Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:35 pm

Praeothmin wrote: Can you prove that?
Christianity in its early years, as in really early years. Like, the first few decades, before word could spread and before anybody regarded it as a big deal. It wasn't until several Emperors after Nero in which 1/10 of the Roman Empire was Christian.

To elaborate, at the time of Jesus's death, few historians wrote about it, and those that did hardly gave it significance. Christianity clearly took time to gain prominence.

Once it did, there were hardly scientists out trying to disprove it. And once it really gained prominence, none could without being killed gruesomely. People have not been trying to disprove it for 6000 years; only few a few centuries. And one could argue that they've already succeeded. Again, mojo's definition of "disproving" something is "when the public more or less universally agrees". A concealed appeal to popularity.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:13 pm

So, by "a few centuries" you mean over 1 thousand years?

Compared to a human invention revealed by its author as a complete joke?
SWST wrote:one could argue that they've already succeeded
Really?
When?
Who succeeded?
How?

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:27 am

why is it that you ignore 90% of my arguments and utterly fail to validly rebut the ones you DO respond to?
how can you find it rational and acceptable debating behavior to ignore arguments and change the rules when you lose?
do you not find it even remotely odd that you have never conceded a point of any kind on this forum? are you always right? do you never make a mistake?

alright, let's go point by point. by the way, i love how you responded (invalidly) to one post and ignored all the rest. was sdn closed today? did you have to think of this one on your own? it seems likely considering it was just a further continuation of a point i have dealt with more than once.
Prove that they "failed". What standards to you use to determine that somebody "failed" in their disproof or that they succeeded?
well, that's an interesting thing to ask for. you keep asking for evidence while blatantly ignoring my requests for same! here's my thoughts on proof that christianity hasn't been proven false, and i think you'll agree it's valid - IF EVIDENCE EXISTED DISPROVING CHRISTIANITY, YOU WOULD HAVE POSTED IT BY NOW, CONSIDERING I'VE ASKED FOR IT TEN TIMES. the very fact that you've posted absolutely no proof or even evidence that you can pretend is proof shows that either it doesn't exist or you are not aware that it exists. simple enough for you? did you understand that? now, instead of blathering on and on about the necessity that i PROVE CHRISTIANITY when your original request asked for nothing of the kind, how about you put forth some evidence of your own, since you make it so clear that you believe such evidence exists.

just in case you didn't catch that, let me just say it again -
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE CLAIMED EXISTS WHICH DISPROVES CHRISTIANITY. i've asked and asked. put up or concede the point.

i don't think you have that evidence. i don't even think you've ever read a book dealing with atheism and christianity. i don't think you've read the bible, i don't think you've read dawkins, i don't think you've read armstrong, i don't think you've read the FSM book. i think you've read 3 paragraphs of sdn propaganda, and i think you thought 'hey, since i constantly get my ass kicked on star trek versus star wars, i'll bring a debate to sfj that they probably don't know that well!'
problem: I KNOW IT THAT WELL.

i have absolutely destroyed you here. the ONLY way you can even PRETEND that that's not true is by ignoring and twisting evidence. you've brought up maybe three somewhat interesting ideas, then after i debunked them, you brought them up again, after which i debunked them in new ways, and then you basically stopped trying and now you responded to the ONE argument you thought you might be able to still fight without admitting defeat. nice job.
Let me tell you what: you use the standards as to whether or not the public agrees with Richard Dawkins and other atheists to determine whether or not something is "disproved". Your entire argument is a not-so-cleverly concealed Appeal to Popularity.
except that that's a complete lie, which i have explained no less than 4 times.
Let me tell you what: stop pretending you have an argument here. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER THE PUBLIC BELIEVES DAWKINS. i doubt you believe dawkins, since i really, really doubt whether you even know what he says. why would i doubt that? because dawkins doesn't try to pretend evidence exists which disproves christianity. DAWKINS HAS NEVER CLAIMED THAT. I HAVE HIS BOOKS. I'VE READ THEM. I'VE WATCHED HIS DEBATES. have you? because it really looks like that's a big no, swst.
it's amazing that you can sit there and use dawkins in an argument about whether evidence exists to disprove christianity. it really, really is amazing. i never ever should have bothered to troll you. i should have just debated you! you do it yourself!
and i could have sworn i asked you to stop hiding behind a bunch of sdn 'i have no argument so i will pretend you are committing a logical fallacy' bullshit.
Furthermore, I already countered your point;
uh, no you didn't. not even close. but i'm going to make a guess here and predict that you are about to simply offer me a repeat of the argument i just thoroughly debunked yesterday.
people haven't been trying to disprove it for 6000 years. You mean for 2000 years the religion has existed,
really, this again? please show that judaism is not the root of christianity and therefore should not be included in the length of time that christianity has existed. you know what? never mind. fine. 2,000 years it is then.
and for the beginning of that time period it wasn't popular enough for anybody to try and disprove it
man, deja vu! remember when you said this yesterday, and everyone reading it laughed, because it's not true? and remember when i put forth evidence to show that it was not true, and you just ignored it and posted the same thing again instead of either conceding the point or offering any sort of evidence? yeah, don't do that.
When it gained control over much of Europe, nobody dared to try and disprove it for fear of being hanged .
ok, first off, what are you talking about? how can you say with a straight face that noone attempted to disprove christianity? swst, i'm asking again. please provide some sort of evidence. just SAYING things doesn't make them true. regardless of the fact that there was a social stigma against trying to disprove christianity throughout most of it's existence, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO IT THROUGHOUT. i have said before i can provide proof of this. all you have to do is ask.
(and the Islamic world hardly tried to "disprove" it)
wouldn't it be strange if they DID try to disprove it, since most of the beliefs islam espouses are LITERALLY THE SAME as those in christianity, only more extreme? wouldn't it be strange if a religion tried to disprove itself? oh, wait! THE FSM DOES THAT! but that doesn't make it less convincing. good argument!
It's only in the last few centuries that Atheism has risen to prominence,
hey, the LYING MACHINE turned on again!
'The history of atheism, depending on how one defines the term, can be dated to as early as the 6th century BC...'
good try though. can you imagine how badly my argument would have suffered if that had been true?
'Atheism can also be traced to Ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. Diagoras of Melos is often referred to as "The First Atheist", and other men who claimed to be atheists include Theodorus of Cyrene and Euhemerus.'
yeah, that would have destroyed my argument. it sure is a good thing you were flatly lying again.
and one can argue that modern science has disproven Christianity.
please do. you keep saying that, and then not doing it! do you see how that's pointless? EVIDENCE PLEASE.
But again, your standards for proof and disproof is "what do the ignorant masses think?"
i love how anyone who disagrees with the position which you are arguing, but completely fail to understand the rational basis of, are the 'ignorant masses'. because you see, i personally would define ignorance as it is used in my dictionary, meaning, you know, lack of knowledge. like for instance if i had put forth the claim that dawkins provides evidence of christianity being false, or even that he tried to do so, it would make sense to call me ignorant. i didn't do that, though, because i actually possess the knowledge that he never does that. see how that makes me 'not ignorant'? and hey, even better, see how calling the vast majority of mankind ignorant kind of backfired by allowing me to point out that you yourself are ignorant without even using it in a derogatory way that would provoke a warning? because hey, just statement of fact, totally admissible legitimately, you're ignorant.
but to continue, you have yet to provide even the slightest evidence that i am making an appeal to popularity. i have repeatedly explained how and why you are wrong about that, in extremely simple terms, just in case i wasn't being understood. if you're going to bring it up over and over, at least have something to lean on. don't you get bored of just continuing to be wrong, over and over, about the same things?
And your "I wasn't trying to prove that Christianity is true!" deflection was already addressed in my post.
i assume you mean this..
You're required to prove that it's more plausible, which is a lesser degree of "truth". So far, none of your arguments have anything to do with truth/plausibility/rightness/whatever.
..which is an undeniable example of either ignorance or outright lying.
The Dictionary wrote: plausible
-adj. (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable: a plausible explanation; it seems plausible that one of two things may happen.
The Dictionary wrote: truth
-n. the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation.
do you see the difference there? there is no 'lesser degree of truth'. truth is black and white. a thing is true or false. there is no middle ground.
i don't even know where you thought you were going with that, except that you had nowhere left to run.
I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read it.
i did.
Your arguments don't only fail in that they fail to prove that Christianity is true;
and your arguments fail to prove that santa is real! guess what? that's just as valid a complaint!
they fail to prove that Christianity is plausible, which is the entire point of the thread.
oooh. see, that's where the confusion was. i thought that i was trying to prove that christianity was more plausible than the flying spaghetti monster. because, see, i've done THAT over and over. if only you had been honest from the beginning, and admitted that you used the fsm as a way to mock people who believe in a higher power, we could have gotten right to it. see, it was the LYING that you kept doing that was stopping me from understanding you. the same way that you keep LYING when you say you have an argument against any point i've made in this debate so far. good job!
Last edited by mojo on Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:35 am

Praeothmin wrote:Did I say it bothered me?
I simply wanted to point out your double post in a funny way...

And anyways, I don't got that much powers, I can only warn, split threads, but I can't delete double-posts...
But you should be able to though... :)
my apologies. i won't even pretend that swst doesn't make me cranky.

General Donner
Bridge Officer
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by General Donner » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:23 pm

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Once it did, there were hardly scientists out trying to disprove it. And once it really gained prominence, none could without being killed gruesomely. People have not been trying to disprove it for 6000 years; only few a few centuries. And one could argue that they've already succeeded. Again, mojo's definition of "disproving" something is "when the public more or less universally agrees". A concealed appeal to popularity.
Certainly people have been trying to disprove Christianity in the past as well. Two famous anti-Christian philosophers in the first few centuries who wrote whole books against the faith were Celsus and Porphyry.

One shouldn't forget the huge numbers of Jewish and Islamic theologians, philosophers and scientists who've spent the centuries trying to refute Christianity, either.

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:48 pm

well, that's an interesting thing to ask for. you keep asking for evidence while blatantly ignoring my requests for same! here's my thoughts on proof that christianity hasn't been proven false, and i think you'll agree it's valid - IF EVIDENCE EXISTED DISPROVING CHRISTIANITY, YOU WOULD HAVE POSTED IT BY NOW, CONSIDERING I'VE ASKED FOR IT TEN TIMES.
And here comes the hypocrite again. You refuse to answer how any of your arguments has any relevance to the truthhood or falsehood of a religion because “we’re not talking about whether or not Christianity is true”. Mind you, your arguments are not only irrelevant to truthhood/falsehood, they’re irrelevant to plausibility, which is a lesser degree of the former.
the very fact that you've posted absolutely no proof or even evidence that you can pretend is proof shows that either it doesn't exist or you are not aware that it exists.
Oh, there is plenty of disproof I could post had the thread been about disproving Christianity.
simple enough for you? did you understand that? now, instead of blathering on and on about the necessity that i PROVE CHRISTIANITY when your original request asked for nothing of the kind, how about you put forth some evidence of your own, since you make it so clear that you believe such evidence exists.
Not prove Christianity, prove that its plausibility is higher than that of the FSM. You’ve failed at this; all of your arguments are red herrings. Whether or not Jesus had a profound impact on the world has jack all to do with the plausibility of Christianity.

just in case you didn't catch that, let me just say it again -
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE CLAIMED EXISTS WHICH DISPROVES CHRISTIANITY. i've asked and asked. put up or concede the point.
Fine then. The Bible claims that Adam and Eve, the first two humans, were like us, could speak, etc. That isn’t true, Homo Sapiens Sapiens only showed up not-so-long-ago, and they have various ancestors that weren’t nearly as intelligent or speak capable. The “first” would hardly be able to understand basic mathematics.

The Bible also claims that Adam named all of the animals. However, we know that when we discover a new animal, we don’t magically know its name; we name it ourselves, often times in ridiculous ways. “Bear” wasn’t named by Adam, it was named independently by various groups that encountered the species.
Then there’s the Tower of Babel story, which just makes no sense at all.

i don't think you have that evidence. i don't even think you've ever read a book dealing with atheism and christianity. i don't think you've read the bible, i don't think you've read dawkins, i don't think you've read armstrong, i don't think you've read the FSM book. i think you've read 3 paragraphs of sdn propaganda, and i think you thought 'hey, since i constantly get my ass kicked on star trek versus star wars, i'll bring a debate to sfj that they probably don't know that well!'
problem: I KNOW IT THAT WELL.

i have absolutely destroyed you here. the ONLY way you can even PRETEND that that's not true is by ignoring and twisting evidence. you've brought up maybe three somewhat interesting ideas, then after i debunked them, you brought them up again, after which i debunked them in new ways, and then you basically stopped trying and now you responded to the ONE argument you thought you might be able to still fight without admitting defeat. nice job.
When I ask you to prove Christianity as true, you correctly respond that you weren’t trying to do that. Then, however, you turn around and ask me to disprove something when that was hardly my intention. Hypocrisy at its finest? Seems so.

except that that's a complete lie, which i have explained no less than 4 times.
Let me tell you what: stop pretending you have an argument here. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER THE PUBLIC BELIEVES DAWKINS. i doubt you believe dawkins, since i really, really doubt whether you even know what he says. why would i doubt that? because dawkins doesn't try to pretend evidence exists which disproves christianity. DAWKINS HAS NEVER CLAIMED THAT. I HAVE HIS BOOKS. I'VE READ THEM. I'VE WATCHED HIS DEBATES. have you? because it really looks like that's a big no, swst.
it's amazing that you can sit there and use dawkins in an argument about whether evidence exists to disprove christianity. it really, really is amazing. i never ever should have bothered to troll you. i should have just debated you! you do it yourself!
and i could have sworn i asked you to stop hiding behind a bunch of sdn 'i have no argument so i will pretend you are committing a logical fallacy' bullshit.
Congratulations, you just conceded the debate. Your (semi-correct) line of reasoning is that nothing can be conclusively disproven, especially not a religion. But that means that your main argument (Christianity hasn’t been disproven in X amount of years) is a pointless tautology; of course it hasn’t been disproven if it can’t be disproven, not because it’s plausible or consistent, but as a fundamental logical property of proof/disproof.

uh, no you didn't. not even close. but i'm going to make a guess here and predict that you are about to simply offer me a repeat of the argument i just thoroughly debunked yesterday.
I find it amusing mojo that you think that you’re a master debater, when you still can’t capitalize words correctly. I’m no grammar nazi, but you’re no debating genius either.

really, this again? please show that judaism is not the root of christianity and therefore should not be included in the length of time that christianity has existed. you know what? never mind. fine. 2,000 years it is then.
Judaism and Christianity have some very key and important differences to them. Such as, you know, Jesus being the son of god in one and a semi-maybe-messiah in another.


man, deja vu! remember when you said this yesterday, and everyone reading it laughed, because it's not true? and remember when i put forth evidence to show that it was not true, and you just ignored it and posted the same thing again instead of either conceding the point or offering any sort of evidence? yeah, don't do that.
Fine then. Show me a prominent Roman philosopher in the early days of Christianity that wrote an argument against it.


ok, first off, what are you talking about? how can you say with a straight face that noone attempted to disprove christianity? swst, i'm asking again. please provide some sort of evidence. just SAYING things doesn't make them true. regardless of the fact that there was a social stigma against trying to disprove christianity throughout most of it's existence, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO IT THROUGHOUT. i have said before i can provide proof of this. all you have to do is ask.
Show me examples of this, then. Who would be idiotic enough to publicly speak out against a religion that controlled the government, the public and the military over all of Western and much of Eastern Europe?


wouldn't it be strange if they DID try to disprove it, since most of the beliefs islam espouses are LITERALLY THE SAME as those in christianity, only more extreme? wouldn't it be strange if a religion tried to disprove itself? oh, wait! THE FSM DOES THAT! but that doesn't make it less convincing. good argument!
Since when is Islam more extreme? And since when is this a rebuttal any more than an agreement to my point; that Islam didn’t try and “disprove” Christianity?


hey, the LYING MACHINE turned on again!
'The history of atheism, depending on how one defines the term, can be dated to as early as the 6th century BC...'
good try though. can you imagine how badly my argument would have suffered if that had been true?
'Atheism can also be traced to Ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. Diagoras of Melos is often referred to as "The First Atheist", and other men who claimed to be atheists include Theodorus of Cyrene and Euhemerus.'
yeah, that would have destroyed my argument. it sure is a good thing you were flatly lying again.
Obviously the difference between existing and rising to prominence is lost on you.


please do. you keep saying that, and then not doing it! do you see how that's pointless?
EVIDENCE PLEASE.
In addition to the ones that I provided above, if God engineered man then why are our bodies so imperfect? Think about the various diseases we have, or the various ways that rash but programmed emotions can mess you up. Given sufficient genetic technology, an intelligent race could easily engineer a species far better in every way than man, let alone a perfect being.

Also, the bible says that God releases thunder and lightning, but we know that those two phenomena are due to natural and completely physical occurrences and that, in theory, we could accurately exactly when and where lightning would strike, and that whether or not the people below “sinned” would not effect the rate of electrostatic discharge in the clouds.

i love how anyone who disagrees with the position which you are arguing, but completely fail to understand the rational basis of, are the 'ignorant masses'. because you see, i personally would define ignorance as it is used in my dictionary, meaning, you know, lack of knowledge. like for instance if i had put forth the claim that dawkins provides evidence of christianity being false, or even that he tried to do so, it would make sense to call me ignorant. i didn't do that, though, because i actually possess the knowledge that he never does that. see how that makes me 'not ignorant'? and hey, even better, see how calling the vast majority of mankind ignorant kind of backfired by allowing me to point out that you yourself are ignorant without even using it in a derogatory way that would provoke a warning? because hey, just statement of fact, totally admissible legitimately, you're ignorant.
but to continue, you have yet to provide even the slightest evidence that i am making an appeal to popularity. i have repeatedly explained how and why you are wrong about that, in extremely simple terms, just in case i wasn't being understood. if you're going to bring it up over and over, at least have something to lean on. don't you get bored of just continuing to be wrong, over and over, about the same things?
Again, you’re implicitly conceding that your entire argument (“we haven’t proven it false in X years!”) is a tautology.

i assume you mean this..
Quote:
You're required to prove that it's more plausible, which is a lesser degree of "truth". So far, none of your arguments have anything to do with truth/plausibility/rightness/whatever.

..which is an undeniable example of either ignorance or outright lying.

The Dictionary wrote:
plausible
-adj. (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable: a plausible explanation; it seems plausible that one of two things may happen.


The Dictionary wrote:
truth
-n. the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation.

do you see the difference there? there is no 'lesser degree of truth'. truth is black and white. a thing is true or false. there is no middle ground.
i don't even know where you thought you were going with that, except that you had nowhere left to run.
No, plausibility is the chance of something being true. Truthhood/falsehood is black and white, but the perception of it isn’t. Objectively there would be no such thing as plausibility except for with our perceptions. But let’s not argue this; see below.

Jesus being influential and the founders of Christianity (supposedly) believing in it unlike the FSM founders is not only irrelevant to truthhood/falsehood, it’s also irrelevant to plausibility.

i did.


and your arguments fail to prove that santa is real! guess what? that's just as valid a complaint!


oooh. see, that's where the confusion was. i thought that i was trying to prove that christianity was more plausible than the flying spaghetti monster. because, see, i've done THAT over and over. if only you had been honest from the beginning, and admitted that you used the fsm as a way to mock people who believe in a higher power, we could have gotten right to it. see, it was the LYING that you kept doing that was stopping me from understanding you. the same way that you keep LYING when you say you have an argument against any point i've made in this debate so far. good job!
AND EVEN THOUGH FSM IS CREATED AS A WAY TO MOCK PEOPLE THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ITS PLAUSIBILITY LEVEL AT ALL!

What, you may ask? How is that possible? Put it this way; if a guy buys a lottery ticket just as a joke without actually believing that he’ll win, his chances of winning is no greater than a girl who honestly believes that she can win. Religions are like this; unlike in Science, in which your argument would be correct, both real religions and mock religions are throwing in possible Gods in an infinite lottery of possible gods, and then the possibility of there being no god. None have a greater chance of being true (ie: plausibility) regardless of the opinions of the founder.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Admiral Breetai » Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:36 am

it's astounding how utterly out of your depth you are SWST

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:24 am

alright, i get it, you refuse to see evidence. you refuse to concede points which you have clearly lost. you refuse to debate. the worst part is that i really, really wanted to enjoy this one. i wish we could have debated.

also, i never, ever claimed to be some kind of master debater. i admitted numerous times that i don't debate often. what i claimed is a greater knowledge of religion and a greater knowledge of atheistic philosophy. see, that's why i thought this could be fun. my bad. if you ever decide you'd like to actually debate, that is, consider evidence and argument without flatly denying anything that doesn't match your preconceived ideas, give me a buzz.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:26 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
AND EVEN THOUGH FSM IS CREATED AS A WAY TO MOCK PEOPLE THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ITS PLAUSIBILITY LEVEL AT ALL!
That is because it has absolutely zero plausibility in the first place....

What, you may ask? How is that possible? Put it this way; if a guy buys a lottery ticket just as a joke without actually believing that he’ll win, his chances of winning is no greater than a girl who honestly believes that she can win. Religions are like this; unlike in Science, in which your argument would be correct, both real religions and mock religions are throwing in possible Gods in an infinite lottery of possible gods, and then the possibility of there being no god. None have a greater chance of being true (ie: plausibility) regardless of the opinions of the founder.
But your scenario has not bought a lottery ticket, what you have does is got a scrap of paper written a bunch of numbers on it and claimed it is a valid lottery ticket.

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:10 am

mojo wrote:alright, i get it, you refuse to see evidence. you refuse to concede points which you have clearly lost. you refuse to debate. the worst part is that i really, really wanted to enjoy this one. i wish we could have debated.

also, i never, ever claimed to be some kind of master debater. i admitted numerous times that i don't debate often. what i claimed is a greater knowledge of religion and a greater knowledge of atheistic philosophy. see, that's why i thought this could be fun. my bad. if you ever decide you'd like to actually debate, that is, consider evidence and argument without flatly denying anything that doesn't match your preconceived ideas, give me a buzz.
Oh, obviously I'm going to deny anything that I don't agree with; that's another one of your tautologies. But unlike you, I gave reasons as to why I disagree with your points, and your response is to post this, which is little more than a cop out. What you should be doing is explaining why my denials are wrong, not that they're wrong simply because you say so.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:21 am

General Donner wrote:
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Once it did, there were hardly scientists out trying to disprove it. And once it really gained prominence, none could without being killed gruesomely. People have not been trying to disprove it for 6000 years; only few a few centuries. And one could argue that they've already succeeded. Again, mojo's definition of "disproving" something is "when the public more or less universally agrees". A concealed appeal to popularity.
Certainly people have been trying to disprove Christianity in the past as well. Two famous anti-Christian philosophers in the first few centuries who wrote whole books against the faith were Celsus and Porphyry.

One shouldn't forget the huge numbers of Jewish and Islamic theologians, philosophers and scientists who've spent the centuries trying to refute Christianity, either.
Judaism craps all over Christianity and although Islam gives it a higher place and recognizes Jesus as a prophet, it completely rejects its god.
All religions reject each other, even if only on the smallest divergence about the meaning of a few words. Not all religions can be true at the same time unless they're extremely simple and vague by design, which practically none are since it's a trait of humanity to pad any theological idea with rituals and other flowery background, at times by merely borrowing it from older religions.
This doesn't dispute whether a or several gods exist.
But human-made religions are not worth it...
So spaghetti monster or the petulant maker who craves for its disciples' prayers, pff.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:56 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
mojo wrote:alright, i get it, you refuse to see evidence. you refuse to concede points which you have clearly lost. you refuse to debate. the worst part is that i really, really wanted to enjoy this one. i wish we could have debated.

also, i never, ever claimed to be some kind of master debater. i admitted numerous times that i don't debate often. what i claimed is a greater knowledge of religion and a greater knowledge of atheistic philosophy. see, that's why i thought this could be fun. my bad. if you ever decide you'd like to actually debate, that is, consider evidence and argument without flatly denying anything that doesn't match your preconceived ideas, give me a buzz.
Oh, obviously I'm going to deny anything that I don't agree with; that's another one of your tautologies. But unlike you, I gave reasons as to why I disagree with your points, and your response is to post this, which is little more than a cop out. What you should be doing is explaining why my denials are wrong, not that they're wrong simply because you say so.
but it's pointless because you do backflips to avoid conceding even the smallest point.
example:
AND EVEN THOUGH FSM IS CREATED AS A WAY TO MOCK PEOPLE THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ITS PLAUSIBILITY LEVEL AT ALL!

What, you may ask? How is that possible? Put it this way; if a guy buys a lottery ticket just as a joke without actually believing that he’ll win, his chances of winning is no greater than a girl who honestly believes that she can win. Religions are like this; unlike in Science, in which your argument would be correct, both real religions and mock religions are throwing in possible Gods in an infinite lottery of possible gods, and then the possibility of there being no god. None have a greater chance of being true (ie: plausibility) regardless of the opinions of the founder.
ok. i've already said that that's true as far as it goes. but if we are arguing the plausibility of christianity vs. fsm as if you were honestly trying to decide on one of them to join, then the analogy breaks down. it becomes relevant that the fsm's creator doesn't believe it exists and created it to be an obviously fictitious religion mirroring the wackiness of christianity, because if the fsm exists then it chose to present itself to the world in that manner - virtually guaranteeing that noone could possibly ever believe in it. and since the fsm claims to be the only way to salvation, if it chooses to completely destroy any possibility of anyone ever believing in it, then it's damning us all to hell. (btw, that's how the fsm is evil.) if we can easily show that the fsm is evil, doesn't that kind of hurt it's plausibility as an Ultimate Good? how is this not relevant as to which is more plausible as the one true god?
1. church of the fsm - damns us all to hell
2. christianity - clearly means well
'mojo, the fact that christianity means well has jack-all to do with whether it's plausible or not.'
yes, but IN COMPARISON to something which can be shown to be evil, the fact that it at least tries to save us rather than damning us all to hell for no apparent reason seems like a valid point for christianity as more likely to be the source of all the good things in the world. it all comes down to what we have to work with and what we're trying to accomplish according to the original post. given that you claimed to be looking for evidence to make a decision between one or the other, we can assume that whichever you chose in the end you would believe that the god of your chosen religion exists and that the powers and abilities it claims, it actually possesses. so again, if the fsm is omnipotent and in total control of the universe, that would mean it CHOSE that kid's paper as it's method of showing itself to the world, a method that instantly makes it a liar when it claims to be good and merciful. keep in mind that, of course, the fsm would also be incapable of lying since he is, again, Ultimate Good. i honestly can't understand how you can even attempt to deny that.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:55 pm

if anyone besides swst is still reading this one, am i losing my mind here? my logic seems sound to me, but he denies that any of my ideas are true so vehemently that it shakes my confidence. are all my arguments red herrings? can't these things be used to measure the plausibility of christianity vs. plausibility of fsm?
and before you start with the appeal to popularity bit again, swst, i'm not trying to use the popular opinion of the board as evidence of anything. i'm just trying to see if there's any point to continuing or if i'm just making myself look like a moron.
it would also be very helpful to me if we could lock down what the fuck we're debating here. am i trying to provide evidence that shows christianity to be more plausible than the fsm, as was originally asked for? am i trying to show that christianity itself is plausible in itself, as you stated a few posts back? given that you somehow believe that plausibility is a lesser form of truth (it isn't) am i trying to PROVE christianity as true? it seems like it changes from post to post.
and now that i think about it, how is asking for evidence to help you decide which religion is more likely to be true, claiming that you have narrowed down your choices to fsm and christianity and are sincere in your consideration of the two debating honestly and within the spirit of the board's policies, how is that honest debate, if you never had any interest in that, flatly admitting later that you were simply trying to mock people who have religious beliefs and show christianity to be absurd and false? regardless of how obvious it was from the beginning, we have a clear example of dishonest debate here with incontrovertible evidence from the horse's mouth.
HEY, CAN WE GET A WARNING OVER HERE?

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:55 pm

mojo, why are you surprised at SWST being SWST?
He's basically debating with you as he does in every other threads, nothing is new here...

As I said many times (and sometimes do myself when I have more important hings to do): Ignore him...

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:46 pm

Mojo, the amazing amounts of irony in your post is classic.

Go ahead and look at some of your comparisons:
how is this not relevant as to which is more plausible as the one true god?
1. church of the fsm - damns us all to hell
2. christianity - clearly means well
I felt an urge to laugh. Let's take this as a test of your (alleged) intelligence to figure out the irony here. Who knows, you might impress me and yourself.
why is it that you ignore 90% of my arguments
I would invite you to show me where in your response you responded to my entire post, hypocrite. Again, the irony is astounding.

It gets even better (or worse).
yes, but IN COMPARISON to something which can be shown to be evil, the fact that it at least tries to save us rather than damning us all to hell for no apparent reason seems like a valid point for christianity as more likely to be the source of all the good things in the world.
And what's the source for all the bad things in the world, mojo? Which one could argue outnumbers the number of good things? Your reasoning (I say that in sketchy terms) actually supports the FSM, because the FSM has imperfect moral values. God supposedly has perfect moral values, yet he created a very imperfect world. It's laughably hilarious to think that a religion claiming that our imperfect, sometimes outright cruel universe was created by an all powerful, all benevolent being that wants the best for us but still allows poverty, disease, brain damage (so much for free will) and genetic diseases completely beyond our control to pop up all because our ancient ancestor supposedly ate an apple.

And what's more, it's still irrelevant. We're not arguing about a reasonable path to salvation, we're arguing about a believable deity. Both are equally unbelievable, regardless of whether the founders say it's true or say it's false. Again, that goes back the lottery analogy.

Post Reply