FSM-ism

[ArtDrake]

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.

[Deagonx]

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


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

[ArtDrake]

Read this.

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?

[Deagonx]

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.

[Rob]

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.

[ArtDrake]

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.

[bugfartboy]

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

[ArtDrake]

[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, p. 174
See The Gospel of Matthew, 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.

[Rob]

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

[ArtDrake]

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).

[Deagonx]

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?

[Deagonx]

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)

[Idozen Cair]

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

[Deagonx]

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


Wouldn't you?

[Idozen Cair]

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

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