn't that being have been rather more... noodly?

I see the point you are trying to make, "Your god is as real as any other god."

And, while I understand the point, I am going to make the assumption (and I use that word lightly) that you haven't read through the holy bible. You calling my religion false without having read the bible, would be like me saying evolution is flawed without knowing the flaws.



Why do you only look at the bigger picture? Its the details that count. Christianity is not simply "God created us, then Jesus saved us from our sins." There happens to be quite a bit more to it. But you wouldn't know that, would you?



I guess that 1200 page book, and all the stories were all part of somebodies imagination? And, his imagination is now influencing billions of people on earth? I find that to be laughably stupid.

The reason I believe Christianity and defend it is because, more than anything else, it matches how I see the world. I look, and I see that people, as written in John, "love the darkness" and shun the light. I see that people are rather nasty things on the inside (if you think I'm biased, Freud agreed with me, though he didn't exactly say it the way I did). I have noticed that very young people are very very selfish. Despite this, selfishness isn't encouraged. Despite our inner evils, we strive to be "good." It makes no sense that we are born with a certain mind and yet we try to push it away. We should not. We are terrible things internally, in the unconscious mind, and yet we do not accept it. By the way, I haven't exactly been flaunting Christianity. I've been saying why I don't believe evolution.

Rob, I wasn't saying it of you.

The "Holy" Bible was a selection of scriptures written by those who heard stories of those claimed to have seen God or felt God. This latter group were most likely experiencing moments of epiphany, hallucinating, or just making things up, during which they came to think of certain ideas. These were the prophets. They then told their friends about it, and the ideas were scattered and retold, becoming more fantastic as they went. Politicians expressed their views on management of land and crops, commanders told of their experiences in war.

Finally, about 300 years later, these were written down, transcribed from the now much altered oral tradition. Stories were collected and organized into the form of a book, which eventually was formulated into the Bible. Those assembling these stories picked those expressing views they thought were fitting for a holy text. These "Holy editors" were doing the work of God: they were putting down to paper that which already was of God.

Also, the thoughts you want are, "Your calling my religion false without having read the Bible would be like my saying evolution is flawed without understanding it completely," and

"Your calling my religion false without understanding its flaws (of which there are many) would be like my saying evolution is flawed without understanding its flaws (which you have failed to mention)."

Both conditionals have comparable requirements; where I have not read the Bible, you don't understand the theory of evolution completely (if you think you do, you don't); where I understand the flaws of the Bible, you wish to point out flaws in the theory of evolution.

My point, in short (since you seem to be fond of "short"): "I don't have to have read the entire Bible, especially not the parts irrelevant to the basic points of the religion, to point out its flaws if you can choose not to understand evolution before attacking it."

The 1200-page book and all the stories therein were distorted and exaggerated over half a century before being set on paper. All of it happened, but none of it happened exactly as written. The Bible is not the literal truth.

Question: And you would know when they were written how? Might I ask what evidence you have?

[spoiler=Matthew]Written by a Jew, abt. 80-90 CE. "For many reasons most scholars today ... believe instead that it was written between about 80-90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite," in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values."
See An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=EcsQknxV-xQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=An+introduction+to+the+New+Testament+and+the+origins+of+Christianity+Delbert+Royce+Burkett&source=bl&ots=Xhm8Cv3-Rt&sig=ksYatWvw5-XTeGATwmuD8-xiWn4&hl=en&ei=qM-3TMPTHsqycI7cicEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gospel%20of%20Matthew&f=false), p. 174
See The Gospel of Matthew (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ygcgn8h-jo4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Blackwell+companion+to+the+New+Testament&source=bl&ots=bCwyYJj2XX&sig=LzOcEQtjewwjGNmddEELEfKiRA8&hl=en&ei=XdK3TN2DF4e8cI7TweIM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false), pp. 298, 302[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Mark]"A 2nd century tradition ascribes [Mark] to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a companion of Peter, on whose memories it is supposedly based. The gospel was written in Greek around AD 64, possibly in Syria."

see The Historical Jesus: a Comprehensive Guide, by Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz, pp. 24-27[/spoiler]

I'll be adding more examples to the section. 300 years may have been an exaggeration, but only for some of the scriptures. My point is that fifty or sixty years before the account was written down is a long time for the humanity of a mostly-good person to be washed away.

You do realize that the death of Jesus was sometime around 33 AD, right?

Yep. Sure I do. Which cuts it down. Still, I maintain my point. I just happen not to have thought of that at that instant.

It would be like attempting to write a history of the exploits of Martin Luther King, Jr., or John F. Kennedy -- right now. Those two, while having done some good things in their lives, were quite human, cheating on their wives and occasionally simply snapping at people they disagreed with. Now, they're nearly idealized, our most accurate written histories rarely pointing out faults in their characters. If the history was merely oral, even more distortion might have taken place. If one waits that long to properly write down the details of someone's life, many are forgotten, and the facts are misremembered.

Jesus, methinks, wasn't God; he was just a nice guy, with a certain amount of authority and charisma, leading others to believe that he was a prophet (and God).

Well, let me point out some flaws in *other* religions. (Well, you did ask us why we think our religion is more true than others)

Buddhism:

Buddhism focuses on reaching enlightenment. Such as their idol (he was not a god, but a monk that reached enlightenment) did. Why has no other monk in all of time reached enlightenment? If such a thing was possible Im quite certain it would have happened by now.

Islam:

Allah, the God of Islam, is portrayed as quite a forceful person. This is even more exemplified through his prophet Muhammad. Being so adamant and forceful as he is, why does Allah not ever.. idk... use his Godly powers to spread his religion?

I have not seen very much of God's forcefulness in the holy bible... Have you?


(Old testament is old. The violence inside it doesn't apply to Christians, as everything changed with Jesus Christ)

I meant why doesn't God use his Godly powers to spread his religion?

If he did that, then most people would only follow him to simply not go to hell.


Wouldn't you?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Isn't 'us not going to Hell' is what God wanted?

Ofcourse, but God doesn't want us to follow his views out of fear of him. He wants us to follow him because we think its the right thing to do.

Why does Satan even exist then? Why can't God just destroy him forever?

I am very aware that this is veering very off-topic.

This is a very common misconception. Satans influences would very easily be stopped by God. It is a test of faith.


Secondly, Satan does not rule hell and torture people. He is IN hell just like everyone else.

Well, I'm sure that you, just like your savior, could hope to be perfect and sinless.
What's that? You couldn't? Might your situation be just like that of a Buddhist, only hoping to achieve a fraction of the worshipped one's perfection through a life of good deeds and non-sinful-ness?


Oh, and about Islam; they might have had a more havoc-wreaking God / Allah and corresponding prohet than you Christians did back in the days where gods actually did things... maybe... but throughout history, it's really been the Christians that have butchered native peoples, burned and stoned people they thought were witches, and in general, not been very nice people to the rest of the world. You don't exactly see many militant Buddhists about, and the militant Islam in recent political history has really been just that -- political. Terrorist leaders have been manipulating the religion of desperate people to recruit cannon fodder in their struggle for... whatever they're struggling for. (???)

Historically, Christians have joined bloody wars, if they can be called that, in frustration with the fact that native populations don't immediately accept Christianity as fact when it's shoved down their throats at gunpoint. And the fact that the have the wrong color skin. And the way they won't buy nearly enough opium.

Christianity has some good points, but I think it has bad points comparable to those you've named. It's certainly no more believable.

You do realize that one of Christianity's teachings says that all men are sinful, and have fallen short of God, and that living a life of good deeds does not lead to perfection or a "fraction of perfection" (whatever that means) but instead is in vain. I believe this would make it different from Buddhism. As for Islam, I do hope you realize that one of the first things that Muhammad and his followers did was conquer Mecca and the rest of present day Saudi Arabia. I am somewhat surprised that you have written off the present day militant Muslims as political. If that is the case, couldn't you just write off the militant Christians as political. After all, the Roman Catholic Church was very political, which was one of the things that led to the Protestant Reformation.

Quote from: Duckling on July 21, 2011, 02:09:23 PM
Well, I'm sure that you, just like your savior, could hope to be perfect and sinless.
What's that? You couldn't? Might your situation be just like that of a Buddhist, only hoping to achieve a fraction of the worshipped one's perfection through a life of good deeds and non-sinful-ness?


Oh, and about Islam; they might have had a more havoc-wreaking God / Allah and corresponding prohet than you Christians did back in the days where gods actually did things... maybe... but throughout history, it's really been the Christians that have butchered native peoples, burned and stoned people they thought were witches, and in general, not been very nice people to the rest of the world. You don't exactly see many militant Buddhists about, and the militant Islam in recent political history has really been just that -- political. Terrorist leaders have been manipulating the religion of desperate people to recruit cannon fodder in their struggle for... whatever they're struggling for. (???)

Historically, Christians have joined bloody wars, if they can be called that, in frustration with the fact that native populations don't immediately accept Christianity as fact when it's shoved down their throats at gunpoint. And the fact that the have the wrong color skin. And the way they won't buy nearly enough opium.

Christianity has some good points, but I think it has bad points comparable to those you've named. It's certainly no more believable.

Why is it exactly, that you think any war that a Christian is in, is a Christian War? There is a difference.


There were the crusades, I'll give you that, but we are not looking at what men did under the banner of a religion, we are looking at the religion itself.



Islam fully supports the wars it fights now. I could show hundreds of commands that say so.
And no, its not like the bible where you can pull quotes out of context. They are straightforward commands, not stories.


Secondly, I do not hope to become like Jesus. It simply won't happen. That'd be like saying I want to be as powerful as god.

ALSO:


In response to the 'Political Militant Islam' bit. Islam does not believe in anti-disestablishmenttarianism . They think that church and state should be completely one and the same. The Qur'an even specifies its social laws. Around the globe there are courts specifically for muslims to be punished under THEIR law.


The SAME law that promotes large scale execution, a man's word being twice that of a womans (in court). The same law that says if a woman is raped, she needs 4 MALE witnesses, otherwise she only confessed to adultery.


This is Islamic law. Shari'a law.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 22, 2011, 09:49:11 PM
ALSO:


In response to the 'Political Militant Islam' bit. Islam does not believe in anti-disestablishmenttarianism . They think that church and state should be completely one and the same. The Qur'an even specifies its social laws. Around the globe there are courts specifically for muslims to be punished under THEIR law.


The SAME law that promotes large scale execution, a man's word being twice that of a womans (in court). The same law that says if a woman is raped, she needs 4 MALE witnesses, otherwise she only confessed to adultery.


This is Islamic law. Shari'a law.

You ought to stop flaming Islam without understanding that much like Christianity, what is written in their holy book and what the majority of their followers practice today have important differences. To say those are part of Muslim law, then imply it as applied to Muslim courts of law is incorrect and ignorant.

Quote from: MikeW781 on July 23, 2011, 06:37:33 AM
You ought to stop flaming Islam without understanding that much like Christianity, what is written in their holy book and what the majority of their followers practice today have important differences. To say those are part of Muslim law, then imply it as applied to Muslim courts of law is incorrect and ignorant.

He said that the Islamic militants in the east were more political than anything. I gave him a rebuttal describing why Islam considers church and state one and the same.

And I insist that what the holy book literally describes and what its followers do differ. A modern-day interpretation of religion and its old archaeic roots should differ as has the world.

Quote from: Deagonx on July 20, 2011, 11:36:58 AM
Well, let me point out some flaws in *other* religions. (Well, you did ask us why we think our religion is more true than others)

You misunderstand. My question is of whether Christian creation is any more believable that creation according the the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I hold the view that it is not, and would actually like to leave Islam out of it, unless you would like to consider Islamic creation and compare it to the other two. I did not, in fact, ask why your religion was more true than others, but rather if you have any grounds for believing that your version of creation is more believable than that of the Pastafarians.

Pastafarianism is not and never will be an actual religion.


If you actually want to argue why I think Christianity is more believable than a mere reductio ad absurdum, then I would deem you crazier than the 'Pastafarianists'. (Well, the ones that legitimately believe in it)

I'm wondering why you think Old Testament creation oughtn't be reductio'd ad absurdum. The way I see it, it's equally absurdum as that which was reductio'd from it.

Old Testament Creation: A superhuman being, not from Earth, decided one day to create a universe. He kind of just splunked bits and pieces down, one day at a time. Strangely enough, he created electromagnetic radiation before there was anything to radiate it. Weird. And then he went on to create the Earth in a very flat way. It must have rounded out all on its own, because God didn't create it that way. And then, after creating millions of species of insects and fishes and birds and reptiles and worms and bacteria and parasites in just six days, he takes a whole day just to think of a better life form than that. You'd think he'd have figured out that the awesomer life forms were smarter and better at moving around long distances. And then he made dinosaur bones to totally fake us out.

Spaghetti Creation: A superhuman being, not from Earth, decided one day to create a universe. He kind of just splunked bits and pieces down, in no particular order. Strangely enough, he created a beer volcano before creating midgets. Weird. And then he went on to create the Earth, round as it is. I think that bit's more accurate than in the other one.... Anyway, he created a few species of each kind of animal and kind of let them breed and differentiate, in two days, took three days off, and then made some midgets. (Apologies to those of you amongst the forumers that go by midgets, little people, or any number of politically correct names, but FSM-ism makes a lot of jokes about that. I'll try to keep those to a minimum) Then, he spent the rest of the day, since creating midgets was easy, laughing and suchlike at them. Meanly. And he's been messing with the universe with his noodly appendages ever since, in order to fool scientists.

What science tells us: Well, we don't know much for sure, but there sure do seem to be a lot of fossils around that show intermediate forms between common ancestors and current species... let's call this theory evolution, and say that they're all decended from the same ancestor, a really long time ago, seeing as there're tons of evidence for it. Oh, and about that whole start of the universe. We don't know much about that for sure either, but we're pretty sure that there was a lot of pyrotechnics involved. We'll be sure to tell you as soon as we figure something out. But it's going to be less ridiculous than either of those other two theories -- I can tell you that much for sure.

I read the first sentence of both paragraphs and realized you were trying to make them sound similar.



In response, Im not going to finish.

Not only did I attempt to make them sound similar -- they are similar; that's very much the point.

I see that you are terribly offended by the very idea of trying to point out a single way in which your religion's creation is more believable than that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sorry about that, but it's rather necessary for this thread to have a point. I'd also say that it's significantly less offensive than your posts containing your repertoire of slurs against Islam. Seeing as it is the burden of the one making a proposition to put forth evidence to support it (as stated by Bertrand Russell), I merely point out that the two are similar, as are many creation stories.

The only TRUE similarities between creation theories, is the fact that it involves some sort of God.


Beyond that, it is very complicated and using similar words, and sentences, does not change that.

I would beg to differ. How complicated?

One with limited knowledge of Catholicism could easily say "God made the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th, thats it"

But if that same person were to read the entire bible, he would know there is a lot more to it.

"The entire Bible" does not concern the matter of creation. Instead of simply reiterating that there is more to the Old Testament creation than is between quotation marks in your latest post, please, instead, elaborate somewhat on creation and how it differs greatly from and is more believable than the Flying Spaghetti Monterism account of creation.

In a standard debate format, it would be said that I have stated my proposition and given evidence to support it. The first rebuttal comes next. To effectively make your case, you would have to give reasons why someone with, for example, no exposure to either religion might find the account of creation within the Holy Bible more worthy of belief than that which is in the Holy Pastament of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If you feel you are too offended by the idea of comparison between the two beliefs to, or are unable to, make this case, I invite you, Deagonx, to cease posting, and I shall delete the thread, as no party that believes they have a need to defend this point had come forward by that point.

If this does come to pass, I shall be aware that those on the forum either are amongst those who cannot defend their account of creation in a reasonable manner, those who agree with me in this sentiment, those who are indifferent to the matter at hand, or those who find themselves too offended to argue the point. If there cannot be a debate, this thread has no reason to exist. Please state your position and defend it, or alert me to the fact that the parameters specified within the fifth and sixth clauses of the fourth paragraph of this post have been fulfilled.

Well, for one thing, both the bible and the Qur'an describe themselves as being written by God (or allah)


Where as the 'gospel' for 'pastafaranism' was clearly written by a man.


The entire thing is just really a stupid joke. They even have a verse in there that says "He boiled for our sins."

So, if you actually want me to tell you why I think Christianity is more believeable than 'Pastafarianism' then I am going to have to ask you to not only cease posting until you see some sort of help with your reasoning.

I honestly thought that the Bible and the Qur'an were a collection of scriptures written by men who had heard God. Is this not the case?

Does not Bobby Henderson profess to be a prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
And was not the Old Pastament of scriptures found and assembled?

Is the idea of suffering a horrible, painful fate for the sake of Man so ridiculous?

I do not understand the phrase, "ask you to not only cease posting until you see some sort of help with your reasoning." The term "not only" implies there is more, but your sentence ends at the first list item. I also am truly clueless as to what the phrase, "see some sort of help with your reasoning." I believe it can be reduced to, "see help with your reasoning." Of this I am also mystified as to the meaning. I joke not, and only seek to better understand you. Please rephrase your sentence.

However, I gather that you believe that this topic is ridiculous and that I should stop posting until I "see help." If you think that I am mentally ill, I must refute your understanding of my condition. I simply wish to conduct a civil debate, as you appear to hold an opposing view, and we might hope to reconcile our differences. There may even be a possibility of my seeing the rationale those who believe the word of the Old Testament hold for doing so, and even reconcile my differences with these beliefs held accordingly.

As to your first question, no.

Second Question, I wouldnt know.

Third question, the point I was making is that its a clear spinoff of the Christian "He died for our sins"

Could it be that the two religions are, indeed, related, coming of similar origins?
Judaism and Christianity share a holy book, so is it so unreasonable that Pastafarianism and Christianity share the idea of death of the savior for the wrongdoing of his people?

[Note: As a point of curiosity, who boiled for our sins? I can't say that I remember that from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.]

Ill answer that last note: It was on their website as a picture. Clearly mocking Christianity.




Anyways, this is below me. I am not going to argue the validity of me calling a reductio ad absurdum stupid.

Okay. At this point, I'd like to apologize for aggravating you and disrespecting your religion. It's your choice; it's simply not one I'd make.

You're offended by the idea of this thread, and I'm not about to get any concessions concerning the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of you. Thread locked.

I'm so glad we've all grown so much as people since this little debacle. *shakes his head at his younger self*

Looking back at a lot of the discussions we've had, I want to go back and slap myself.  I started deleting some of them a few months back, but stopped a bit into it deciding that they were just a reminder of how much I've grown and how much my views have changed since then.

Yeah, I was this close to getting rid of some of them, but I feel like I'd only need to hide it if I were still that person, you know? Not trying to cover it up is the best kind of victory I can have over my past self, if that makes any sense.

If you wanted to have a serious conversation about faith, then don't compare God to a Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Instead of respectfully disagreeing with people, you are straight up insulting their beliefs and intelligence.

By the way, Fly Spaghetti Monster was a concept from a South Park story arc about how atheists can be just as big of dicks as people of faith when it comes to uncompromising doctrine.  Instead of berating Christian beliefs, you should just accept that you have a difference in option.  Its not like someone's belief in creationism somehow diminishes your personal belief in evolution. This lesson also applies to how Christians should approach people with different faiths and beliefs.

Did you not get the memo? This is a retrospective, man, and you're jinking the vibes with your out-of-nowhere rebuttal of my fourteen-year-old self -- not to mention, you don't seem to be able to get your facts straight even now.

If this is what happens when I try to have a little "how far we've come" moment, I don't think we're all (you're fine, though, Bug) as ready as I thought for this kind of thing. Thread locked.