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
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 » Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:16 pm

mojo wrote: how can you be willing to debate STAR WARS and STAR TREK as if everything contained therein were true, but have such a problem doing the same thing with the bible? if it makes you feel better, just accept the bible as canon and christian dogma as what we may debate. i'm not even attempting to prove the truth of christianity one way or the other. i just find the whole thing interesting, as i grew up constantly learning about it. so trying to respond with 'but hell isn't real' is about as valid as 'but anakin has to win the fight or the story won't make sense'.

no offense, honestly, i mean none.
I suppose my position (using a ST vs sw angle) is that we are talking about the universe's creation and the bible is a bit like the ICS in regards to the guys who wrote it being undeniably biased.


Yes it has a few accurate details in it like names and places of real people and areas (just like the ICS has actual G canon ships ect) but just because of it has some details right does not mean that they all are. For example the fact that a dude called jesus existed is likely true (just like acclamators do) but claims of his powers and his divinity are another matter (just like claims made regarding the acclamatotrs powers).


Oh and do not concern yourself as i know you mean no offense, obviously nor do i.

mojo wrote:if various people, places, and events from the bible, over the course of 6,000 years, can be shown to have existed or to have happened as described, doesn't that add plausibility to christianity as opposed to the book of the fsm, whose people, places, and events can actually sometimes be shown to NOT have existed or to NOT have happened as described?
See above in regards to the general situation.

HOWEVER as the bible contains provable factual material and the fsm book does not it at least can be considered part fact and part fiction rather than total fiction like the fsm book.


also, the serpent is never referred to as the devil, and it's not even implied in the original text in any way. in fact, it could not have possibly even been a snake, as only after it successfully tempts eve is it punished with having to move around on it's belly all day.
Now you mention it i do recall the image on the Sistine chapel being of a snake with the torso and head of a man.

But regardless it does not change the fact that snakes as the old subjects of mans worship are being vilified by the new kids on the block.

Did you know that also the supposed end of Norse mythology (Ragnarök) is very similar to the beginning of christianities as it ends with the norse gods and their enemies along with all humanity being destoryed apart from a man and a woman who emerge from the life tree and go on to repopulate the world....starting again with a man woman and a tree sound familiar?. (quite interesting considering how hard the church worked to stamp out "pagan" religion).

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 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:52 am

Praeothmin wrote:
mojo wrote:how can you be willing to debate STAR WARS and STAR TREK as if everything contained therein were true, but have such a problem doing the same thing with the bible?
So we should also class the bible in the realm of fictional works now?
Because that's why we accept everything contained therein, we know these universes to be fictional...
this is meant to be a valid point against what i'm saying, i think, but that's EXACTLY what i'm saying. if you don't believe it's true, there is no reason not to class it as a fictional work, in fact, if you don't believe it's true, YOU'VE ALREADY DONE SO. so in that case there's no reason not to view it the same way you do star wars and star trek...

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 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:02 am

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
mojo wrote: how can you be willing to debate STAR WARS and STAR TREK as if everything contained therein were true, but have such a problem doing the same thing with the bible? if it makes you feel better, just accept the bible as canon and christian dogma as what we may debate. i'm not even attempting to prove the truth of christianity one way or the other. i just find the whole thing interesting, as i grew up constantly learning about it. so trying to respond with 'but hell isn't real' is about as valid as 'but anakin has to win the fight or the story won't make sense'.

no offense, honestly, i mean none.
I suppose my position (using a ST vs sw angle) is that we are talking about the universe's creation and the bible is a bit like the ICS in regards to the guys who wrote it being undeniably biased.

Yes it has a few accurate details in it like names and places of real people and areas (just like the ICS has actual G canon ships ect) but just because of it has some details right does not mean that they all are. For example the fact that a dude called jesus existed is likely true (just like acclamators do) but claims of his powers and his divinity are another matter (just like claims made regarding the acclamatotrs powers).


Oh and do not concern yourself as i know you mean no offense, obviously nor do i.

mojo wrote:if various people, places, and events from the bible, over the course of 6,000 years, can be shown to have existed or to have happened as described, doesn't that add plausibility to christianity as opposed to the book of the fsm, whose people, places, and events can actually sometimes be shown to NOT have existed or to NOT have happened as described?
See above in regards to the general situation.

HOWEVER as the bible contains provable factual material and the fsm book does not it at least can be considered part fact and part fiction rather than total fiction like the fsm book.


also, the serpent is never referred to as the devil, and it's not even implied in the original text in any way. in fact, it could not have possibly even been a snake, as only after it successfully tempts eve is it punished with having to move around on it's belly all day.
Now you mention it i do recall the image on the Sistine chapel being of a snake with the torso and head of a man.

But regardless it does not change the fact that snakes as the old subjects of mans worship are being vilified by the new kids on the block.

Did you know that also the supposed end of Norse mythology (Ragnarök) is very similar to the beginning of christianities as it ends with the norse gods and their enemies along with all humanity being destoryed apart from a man and a woman who emerge from the life tree and go on to repopulate the world....starting again with a man woman and a tree sound familiar?. (quite interesting considering how hard the church worked to stamp out "pagan" religion).
i'm a little hesitant to respond here, because even though your points are very good ones i'm afraid of getting into the position of arguing for christianity as the truth. that's the most pointless debate ever.

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 19, 2011 3:43 pm

mojo wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:
mojo wrote:how can you be willing to debate STAR WARS and STAR TREK as if everything contained therein were true, but have such a problem doing the same thing with the bible?
So we should also class the bible in the realm of fictional works now?
Because that's why we accept everything contained therein, we know these universes to be fictional...
this is meant to be a valid point against what i'm saying, i think, but that's EXACTLY what i'm saying. if you don't believe it's true, there is no reason not to class it as a fictional work, in fact, if you don't believe it's true, YOU'VE ALREADY DONE SO. so in that case there's no reason not to view it the same way you do star wars and star trek...
Ok, how about this:
Becaue the Bible does contain references to real historical events, and real historical people, and while we know for a fact both ST and SW are false, we do not know this to be the truth concerning the Bible...

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 20, 2011 9:28 am

what is the point of what you are saying? if you don't want to look at the bible as fiction, don't. i don't care. why would i care? i have literally no interest in whether or not you want to view the bible as truth or fiction. if you are bothered by my suggestion that to debate the bible we could look at it as a fictional universe much like star wars or star trek, then by all means don't do it. i can't understand why this has gone on this long. just by arguing the point you've proved you see what i'm suggesting that a person who doesn't believe that the bible is true might do in order to participate in debates regarding religion. so do it, or don't do it, but let's not waste any more time arguing the validity of the concept. it's boring.
please don't take offense. it's just there are interesting ideas being thrown around here. i only brought up this idea to make it easier for Kor_Dahar_Master to join the debate, which he immediately did.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote: The problem is that the threat of hell is exactly what it seems, it is a threat of dire consequences if you do not convert.

Now they softened it by showing the carrot first (heaven and eternal bliss yada yada) but the fact is it is a simple carrot and stick situation setup to force people to accept the authority of the church.
mojo wrote: how can you be willing to debate STAR WARS and STAR TREK as if everything contained therein were true, but have such a problem doing the same thing with the bible? if it makes you feel better, just accept the bible as canon and christian dogma as what we may debate.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote: I suppose my position (using a ST vs sw angle) is that we are talking about the universe's creation and the bible is a bit like the ICS in regards to the guys who wrote it being undeniably biased.


Yes it has a few accurate details in it like names and places of real people and areas (just like the ICS has actual G canon ships ect) but just because of it has some details right does not mean that they all are. For example the fact that a dude called jesus existed is likely true (just like acclamators do) but claims of his powers and his divinity are another matter (just like claims made regarding the acclamatotrs powers).
he already did it. it's over. there's no further need for discussion. it baffles me that this is what you find interesting in this thread.

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 21, 2011 9:29 am

uh, swst? you out there, man?

this is ridiculous. he spends years getting his ass handed to him by you guys in sw/st debates that i can't really enjoy as much more than a spectator, so he gives up that angle and starts throwing other topics out, and this time barely bothers to even post.

HEY SWST NO FAIR! I WANT MY CHANCE TO KICK YOUR ASS TOO!

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 » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:08 pm

mojo wrote:he already did it. it's over. there's no further need for discussion. it baffles me that this is what you find interesting in this thread.
Sorry, I missed his reply...
As for the rest, I stopped caring about religion the moment I was old enough to realize that the old geezer who keeps asking us for money for his churches, and for the poor of this world, lived in a gold-plated palace in pure luxury and never felt need or want for anything...
In other words, religion to me is just another way man has found to have power over other men...
The main message of Christianity is good, IMO, but the delivery lacks in efficiency, and I don't trust those who appoint themselves our spiritual guides...

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 23, 2011 5:15 am

we don't disagree.

i just find it interesting, because there are very few things with as many complex and contradictory parts to them as religions, and it's fun to try and make them make sense. imo. also, it would be nice if some of the things were true. like life after death, for example.

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 23, 2011 7:37 pm

Guys, I was on Vacation. :)

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 23, 2011 8:02 pm

mojo wrote:
my apologies. i'm not so good with punctuation, or capitalization, for that matter.
Well then, for starters, the "my" should be "My". You know that I know that you know that.

we are not discussing which religion is the one true religion, i am simply attempting to make the point that there is no evidence which shows christianity to be false. given that your request was for evidence for one of two choices being more plausible,
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
this is relevant. whether or not hinduism has less or more evidence on it's side, however, is not.
you also make an interesting point yourself in specifically stating that 'stone age primitives' were not able to disprove religion. given the fact that you clearly think present era science is vastly superior, where is the evidence that the 'stone age primitives' were not able to find? it's odd that you would make that distinction between 'stone age primitives' and current science when science has had no better luck. there is no such evidence, and you threw out 'stone age primitives' to make the belief in religion seem absurd and outdated.
No, you were saying:

Christianity is older than FSM, therefore it is more valid. (Semantics if you want to change "older" to "stood the test of time longer" or whatever)


So then:

Hinduism is older than Christianity, therefore it is more valid.

Or

Britain is awesomer than America because it is older.


for the first time ever, i am actually interested in a debate with you. so, regardless of your irritation and clear belief that i am either retarded or flatly lying, i assure you that i am not presenting any appeals to blah blah blah or logical fallacies intentionally and have never been diagnosed with any mental deficiency or defect.
i didn't mean to give the impression that i think the fsm is less plausible because it hasn't been around as long as christianity, although rereading what i wrote i can definitely see where you'd think so. it's clear that debate is not something i do on a daily basis. what i was trying to say is that the fact that christianity has existed for 6,000 years without being disproven, despite the best efforts of some of the smartest people in history which continue to this day with the full force of science behind them, is surely worth something when compared with the fsm in terms of which religion is more plausible, especially when the fsm is a 20 year old thought experiment which it would be pointless to debunk since it never claimed to be true in the first place. i must be starting to sound like a broken record on that point, but i had to go through it again so that i no longer seem to be saying that a theory or belief's age affects it's plausibility.
my logic is not 'older = better'. it is 'enduring constant attack for the entirety of known human history without being disproven > provoking laughter from the internet while freely admitting itself as a fiction' when attempting to judge the plausibility
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
of one thing over another thing.
Define disproven. For most of those 2000 years, Christianity shifted from being too small for anybody to care about it to being so big nobody in half of the known world dared to speak out against it. The only time in which Christianity has undergone serious scrutiny would be in the last few centuries, so scratch that time off. Then, you'll have to explain why Christianity hasn't been "disproven", as many people say that it already has been. When is something satisfactorily "disproven" and when is it not? Or is this really just a disguised appeal to popularity?



but these things are no longer true, and have not been true for quite some time now.
They've never been true, and that's the problem with your argument. Perception is not reality, and often times the correlation is completely non-existent.
science expands our understanding of the universe in leaps and bounds. we've advanced so far in that last 10% that the people who lived in the first 90% would no longer recognize us. so why is there still no evidence?
There is evidence. Plenty of evidence. Again, you seem to dismiss this evidence not on the basis of it being invalid, but on the basis with large numbers of people not agreeing with it. You use popularity, not merit, as a judge for some reason.


but, again, you did not ask for evidence which absolutely proves christianity as the one true way. you asked for evidence supporting the plausibility of christianity as opposed to the plausibility of the fsm.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
if various people, places, and events from the bible, over the course of 6,000 years, can be shown to have existed or to have happened as described, doesn't that add plausibility to christianity as opposed to the book of the fsm, whose people, places, and events can actually sometimes be shown to NOT have existed or to NOT have happened as described?
as for jesus, of course i can't scientifically prove that he existed. but dawkins, promoting atheism, has said that you don't need to prove something 100% to make it worthy of belief. anything over 50% is more likely to have happened than to not have happened. and there are many, many sources outside of the bible that support the idea that jesus of nazareth lived. i could post a few if you like.
Jesus existing does not make Christianity true. Furthermore, the founder of the Church of the FSM is alive and well from what I can remember, and we have real, absolute proof of that, unlike Jesus who probably existed.

i don't know that i'm following you here. we've already established that you are 50,000 times smarter than i am. could you possibly explain what you're saying here a little more simply and clearly? because if you're saying what i think you're saying, hoo boy.
Basically, the fact that the creators of X religion think it's true or think it's just a joke has nothing to do with, NOTHING to do with, whether or not it's actually true any more than a lottery ticket buyer thinking he will win.

for the 3,000,000,012th time, you have not asked for foolproof evidence of god's existence. you have asked for evidence that shows the plausibility of christianity as opposed to the plausibility of the fsm to determine which is more likely to be the one true religion.
And Jesus being influential has NO relevance to Christianity's plausibility.
christianity - controls human history for 2,000 years.
Which is irrelevant to whether or not it's plausible. Got it?
fsm - makes 2,000 internet atheists feel superior, then is forgotten when someone posts 'I JUST LOST THE GAME' on twitter.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not it's plausible.
but surely, when comparing two ideas and trying to determine which is more plausible, the impact the ideas have had on the world can at least be considered?
Hardly. 2012 is pretty darn influential, don't you think? Not as influential as major religions, but more influential than the Phone Hacking Scandal, which was big news for a few weeks at most before dropping out. So I guess that makes 2012 more truthful?

i understand the difference between the words 'noble' and 'true'. again i remind you that i am not required to prove that christianity is true.
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.
i am trying to make a point that requires you to read my next paragraph to understand.



of course not. but believing that both christianity and the fsm are equally implausible doesn't make it so. i think i addressed this idea in my other post when i talked about occam's razor.
They're equally implausible because the amount of evidence supporting both is equal; zero.
please stop reminding me that my arguments do not prove christianity to be true. i realize that. it can't be proven any more than it can be disproven. i'm not even trying. i'm arguing that between the fsm and christianity, if you're going to pick one based on each's plausibility of being true as opposed to the other's plausibility of being true,
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
i think the evidence favors against the fsm.
See above about plausibility and truth.
\

see, that's the thing though. when you ask whether christianity or the fsm is more plausible, i assume you're talking about christianity as taught by jesus and the new testament. neither source ever encourages the hangings or the burnings or any of that admittedly horrific stuff. christianity is about love and forgiveness and 'turn the other cheek' and 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'. you know that. jesus specifically tells us not to fuck with each other.
which is why my argument is indeed relevant to your initial question.
which is more plausible as a path to salvation?
The New Testament, at least. The Old is completely different. Still doesn't matter to the question.
christianity - clearly means well
fsm - easily shown to be evil
...since when is FSM evil?


is my grammar so bad that i am incomprehensible?
There's a grammatically correct sentence.

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 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:29 am

so are you gonna muster an actual reply or just continue to bullshit?

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 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:51 am

you just sidestepped EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT. you ignored evidence or twisted it to mean something completely different. you know you did. don't even pretend that you didn't. do me a favor and actually address the arguments as they are meant, or concede.

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 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:57 am

No, you were saying:

Christianity is older than FSM, therefore it is more valid. (Semantics if you want to change "older" to "stood the test of time longer" or whatever)


So then:

Hinduism is older than Christianity, therefore it is more valid.

Or

Britain is awesomer than America because it is older.
i love how you somehow know what i was saying better than i do. this is the 3rd or 4th time i have explained this and you're just being purposely obtuse. i explained it twice in the post you just responded to. you ask for evidence relating to how christianity is more plausible than the fsm. now listen this time, because i'm not going to explain it again.
IF PEOPLE LIKE YOU SPEND 6,000 YEARS TRYING TO DISPROVE SOMETHING, AND FAIL, THIS CAN BE VIEWED AS EVIDENCE THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHICH RELIGION HAS BEEN AROUND LONGER. IT'S ABOUT THE INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF EFFORT AND ENERGY THAT HAS BEEN EXPENDED ATTEMPTING TO PROVE CHRISTIANITY FALSE, AND HOW THAT HAS SO FAR BEEN A COMPLETE WASTE.

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 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:22 am

Define disproven. For most of those 2000 years, Christianity shifted from being too small for anybody to care about it to being so big nobody in half of the known world dared to speak out against it. The only time in which Christianity has undergone serious scrutiny would be in the last few centuries, so scratch that time off. Then, you'll have to explain why Christianity hasn't been "disproven", as many people say that it already has been. When is something satisfactorily "disproven" and when is it not? Or is this really just a disguised appeal to popularity?

dis·prove   [dis-proov]
verb (used with object), -proved, -prov·ing.
to prove (anassertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate: I disproved his claim.

there you go, that's pretty clear in my opinion. to start with your final point, which is not so much a point as a completely insane fabrication with literally no basis in reality, please, please, please provide me with the evidence which you believe disproves christianity. i believe you'll have about as much chance as i did proving scientifically that jesus existed. which is to say, it was kind of weird that you would say such evidence exists since you don't have any whatsoever, whereas there is more evidence supporting the existence of jesus than there is against it. to use your own language, please prove scientifically that christianity is false. you can't. good job. i fail to see how any argument from you on this point will not be a frank concession, regardless of how it is phrased. you have your definition of the word disproven, as you asked for, now show how it has been. you ask for the reasoning behind my assertion that christianity has not been disproven, and i respond with these two points:
1. i knew what disproven meant in the first place, which was a great help to me in realizing that-
2. christianity puts forth a specific set of beliefs, which have not been shown to be false.
in the future, by the way, it would be a great help to anyone you debate with if you would stop hiding behind accusations of fallacies and appeals and simply debate the points. it would only be an appeal to popularity if i were disregarding evidence to the contrary in favor of popular opinion. since such evidence doesn't exist, it's simply an evasion on your part because you have nothing else. as in the section you quoted but then completely ignored.

now, back to the beginning. you start off with the idea that christianity is only 2,000 years old. if we accept the standard that we agreed upon before, we can go ahead and accept judaism as the root of christianity and throw on an extra 4,000 years. it would be difficult in the least to argue against the logic of that, but if you feel like having a go, be my guest.
judaism has of course been under attack for pretty much the whole of the 6,000 years it has existed. you can take that straight back to egypt and further in the narrative. so again, unless you have in your next argument shocked the world by disproving christianity, we're back to square one, which you are hopefully able to understand this time.
the idea that christianity has only been under serious scrutiny for the last few hundred years is insane. evidence please. i can provide evidence that that is completely false. also, it's a bit disrespectful to, you know, all of those people killed in the new testament for believing christianity is true. man, you could have really made stephen's day by explaining that noone was scrutinizing christianity while he hung upside down on his cross until he died. the fact is that christianity has never NOT been under extreme scrutiny, and judaism before it.
we can also throw out, i think, your assertion that christianity started off 'too small for anybody to care about'. the known world knew of christianity within the lifetimes of the apostles. that's kind of what they did. likewise the assertion that noone was willing to speak against it. where are you getting this stuff? do you bother to fact-check the stuff sdn is feeding you?

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 » Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:42 am

this one hurts my head. we need some explanation here i think.

you said:
Standing the test of time isn't that impressive when 90% of that time had >50% of the population being illiterate and 70% of that time nobody knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
i replied with:
but these things are no longer true, and have not been true for quite some time now. science expands our understanding of the universe in leaps and bounds. we've advanced so far in that last 10% that the people who lived in the first 90% would no longer recognize us. so why is there still no evidence?
to which you bafflingly responded:
They've never been true, and that's the problem with your argument. Perception is not reality, and often times the correlation is completely non-existent.
now i understand completely the point that just because the best logic available at the time points at a certain conclusion, it doesn't make it so. what i don't understand is how that can possibly be used as an argument against the plausibility of christianity when it is really a far better argument against anyone ever believing something based on logic and science ever again. from the perspective of those stone-age folks you so love to demean, the sun revolving around the earth was the logical choice. the problem with YOUR argument is that given their limited abilities in both logic and science, sun going round the earth makes the most sense, and i would put forth the idea that they did use deduction and primitive science to come to that conclusion. it's not as if science just exploded into being one day. it's an evolution of concepts which have been with us back to the beginning of recorded history.
mojo, do you have a point? yes, yes i do. if the greatest science of the day showed that the sun went round the earth, then please prove that the ideas you use to convince yourself that christianity doesn't make sense will not be THEMSELVES disproven and laughed at by scientists even 50 years from now? because here's the thing- you yourself admit that the ideas thrown about fairly recently in terms of thousands of years by scientists are known to be false and, well, kind of stupid today. whereas that same science, applied vigorously for the entirety of recorded human history, has produced not one valid piece of evidence that disproves even one single tenet of christianity. how do you not see this yourself?
this is where you keep getting confused. yes, perception is not reality. BUT THE PLAUSIBILITY OF ONE THING VERSUS ANOTHER CAN AT LEAST IN PART BE JUDGED BASED ON THE EFFORTS AND ENERGY PUT FORTH TO DISPROVE THEM AND THE SUCCESS OF THOSE EFFORTS. please, man. i'm not being a dick here. i really don't think you're getting this. and when you're saying 'yes but perhaps later evidence found by science will disprove christianity, so haha, it's not proven right yet' and then pointing directly at the fact that pretty much every single idea put forth by science itself has been shown after enough time has passed to be at the very least flawed, well, you're kind of arguing FOR me.
if you put all your belief behind science, all your beliefs will eventually be shown to be false in part or in whole. you will be the stone-age primitive.

Post Reply